Honest Avdvice Requested.

[kafka47]

Jame:

Belief structures have co-existed for thousands of years. The athetist viewpoint is grounded in a belief in something, even science to a certain degree is about faith that the laws we construct for explaining the universe have universal applicability.

Therefore, ask the player in the spirit of role playing can we not see how historical beliefs have moved entire peoples and influenced world events. However, irrational the belief system may be, there have been an equal number appeals to Science - trust a person who has lived in a country of Scientific Socialism (eg. Marxism-Leninism) to tell you that science can be abused too.

Rather, societies are a product of a struggle between Ideology and Culture, Ideology (being the cold progression of science or rationality) and Culture (the traditions and beliefs that define a people) finding the balance or equilibrium is the essence society.

 

[Jame]

That's not what I meant. I'll go back and edit the other post.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

"How would you portray a religion when you know one of your players is anti-religion or atheist, and another is deeply religious?"

- Jame

The active expression and portrayal of any religion IMTU would be based on a thesis presented by the player, and approved by the referee (me).

If one of the players is a deeply religious atheist, and wants to actively express his or her faith in my game, then the same rule would apply.

The same consideration would be given to players who want to portray:

- A Taoist monk who spouts philosophy, and who must have a flashback before he or she can beat the stuffing out of an opponent (Qang Xi Kane haut Vosburgh?).
- A Jesuit priest who holds mass every 24 hours, has the skills of Revolver-2 and Shotgun-1, and who insists on giving the last rites to each of the sophonts who failed to confess and convert (Father Harold "Dirty Harry" Callahan?).
- A Communist High Party member who goes through life practicing "From each according to their skill, to each according to their need." (Robni Hoodovic?).
- A Philosopher/Psychologist who must analyze each social situation, then practice the fine art of Social Engineering to achieve results (Sartski N. Hutch?).

If any of my players wants to prevent ANY religious belief from being expressed IMTU, then they may become frustrated that their wishes are not being met.

Remember, the Constitution of the United States of America (cue the trumpets) guarantees "Freedom to practice one's own form of Religious Expression", not "Freedom from someone else's form of Religious Expression."

Whew! Is it just me, or is it getting warm in here?

 

[Mythmere]

I can only hope that this perception of how better we Americans are than the rest of humaniti will be dispelled soon... Baron Saarthuran

But hopefully you agree that our form of government is superior to that of the rest of the world (with the exception of the stable parliamentary democracies).
Also, our culture *is* superior to most of the rest of the world, if you ask me. Suicide bombing, for example, does not actually equate with watching Brittany shake her numnums, as you seem to suggest. Failing to distinguish barbarism and barbaric culture from civilization and civilized culture is the first step toward the evaporation of orderly regimes into the slaughterhouses of history. And please don't say that the US is barbaric because we engage in foreign wars - that's a sophomoric gambit that we shouldn't need to parse through.
Love your ship designs and models, but I suspect I dislike your politics - hopefully you won't hold that against me, just as I don't hold it against you.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Uhh... Mythmere?

How does your diatribe tie in with "Religion in Traveller?"

 

[Mythmere]

It's a response to Baron Saarthuran's post earlier. Quote's at the top.

Edited: Which, admittedly, has nothing to do with religion in Traveller. Oh, well.

 

[mad13142000]

Originally posted by Mythmere:
But hopefully you agree that our form of government is superior to that of the rest of the world (with the exception of the stable parliamentary democracies).
Also, our culture *is* superior to most of the rest of the world, if you ask me. Suicide bombing, for example, does not actually equate with watching Brittany shake her numnums, as you seem to suggest. Failing to distinguish barbarism and barbaric culture from civilization and civilized culture is the first step toward the evaporation of orderly regimes into the slaughterhouses of history.

Well, not wanting to get off topic, but I don't believe ours is the best form of gov't ever. Ours is horibly broken, and needs to be fixed if our country is to survive. Did you notice that W has already raised more $$$ in ONE fundraiser than all the Democrats combined? So when he buys a new term will people stop telling me we are NOT a corporate oligarchy? Money buys the truth - 30% of americans believe Iraq used chemical weapons in the latest war...
Why is is barbarism when a palestinian with nothing, feels that the only way to make his point is to kill himself and take as many of the oppressors with him? Nobody ever calls Israel to the carpet for the women and children THEY kill in the name of freedom, no-one even calls them to prove Abu Doe was a terrorist when he gets wiped out by a strike...
I wasn't saying that the organization of religion was bad, just that it shouldn't be the end all of the purpose of religion - We are to spread the word of Christ, that there isn't one, 'Right' way to God, that each finds his or her own. Follow the golden rule and love conquers all... Not that if I don't believe what Pat Robertson says, then I'm not a 'good christian'...
Who is it to decide that my gaming is 'Satanic' and not good for me? 'Wally-world', when they decide not to carry Magic cards? Or should a Rev. call for a boycot of a hobby store that decides to carry RPG stuff??
I'm sorry, but the constitution DOES say that your religion ends at my space. Freedom to practice doesn't entail freedom to abuse children, or freedom to burn crosses, or anything else to negatively impact upon another's freedom...

once again, my .02Cr
-MADDog

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Mythmere:

But hopefully you agree that our form of government is superior to that of the rest of the world (with the exception of the stable parliamentary democracies).

"Better" is such a relative word. Depending on the context and the value scale used to compare forms of government, a democracy can be *worse* than many.

It's just that for much of us in this forums, we share most of the values used for the comparison. So it is natural that Democracy is better *For US*

Also, our culture *is* superior to most of the rest of the world, if you ask me.

One must always be carefull when comparing cultures. What is "Superior" for one isn't for another. We might not like/stand for what the other culture stand/do/say, but we can only say for sure that our culture is better *For US*. Saying "We've got the BEST culture there is" is a recipe for trouble, as many former colonies can demonstrate.

Suicide bombing, for example, does not actually equate with watching Brittany shake her numnums, as you seem to suggest.

Nevertheless, she should be banned under the Geneva Convention ... sorry, joking... But to that I would just like to reply that desperate peoples tend to do it the "Quick & Dirty" way, more so if they have some beliefs they'll be "Better after that". Also, one must take care not to lump everybody into the same barrels, else it all comes down to US ALL GOOD, THEM ALL BADS, which isn't the One and Only truth.

Failing to distinguish barbarism and barbaric culture from civilization and civilized culture is the first step toward the evaporation of orderly regimes into the slaughterhouses of history.

Unfortunately, most of the more Civilized cultures do what barbaric ones do, only more quickly, cleanly and efficiently. Civilization has destroyed more cultures, lives and ecosystems than anything in history. It's not because the killing/destroying isn't down with a machete and in plain sight that it's not killing and destroying. Civilization nearly put an end to the "Human Problems" when Krutchev nearly pushed the button.

Civilization isn't always "Good". When imposed (as in the Americas, Africa, Australia and the likes) by "Conquerer States", mostly Bringing Civilization to Barbarian for Their Own Good, it has destroyed many knowledge and cultures.

I know you weren't talking about that kind of "barbarians" but when I see "Our civilization is Better Than Theirs" I always have flashbacks of the mounds of knowledge that perished with the Incas, Aztecs, and other that were "Civilized" by destroying their cultures and knowledge, just because their civilization wasn't judged "Civilized" by the Northen Europeans at that time.

Love your ship designs and models, but I suspect I dislike your politics - hopefully you won't hold that against me, just as I don't hold it against you.

Agreeing to Disagree is the first step to be able to call your culture *Great*. Accepting that others might judge things differently because of their personal beliefs is a necessary part of being able to live together on this dirtball.

Unfortunatly, many society don't understand that very well. Western civilization hasn't happened overnight so we're not going to see whole countries/population changing their ideas in a mere month.


EDIT:

Obligatory ObTrav:

Characters stranded on a out of the way world with a balkanized governments. They're in the middle of a little war where a groupe of states tries to "Civilize" the others "For Their Own Good".

Unfortunatly, the Characters landed on the "Wrong" side of the Civilized Camp. When their presence is known, they're viewd as Uncivilized and treat them so. (trying to civilize them, be it to crack open the eggs on the "Civilized Side" or any other things like eating habits, speech patterns/word used etc)

Edit 2: Whooooo... Post #400!!!!!!

 

[Mythmere]

Just so we don't hijack this thread, I'm going to put my answer in a new post in Random Static. I'll call it Relocated Debate.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:

Originally Posted by George Boyett, Archduke of the Reactionary Militia

I take offense to that title.

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
So what's better? A small part of the population being desensitized by wicked gaming products, or a vast majority watching Brittany shake her num nums?

People that can be swayed into "amoral" action by such things as RPGs and Comics do not have a firm grip on sanity or reality in the first place. The issue is Mental Illness in that case, not RPGs.

It has nothing do with which is worse. The issue is what effect (intentional or accidental) any stimulus has on a person.

If you do believe it's mental illness then maybe you should see a doctor. From past postings it sounds like you accepted the liberal spin about Republicans (cutting school lunches, cutting Medicare/Medicaid, etc.)

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Training to be a suicide bomber is "normal" for that culture of deperation. (the mideast in general) Its the same line of thought that propels our youngsters into the service and (in the old days, at least) into body bags.

I don't know if I should pity, sick and angry that you equate us with terrorists. If that the case what is preventing us from really let loose? If we are no different what is preventing us from just killing anyone we encounter in Iraq.?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Im sure the "enemy" people (humans) that we ran over with our tanks and blasted with TOW missiles have a firsthand idea of how much "terror" we can generate... I merely lament how easy and acceptable/justifiable it is for humans to kill other humans, regardless of thier conditioned differences in culture. If we truly are so great, then we should set an example to the world.

"I don't know if I should pity, sick and angry that you equate us with terrorists. If that the case what is preventing us from really let loose? If we are no different what is preventing us from just killing anyone we encounter in Iraq.?"

Feel as you wish, Milord, but take a moment to ponder how sure are you that we havent already "let loose"? The Government censored all but the most flatteringly heroic pictures of the first Gulf War, for the fact that we slaughtered them wholesale. The American People would have been less enthused had they seen the undiluted consequences. Oh, we sure did "let loose" in Panama and Grenada, and those people were basically unarmed. I do not fault the military, but the "Dirty Harry" fans that deploy them with seemingly no thought to global reaction. I find that pretty terrifying...

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Im sure the "enemy" people (humans) that we ran over with our tanks and blasted with TOW missiles have a firsthand idea of how much "terror" we can generate... I merely lament how easy and acceptable/justifiable it is for humans to kill other humans, regardless of thier conditioned differences in culture. If we truly are so great, then we should set an example to the world.

Were these people innocent or fighting us? Were we using homicide bombers targetting civilians?
What the hell are we suppose to do when others want us killed? Stand around in circle, sing songs, and wring our hands?

Talk and negotiation is useless is the other person wants you did. History has many examples when good intentions led to a worse atrocity.

When talk fails whats the solution? Tell me whats the next step?

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran:
Feel as you wish, Milord, but take a moment to ponder how sure are you that we havent already "let loose"? The Government censored all but the most flatteringly heroic pictures of the first Gulf War, for the fact that we slaughtered them wholesale. The American People would have been less enthused had they seen the undiluted consequences. Oh, we sure did "let loose" in Panama and Grenada, and those people were basically unarmed.

Where are you getting your evidence. Produce some please. All I'm hearing is rhetoric, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". If we did use a form of the Ban then wouldn't someone by now present credible evidence of such activity? All I'm hearing is just words.

How did we let loose in Panama and Grenada? Did we carpet bombed entire towns? No. We were fighting armed military and paramilitary forces. Any civilians killed were accidents. I got that my from friends who were there and from reading.

Where do you get there your information?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Msrs. Baron & Boyett,

I most respectfully request that you relocate your conflict to another sub-category. I had originally requested honest advice on how to present Traveller (and RPG's in general) to Christians (and religious people in general), with the evolving thread of how a "religious" character might be presented and portrayed within the Traveller game.

Your views within your topic are insightful and thoughfully worded, but tend to detract from my original intended purpose.

Thank you.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
Msrs. Baron & Boyett,

I most respectfully request that you relocate your conflict to another sub-category. I had originally requested honest advice on how to present Traveller (and RPG's in general) to Christians (and religious people in general), with the evolving thread of how a "religious" character might be presented and portrayed within the Traveller game.

Our arguement evolved from the topic when a certain person decided to interject thier political views into a topic.

 

[roygbiv]

Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
Situation:

How best to present RPG playing in a Traveller setting to the minister, with available resources and players, and without precipitating the Apocalypse (

=

) or driving the veteran players psychotic with boredom?

I don't mean to be impudent here, but you might want to have a serious talk about the way your game would have to change in order to accomodate this new player, and take your cue from your current players.

I completely respect your friend's right to live according to her beliefs but, were I one of your RPGers, I suspect that I wouldn't share any of them and would not be inclined to change my gaming interests to accomodate her, especially if she's the new member in the group.

Give your existing players a chance to talk about how this might alter the group dynamic and how much they're willing to accomodate her. They then have the opportunity to look for another game before experiencing the disappointment of watching the current one "die on the vine."

I guess you have to ask "who's more important: my minister friend or my RPG group." If you're really lucky, your gang will welcome the challenge of playing with this new person.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Roygie,

Actually, all my players AND my minister y/f are important to me. I also have ulterior motives for bringing them all together; the desire to develop projects for Traveller (adventures, short stories, templates, et cetera) with a group of people who have widely divergent methods of problem solving and social interaction.

To this end, it would be counter-productive to work with a group of people who all act and think alike.

For instance, take any standalone Traveller adventure and run it with a group of players who are military professionals, then with a group of players who are teenage cyberpunk photophobic hackers, and you will see that the two groups do not handle the adventure the same way.

The best group of players I've ever worked with included:

- A male automotive painter.
- A male fundamentalist minister.
- A female graduate student in physics.
- A male programming manager for an auto manufacturer.
- A male stock clerk for an x-Mart store.
- A female office manager.
- A female phychiatrist.

This group and I ran a fantasy RPG together for seven years, trading off the referee position as needed. Attrition was due to graduation, divorce, and military service.

It is the diversity of the players that makes a game exciting, and the tolerance of each others' words and actions that keeps them together.

So, back to a more general form of the original question, "How best to integrate people of diverse, and often conflicting, backgrounds and beliefs into a cohesive gaming group?"

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Which game was it Lord Keklas?

I often have held the view that a less diverse and more "veteranized" gaming situation has a much more limited shelf-life. I recently DMed a oneshot (The Red Book) Basic Dungeons and Dragons Game with a group that had the "its a nerd's game" view. They had a great time, and are now constanty on my back about D&D... Open minds are indeed the best minds, what?

 

[mad13142000]

Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
The best group of players I've ever worked with included:

- A male automotive painter.
- A male fundamentalist minister.
- A female graduate student in physics.
- A male programming manager for an auto manufacturer.
- A male stock clerk for an x-Mart store.
- A female office manager.
- A female phychiatrist.
<snip>
"How best to integrate people of diverse, and often conflicting, backgrounds and beliefs into a cohesive gaming group?"

So, what were THEIR reasons for wanting to game?
I myself get a warm fuzzy thinking that we all get along enough to get us to the far future...I'm the astrogator..the trader..the explorer. What does the minister find interesting?
I've had many freinds of opposite political/religious/social bent..It's the things that bring us together that make us a group or society. By appealing to those things is how to keep a group together and comfortable with each other.
I've found Traveller to be (like a lot of sci-fi) pretty religion-neutral. So it must be the idea of being somone else in the far future or doing something that we don't or can't do here on boring old Earth that makes someone opposed to some RPGs decide on OUR RPG....

again, just my .02Cr
-MADDog

 

[roygbiv]

Originally posted by Keklas Rekobah:
It is the diversity of the players that makes a game exciting, and the tolerance of each others' words and actions that keeps them together.

Fair enough. I meant no disrespect.

So, back to a more general form of the original question, "How best to integrate people of diverse, and often conflicting, backgrounds and beliefs into a cohesive gaming group?"

Get them to distinguish between their personal beliefs and those of the characters they're playing. If their characters have conflict, encourage the players to work that out in the game. If the players find they're at loggerheads because of belief systems external to the game, remind them that this is a game and not a soapbox (and I'm not thinking of your minister friend when I say this). They should probably take time outside the game to resolve their differences or just agree to disagree.

Try a few sessions where they have to play characters whose viewpoints would be completely opposite of their real life positions. I would do this anyway: let the veterans play gun-shy merchies and the peaceniks play ex-commandos.

You obviously trust that the players you game with can handle diversity. You also obviously trust your minister friend to be consistent in her beliefs but open minded enough to interact with people who don't necessarily share them. Fortunately, in Traveller, there's a lot of middle ground between taking a religious position in the campaign and introducing elements which might be considered "evil" or atheistic. Keep the focus on interaction and problem solving and the players are likely to generate their own fun.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

"Which game was it Lord Keklas?"

A chimeric hybrid of AD&D, Gurps ('scuse me), Rifts, Traveller, and several other gamelets that have since passed into oblivion.

"So, what were THEIR reasons for wanting to game?"

To have fun.

"What does the minister find interesting?"

Having fun with people.