TheRPGSite

Equal rights. The dignity of all human beings.

Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity. I'll be focusing on the latter as I know more about it (and more RPG designers are Westerners than non-Westerners).

I'll attempt to list every modern western value and show how it comes from Christianity's specific theological tenets. This may or may not be correct. I know only slightly more about Christianity than the average person.

Equality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

Mercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Absolute-non killing: Supreme deity said no killing (killing is thus always bad).

Humility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Envy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Homosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

Bestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

Crossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Of course, being fictional worlds, gameworlds may have any sort of excuse as to why the sentiment that all people are equal isn't the height of delusion. For instance, it could be a law of the universe that all humans are equal, and that mercy and helping the weak are valued over strength. So your level 20 fighter might not make it into a good afterlife if he dies in battle, but the level 0 peasant might if he donates to charity, if he helps those even worse off than him, etc. Gameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

Caveat: I'm a huge fan of faith but a huge non-fan of organised religion. I'm also an anthropologist/archaeologist by training, so dipping into the cultures of others kind of comes with the territory. If I get glib in some of the responses, my apologies.

Is Christian morality required, though? There is, after all, humanism as a counterpoint even if it gets murky. Furthermore, as you note there are a bunch of people that don't have Christianity as their defining ethical framework so... yeah.

I mean, even the Ten Commandments can be stripped of the theism and just become really great advice for not being murdered by your neighbour (or murdering them). And, arguably, the remaining ones are about empowering the priests.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEquality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

But that's not how it works (or worked). Look at how the Christian Bible changed when it came through Rome and women were further marginalised to conform to the dominant social/political paradigm. It's also worth pointing out that Christianity was subversive to the (Roman) Empire, so the kind of shenanigans that Constantine likely played should not be underestimated.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMMercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Except when they're pagans/heaths, in which case it's okay to do the choppy-choppy on them. Or people on Death Row in the American judicial system.

My point being that religion tends to be very... ah, flexible on the subject of killing and torture when it is the "other" in the seat of condemnation.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMHumility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Which, of course, was due to that pesky woman. See the Roman answer.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEnvy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Let's chalk this one up to aspirational?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMHomosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

The Bible is, I believe, not clear on these matters while understandably being texts based upon the mores of their time. (There's probably a lecture about ethnography and transference to be had here, too, but I'm no Biblical scholar.)

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMBestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

I'm not even going to look up any arguments about this. Just euwww.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMCrossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

To be fair, the Bible also said that women cutting their hair short was deceptive and, thus, evil. How dare they appear to be a man!

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMGameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

I'm truly having a problem of how this is circling back to gaming. Could you help me out? I mean, clearly it's a thorny issue when it comes down to, say, jurisprudence and cultural mores, especially in a nominally pluralistic (or at least "multi-cultural") society. So are you talking about using Christianity as a de facto "norm" and a method of constructing non-standard societies for roleplaying games?

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 24, 2023, 10:41:09 PM
Caveat: I'm a huge fan of faith but a huge non-fan of organised religion. I'm also an anthropologist/archaeologist by training, so dipping into the cultures of others kind of comes with the territory. If I get glib in some of the responses, my apologies.

Is Christian morality required, though? There is, after all, humanism as a counterpoint even if it gets murky. Furthermore, as you note there are a bunch of people that don't have Christianity as their defining ethical framework so... yeah.

I mean, even the Ten Commandments can be stripped of the theism and just become really great advice for not being murdered by your neighbour (or murdering them). And, arguably, the remaining ones are about empowering the priests.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEquality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

But that's not how it works (or worked). Look at how the Christian Bible changed when it came through Rome and women were further marginalised to conform to the dominant social/political paradigm. It's also worth pointing out that Christianity was subversive to the (Roman) Empire, so the kind of shenanigans that Constantine likely played should not be underestimated.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMMercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Except when they're pagans/heaths, in which case it's okay to do the choppy-choppy on them. Or people on Death Row in the American judicial system.

My point being that religion tends to be very... ah, flexible on the subject of killing and torture when it is the "other" in the seat of condemnation.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMHumility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Which, of course, was due to that pesky woman. See the Roman answer.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEnvy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Let's chalk this one up to aspirational?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMHomosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

The Bible is, I believe, not clear on these matters while understandably being texts based upon the mores of their time. (There's probably a lecture about ethnography and transference to be had here, too, but I'm no Biblical scholar.)

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMBestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

I'm not even going to look up any arguments about this. Just euwww.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMCrossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

To be fair, the Bible also said that women cutting their hair short was deceptive and, thus, evil. How dare they appear to be a man!

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMGameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

I'm truly having a problem of how this is circling back to gaming. Could you help me out? I mean, clearly it's a thorny issue when it comes down to, say, jurisprudence and cultural mores, especially in a nominally pluralistic (or at least "multi-cultural") society. So are you talking about using Christianity as a de facto "norm" and a method of constructing non-standard societies for roleplaying games?

Thanks for the correction! I will say several things before I address your main claims.

a1. No, it isn't, you could use Buddhist morality. Or Hindu morality. Or confucianism. Or taoism. But I know less about that. There are people who use moral systems derived from Christianity (see Humanism is a Heresy on Unherd), but the problem is those systems lost their justification.
a2. the problem is that the ten commandments aren't even required to make a civilization (see China, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Celts, the Germans, the Japanese), rather the base assumptions that the Ten Commandments make boil down to 'do not steal', 'do not kill (without good reason)', 'don't have random sex whenever you want' are required. Those are self evident. Everything else? Not so much.
a3. I'm agnostic.

okay now to tackle your main responses. anything that needs more explanation, I'll respond with

1. yup, an example of people bending the religion just to fit preexisting morality and for their own goals. this doesn't change the fact that Christianity was more egalitarian than most other religions (Jesus literally says the meek will inherit the earth).
I mentioned it because it's the basis of Enlightenment attempts to make a international standard of human rights.
2. another example of people bending their religion, Christianity is explicitly against this but hey that won't stop the king from doing what he does.
3. def a source of misogyny, yup. Christianity was actually the least misogynistic religion from what I read.
4. mhm
5. this is where I agree with the bible
6. the bible explicitly says to put homosexuals to death, and that homosexual desires are unnatural
7. did not know, TIL
8. I'm talking about making worlds with different moralities based on the makeup of the world. Religious morality has several theological and cosmological underpinnings supporting each of its beliefs. Change the gods, change the mechanics of the afterlife, change morality.

This only applies in high fantasy worlds, low fantasy worlds are excusable (you can totally have a world with something like the rise of Christianity.)

The morality of Christianity can change a lot from century to century. For example, kings had power because they were anointed by God and you were most certainly not equal to them. Sermons were held in Latin because knowledge and power were only for those good enough for it. This was part and parcel of the feudal system, power held by the few, until the printing press/gunpowder ended that. Once people fled to lands where bible translations weren't crimes(because peasants couldn't be trusted to properly interpret the bible), then you saw the great reformations in the 1600's and the start of large civil right movements: suffrage, abolition, temperance, native American rights, etc. That still continues. Churches grappled with women as pastors(my mother was a pastor) and recently First United Methodist split into 2 denominations over gay/trans pastors. US churches wanted it, African churches did not.

I do find it interesting that certain types of religion dominated during different society tech levels. Maybe certain religions just click with the social needs of the time so those books/concepts thrive. Or maybe certain text ideology pushes and clicks technology forward(Pilgrims being heavily into school/reading kickstarted the US). But in RPG worlds, I'd expect religion to match the needs of society, either way. You can't farm and need to raid for food? Then you have war gods. You have an empire with complex trade, laws, etc. Then you probably have a learned priesthood that teaches obedience to power and social structure.

I'm not entirely clear on which bits you were replying to, which is a way of saying that if I muff it up? My bad. Just be forgiving if I couldn't connect the dots?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PMa1. No, it isn't, you could use Buddhist morality. Or Hindu morality. Or confucianism. Or taoism. But I know less about that. There are people who use moral systems derived from Christianity (see Humanism is a Heresy on Unherd), but the problem is those systems lost their justification.

I would push back and suggest that "those systems lost their justification" only because it's a self referential thing. You lose justification because you don't justify it in theist terms, and if you don't frame it in theist terms, you have not justification.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PMa2. the problem is that the ten commandments aren't even required to make a civilization (see China, Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Celts, the Germans, the Japanese), rather the base assumptions that the Ten Commandments make boil down to 'do not steal', 'do not kill (without good reason)', 'don't have random sex whenever you want' are required. Those are self evident. Everything else? Not so much

I was suggesting that that the Ten Commandments, stripped of the priestly power plays, is really just a good set of guidelines for not getting murdered by your neighbours. Based upon what you typed, I think that you agree with this?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM
a3. I'm agnostic.

As am I.

I just have a problem with organised religion and what it does, especially as it is normalised by modern religion. The Moral Majority and the evangelical right are examples of this in US terms.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM1. yup, an example of people bending the religion just to fit preexisting morality and for their own goals. this doesn't change the fact that Christianity was more egalitarian than most other religions (Jesus literally says the meek will inherit the earth).

This just argues to me that Christianity was a subversive cult aimed at getting the people without the power to buy into a religion that defined them as equals.

In RPG terms, of course, this is solid gold. I'm sure that you can find examples of cults like this in many systems. I'm kind of reminded of the invae in Shadowrun.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PMI mentioned it because it's the basis of Enlightenment attempts to make a international standard of human rights.

But politics plays into this, which is another way that this might directly segment into TTRPGs.

Consider the Founding period of America and see why this is an entire fuster cluck of aspiration vs. political expediency.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM2. another example of people bending their religion, Christianity is explicitly against this but hey that won't stop the king from doing what he does.

And it helps that the priestly class were also up to their eyes in politics, too.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM3. def a source of misogyny, yup. Christianity was actually the least misogynistic religion from what I read.

My knee-jerk here is that I doubt this statement, but I also have nothing to back it up.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM4. mhm

No idea.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM5. this is where I agree with the bible

Which you're totally allowed to do. It's hard interpreting meaning from documents that are thousands of years old without understanding the culture that wrote them.

FWIW, it's kind of why the US SCOTUS is problematic.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM6. the bible explicitly says to put homosexuals to death, and that homosexual desires are unnatural

That 2,000-year old text based upon different cultures? Leviticus is the worst.

I admit that I have nothing here other than, classically, there is a whole bunch of "do what you do rather than what I say" going on here in the period.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM8. I'm talking about making worlds with different moralities based on the cosmology of the world, instead of using DND pseudo-Christian morality in a setting with multiple gods (and thus doesn't fit the theological assumptions to make Christian morals justifiable). Basically my point is that if you want Christian 'All people are equal, give to the poor and the sick' ideals in NPCs or PCs meant to be good, make the world support that. Or not, play around with different cosmologies to end up with different morals.

This only applies in high fantasy worlds, low fantasy worlds are excusable (you can totally have a world with something like the rise of Christianity.)

I totally don't agree with your assessment of Christianity, but on the other hand I agree that having any reference point for world building is a good thing. If the lowest common denominator happens to be Christianity and people are exploring (for them) societies that don't have those views? Well, that sounds like a cool thing.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PM
Equal rights. The dignity of all human beings.

Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity. I'll be focusing on the latter as I know more about it (and more RPG designers are Westerners than non-Westerners).

I'll attempt to list every modern western value and show how it comes from Christianity's specific theological tenets. This may or may not be correct. I know only slightly more about Christianity than the average person.

Equality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

Mercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Absolute-non killing: Supreme deity said no killing (killing is thus always bad).

Humility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Envy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Homosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

Bestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

Crossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Of course, being fictional worlds, gameworlds may have any sort of excuse as to why the sentiment that all people are equal isn't the height of delusion. For instance, it could be a law of the universe that all humans are equal, and that mercy and helping the weak are valued over strength. So your level 20 fighter might not make it into a good afterlife if he dies in battle, but the level 0 peasant might if he donates to charity, if he helps those even worse off than him, etc. Gameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

That is an... odd sampling of Christian thought.  While mostly correct, you'd be better off going with the 10 commandments or the seven capital virtues as an overview.  I'm a devout Christian but I've always been very reluctant to use actual Christianity in my game.  There's a wide variety of belief among Christians and I'd rather spend my time playing the game rather than arguing over what Christianity says about in game issues with my friends who have slightly different beliefs.  Also, it doesn't seem entirely respectful to include something that important as part of a silly game.  I'm not bothered when other folks do it, but I'm not comfortable doing it myself.  If religion is going to play a significant role in the game, I'd rather it be something fictional.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2023, 12:50:06 AMIf religion is going to play a significant role in the game, I'd rather it be something fictional.

Which, if you're going to put it in there, is probably the wisest way to handle it.

I think it's a fun exercise to imagine a setting without those values.

I have been trying to write such a setting myself, but you can look at books like Carcosa for inspiration.

We can think of something like ancient Greece or Rome, where glory is more important than humility (although "hubris" is also a thing).

But we could go further and make ALL Judeo-Christian values alien in this setting.

"Mercy" means nothing -  being vengeful makes you strong and feared.  People want to be allies because no one dares to be your enemy.

"Justice" is not a thing - protect your friends, destroy your enemies.

"Charity" doesn't exist - you bribe the rabble so it doesn't turn against you. And you throw the rebels to the lions.

"Chastity" is for the weak - kings have dozens of concubines, hundreds of sons.

"Faith" simply does not exist. All relations with "deities" are transactional.

PCs are neutral at best, fighting against evil for mostly selfish reasons (hatred, vengeance, etc.).

A world without such values would be a difficult place, to say the least.

EDIT: not that I think a polytheist or non-religious society cannot work... Some of the concepts of Christianity can be found in Greek philosophy, for example, including virtues, moderation, etc. Even monotheism is suggested in Plato. Marcus Aurelius writing show what a non-Christian virtuous man could look like, etc.

As an aside, I think is very odd to lay "homosexuality is bad" at the feet of Christianism.

This is a rule in Leviticus (pre-Christian), Christ is the one who said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone " about the adulteress.

AFAICT, homosexuality is a SIN in Christianism - similarly to HETEROSEXUAL adultery and fornication, prostitution, orgies, polygamy, divorce or even "natural marriage" between a man and a woman for all their lives.

Sure, the Greeks and Romans might be more accepting of SOME of  these practices*, but other monotheistic religions certainly aren't (although it looks like Judaism in contemporary, non-orthodox practice seems to be accepting of homosexuality, although I believe it is still technically a sin for them - I'm not an expert).

* Definitely not all; not multiple wives, not same-sex marriage, for Romans the passive role was not respected, Greeks seemed to accept sex with young males (i.e., not having masculine traits), and I'd guess married women didn't have the same liberties. I'm sure there were exceptions too. Again, not an expert.

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 25, 2023, 12:00:48 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM3. def a source of misogyny, yup. Christianity was actually the least misogynistic religion from what I read.

My knee-jerk here is that I doubt this statement, but I also have nothing to back it up.

Compare Christianity to Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc.

In Hinduism there was a practice to burn widows alive when they became widows (Sati; could be murder or peer-aproved suicide).

Greeks and Romans, as mentioned above, gave some sexual freedom to males, but I doubt they extended the courtesy to females.

Women have limited participation in many religions; nuns seem to be particular to Christians (and even Woman pastors are mentioned in this thread). IIRC women couldn't even read the Torah. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man - the prohibition of divorce in Christianity is created in this situation.

I don't remember seeing woman Buddhist monks.

I'll leave it to someone else to mention the Islamic rules on women.

The most perfect non-divine human being that EVER existed is Catholicism, AFAIK, is the Virgin Mary; no saint surpasses her.

I know I sound biased but I'd love to hear information in other directions, if they are available (again, I'm certainly there is some cult or tribe somewhere that is ruled solely by polyandrous women somewhere, although I think it would be very exceptional); I'm always willing to learn.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2023, 12:50:06 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PM
Of course, being fictional worlds, gameworlds may have any sort of excuse as to why the sentiment that all people are equal isn't the height of delusion. For instance, it could be a law of the universe that all humans are equal, and that mercy and helping the weak are valued over strength. So your level 20 fighter might not make it into a good afterlife if he dies in battle, but the level 0 peasant might if he donates to charity, if he helps those even worse off than him, etc. Gameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

That is an... odd sampling of Christian thought.  While mostly correct, you'd be better off going with the 10 commandments or the seven capital virtues as an overview.  I'm a devout Christian but I've always been very reluctant to use actual Christianity in my game.  There's a wide variety of belief among Christians and I'd rather spend my time playing the game rather than arguing over what Christianity says about in game issues with my friends who have slightly different beliefs.  Also, it doesn't seem entirely respectful to include something that important as part of a silly game.

I'm also a Christian, but I often have Christianity in game. I like playing Call of Cthulhu and other historical and history-parallel worlds, for example. But I treat it as a game, and don't have a problem with the world differing from my understanding of real-world theology -- any more than I would demand that Star Wars conform to real-world science.

To MeganovaStella's point, I think most RPG worlds have religion that is paper-thin in terms of belief, but I find it interesting to put in bits of more developed religious belief. Religion is pretty central to being human, I feel, so it would be weird to not have belief. In my current campaign arc, for example, there are a bunch of people on the fringe who are being recruited into a rebellious and anti-sun-god cult. I also had a long-standing Call of Cthulhu character who went to being a devout Catholic, and considered all the anti-Christian stuff he was seeing to be a test of people's faith in the End Times.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 11:53:42 AM

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 25, 2023, 12:00:48 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM3. def a source of misogyny, yup. Christianity was actually the least misogynistic religion from what I read.

My knee-jerk here is that I doubt this statement, but I also have nothing to back it up.

Compare Christianity to Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc.

In Hinduism there was a practice to burn widows alive when they became widows (Sati; could be murder or peer-aproved suicide).

Greeks and Romans, as mentioned above, gave some sexual freedom to males, but I doubt they extended the courtesy to females.

Women have limited participation in many religions; nuns seem to be particular to Christians (and even Woman pastors are mentioned in this thread). IIRC women couldn't even read the Torah. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man - the prohibition of divorce in Christianity is created in this situation.

I don't remember seeing woman Buddhist monks.

There are Buddhist nuns, though there are differences among branches. Only in Mahayana Buddhism could they be fully ordained (until modern times). For example, Wing Chun is a martial art created by Buddhist nun Ng Mui. There was a good film "Wing Chun" starring Michelle Yeoh that documented it. Though I wouldn't say nuns are a great signal of women's rights either way.

In general, Christianity was historically more open to women's participation than Judaism and some other prior Mediterranean religions, but it wasn't the leader in that. (Paul's exhortation that women should be silent in church comes to mind.) In northern Europe, women often lost rights as the countries were Christianized. Norse women, for example, had the right to divorce and own property as widows. The Laxdaela Saga was a pre-Christian story about the family of the powerful matriarch Aud the Deep-Minded.

I'd give historical Christianity a B+ on the world scale in rights of women.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PM
Equal rights. The dignity of all human beings.

Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity. I'll be focusing on the latter as I know more about it (and more RPG designers are Westerners than non-Westerners).

I'll attempt to list every modern western value and show how it comes from Christianity's specific theological tenets. This may or may not be correct. I know only slightly more about Christianity than the average person.

Equality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

Mercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Absolute-non killing: Supreme deity said no killing (killing is thus always bad).

Humility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Envy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Homosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

Bestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

Crossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Of course, being fictional worlds, gameworlds may have any sort of excuse as to why the sentiment that all people are equal isn't the height of delusion. For instance, it could be a law of the universe that all humans are equal, and that mercy and helping the weak are valued over strength. So your level 20 fighter might not make it into a good afterlife if he dies in battle, but the level 0 peasant might if he donates to charity, if he helps those even worse off than him, etc. Gameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.  Are you trying to clarify a moral code, clarify how to implement a moral code,  or contrast a moral code?

It kind of feels like an attempt to start and argument over religion couched as a discussion on RPG world building.

   My understanding with the no killing is that is not and has never been so.   MURDER is prohibited but killing for war or self defense is more than allowed.

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2023, 12:53:39 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 11:53:42 AM

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 25, 2023, 12:00:48 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 11:21:52 PM3. def a source of misogyny, yup. Christianity was actually the least misogynistic religion from what I read.

My knee-jerk here is that I doubt this statement, but I also have nothing to back it up.

Compare Christianity to Islam, Orthodox Judaism, etc.

In Hinduism there was a practice to burn widows alive when they became widows (Sati; could be murder or peer-aproved suicide).

Greeks and Romans, as mentioned above, gave some sexual freedom to males, but I doubt they extended the courtesy to females.

Women have limited participation in many religions; nuns seem to be particular to Christians (and even Woman pastors are mentioned in this thread). IIRC women couldn't even read the Torah. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man - the prohibition of divorce in Christianity is created in this situation.

I don't remember seeing woman Buddhist monks.

There are Buddhist nuns, though there are differences among branches. Only in Mahayana Buddhism could they be fully ordained (until modern times). For example, Wing Chun is a martial art created by Buddhist nun Ng Mui. There was a good film "Wing Chun" starring Michelle Yeoh that documented it. Though I wouldn't say nuns are a great signal of women's rights either way.

In general, Christianity was historically more open to women's participation than Judaism and some other prior Mediterranean religions, but it wasn't the leader in that. (Paul's exhortation that women should be silent in church comes to mind.) In northern Europe, women often lost rights as the countries were Christianized. Norse women, for example, had the right to divorce and own property as widows. The Laxdaela Saga was a pre-Christian story about the family of the powerful matriarch Aud the Deep-Minded.

I'd give historical Christianity a B+ on the world scale in rights of women.

Thanks! I don't know much about Norse religion and I'm glad to learn.

I remember watching Vikings and noticing that Norse women seemed to have more rights - but at the same time they seemed to be more accepting of murder, robbery, torture, human sacrifice and illiteracy, so I was always rooting for the Christians (I know this is beside the point but I think worth mentioning).

I eventually stopped watching for unrelated reasons (the plot armor was too strong for my tastes - I hear it gets better).

I like the idea of Norse matriarchs, seems fun for world-building.

About Buddhism, am I right in assuming Buddhist nuns/monasteries are a rarity compared to Christians/Catholicism?

Just to be clear, I want pointing to nuns (or pastors) as a sign of woman's rights, more of a sign of being able to participate in religious rites, become saints, etc. Or saints AND warriors like Joan of Arc.

As I frequently note, my church is full of pictures of a man in a dress with long hair and a beard.  Talk about your mixed messages.

The more I think about this, the more I believe that the most common religion for the society should be the basis for which a tabletop roleplaying game frames itself. Much of the enjoyment of ttrpgs comes from the vicarious lawbreaking that adventurers engage in, without a common moral or ethical framework to go against, the game is not as much fun. For most westerners, that moral and ethical framework comes from Christianity. IMHO. YMMV.

Quote from: BadApple on October 25, 2023, 01:13:11 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PM
Equal rights. The dignity of all human beings.

Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity. I'll be focusing on the latter as I know more about it (and more RPG designers are Westerners than non-Westerners).

I'll attempt to list every modern western value and show how it comes from Christianity's specific theological tenets. This may or may not be correct. I know only slightly more about Christianity than the average person.

Equality: All are made in the Image of the supreme deity with no equals or greaters. Poor, rich, sick, healthy, strong, weak.

Mercy: Supreme deity, who is goodness, is merciful. Therefore being merciful is good and being cruel (the opposite) is bad.

Absolute-non killing: Supreme deity said no killing (killing is thus always bad).

Humility: humans were once perfect, but fell from an ideal state, therefore they will never be perfect ever and there is nothing to be proud of

Envy is bad: no reason to be jealous of another, you're equal

Homosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

Bestiality is bad: Supreme deity said having sex with animals is bad

Crossdressing is bad: Supreme deity said so.

The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Of course, being fictional worlds, gameworlds may have any sort of excuse as to why the sentiment that all people are equal isn't the height of delusion. For instance, it could be a law of the universe that all humans are equal, and that mercy and helping the weak are valued over strength. So your level 20 fighter might not make it into a good afterlife if he dies in battle, but the level 0 peasant might if he donates to charity, if he helps those even worse off than him, etc. Gameworlds without this are left with an incoherent system if they try to include 21st century ethics.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.  Are you trying to clarify a moral code, clarify how to implement a moral code,  or contrast a moral code?

It kind of feels like an attempt to start and argument over religion couched as a discussion on RPG world building.

I'm talking about how the cosmology of your world is extremely important for setting a definition of 'good' and 'evil'. What realms there are, what happens after you die, what gods there are (if any), etc.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 25, 2023, 09:50:09 PM
I'm talking about how the cosmology of your world is extremely important for setting a definition of 'good' and 'evil'. What realms there are, what happens after you die, what gods there are (if any), etc.

I'm not sure that it is.

For good/evil, I use the definition given in AD&D 1E DMG. For a couple of really simple reasons. One, I think it's interesting. Two, I think it's clear and it works. The alignment confusion D&D is famous for, in my estimation, is evidence of what happens when you deviate from how the good/evil axis is presented in 1E.

There is a huge consideration of how the 1E definition of good/evil applies to the game world. Good is defined as respect for three enumerated "human" rights. None of which are "equality" by the way. And human in scary quotes because when you have a world with elves and dwarves and so on, it's not obvious where the line is drawn. It's for every GM to decide for their own worlds. What works for me is I consider "playable" races to be considered human, non-playable ones not. And that settles the question of whether or not a Paladin can kill orc babies. The answer is not going to be the same at every table, but if you follow this system, at least you have a clear answer.

So I start with a clear framework from which to describe or "define" or organize my cosmology.

As for the reason I'm not sure that starting with cosmology always yields a definition of good and evil is because the rules for morals and ethical codes do not necessarily apply to divine beings.

Consider destruction of property. That's vandalism, and it's wrong, yes? Well, not necessarily. It's not really vandalism or wrong when you destroy your own property. Well, if divine beings, whether individually or collectively, in part or in whole, have some "ownership" claim to pretty much everything in the world, then they can kill the innocent and it not be murder.

One way I can think of in which cosmology comes first, good/evil second is something like where God gives humans free will to choose between good and evil. If in my cosmology this was not likewise given to elves or dwarves or orcs, then that may tell me something important about how elves, dwarves, and orcs behave. It doesn't tell me about good and evil itself, only where different races fit.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 25, 2023, 01:16:13 PM
   My understanding with the no killing is that is not and has never been so.   MURDER is prohibited but killing for war or self defense is more than allowed.

Thank you, yes, this is correct the hebrew word is correctly translated as murder.

I've yet to see a single RPG with a well built polytheism system.

Maybe Arrows of Indra? But it's not a custom built polytheism Pundit took the actual beliefs of India.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 01:18:46 PM

Just to be clear, I want pointing to nuns (or pastors) as a sign of woman's rights, more of a sign of being able to participate in religious rites, become saints, etc. Or saints AND warriors like Joan of Arc.

As a slight aside, have you read Mark Twain's  "Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc" ? I read it about a year ago and when I was looking into the history of the book, I was surprised that Mark Twain basically wrote the book by doing research in France, because she wasn't widely known outside of France at the time, and somehow he became enamored with her as a boy or young man by hearing about her from someone.

Recently I have been working on adapting Christian morality and religion, the AD&D alignment system, and some of Norse mythology that inspired Tolkien, into my own religion/morality system for a game I'm working on.

I like the idea that there is a single god who created the world/universe and whose presence influences the alignment system of the setting, what is good, what is evil, what is lawful, what is chaotic.   I like the idea that there are other beings who pose as false gods, rebel angels with some power to pretend to be gods. Or beings whose nature does not allow them to create as the true god does, but they still existed before god created the world, and they are able to exert some power over the lives of beings in the world and want to be worshiped, or maybe they want to undue the creation of the world by destruction because of jealousy for their inability to create.

I think I'd be leaning towards a 5 point "morality system" of lawful, good, chaotic, evil, neutral, at least as major moral alignments, with characters being able to fluctuate somewhat on the secondary axis.  For example, a character might choose to be Good as their major alignment, they would be aspiring to be Good at all times, but there'd be wiggle room for whether they could be Good by being Lawful, or Good by being Chaotic, or Good by being Neutral.

I mean, in the end, alignments have to mean something, they can't just be arbitrary or for the luls.   And the whole "chaotic good" manic stereotype is so boring.

Just remembered an obvious example: Pendragon.

While Christians should be chaste, forgiving, charitable, etc., pagans are encouraged to be brave, vengeful and lustful.

Although, TBH, I don't remember my players making many efforts to be charitable or forgiving in my D&D games... occasionally they'll make an effort to save a town, but forgive an enemy? That is rare...

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 26, 2023, 09:43:38 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 01:18:46 PM

Just to be clear, I want pointing to nuns (or pastors) as a sign of woman's rights, more of a sign of being able to participate in religious rites, become saints, etc. Or saints AND warriors like Joan of Arc.

As a slight aside, have you read Mark Twain's  "Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc" ? I read it about a year ago and when I was looking into the history of the book, I was surprised that Mark Twain basically wrote the book by doing research in France, because she wasn't widely known outside of France at the time, and somehow he became enamored with her as a boy or young man by hearing about her from someone.

I haven't! Interesting stuff!

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
There are Buddhist nuns, though there are differences among branches. Only in Mahayana Buddhism could they be fully ordained (until modern times). For example, Wing Chun is a martial art created by Buddhist nun Ng Mui. There was a good film "Wing Chun" starring Michelle Yeoh that documented it. Though I wouldn't say nuns are a great signal of women's rights either way.

In general, Christianity was historically more open to women's participation than Judaism and some other prior Mediterranean religions, but it wasn't the leader in that. (Paul's exhortation that women should be silent in church comes to mind.) In northern Europe, women often lost rights as the countries were Christianized. Norse women, for example, had the right to divorce and own property as widows. The Laxdaela Saga was a pre-Christian story about the family of the powerful matriarch Aud the Deep-Minded.

I'd give historical Christianity a B+ on the world scale in rights of women.

Thanks! I don't know much about Norse religion and I'm glad to learn.

I remember watching Vikings and noticing that Norse women seemed to have more rights - but at the same time they seemed to be more accepting of murder, robbery, torture, human sacrifice and illiteracy, so I was always rooting for the Christians (I know this is beside the point but I think worth mentioning).

I eventually stopped watching for unrelated reasons (the plot armor was too strong for my tastes - I hear it gets better).

I like the idea of Norse matriarchs, seems fun for world-building.

About Buddhism, am I right in assuming Buddhist nuns/monasteries are a rarity compared to Christians/Catholicism?

Just to be clear, I want pointing to nuns (or pastors) as a sign of woman's rights, more of a sign of being able to participate in religious rites, become saints, etc. Or saints AND warriors like Joan of Arc.

No, Buddhist monks are certainly not a rarity compared to Christianity. From one report (https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat6/sub34/item218.html), nearly a quarter of Tibetan males were monks until recently - and there are 46,000 currently even under Chinese rule. And according to another article (https://www.japan-experience.com/all-about-japan/temples-shrines) (and Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan#Buddhism)), there are 340,000 Buddhist monks in Japan alone currently. That's much more than Christian monastics in any similar-sized country.

I mean, Buddhist monks are the basis of the monk class in D&D. :-)

The population of Buddhist nuns seems to vary a lot - along with the rules for them. They seem to be non-existent in Japan, maybe because of Shinto influence - and are only 1/10th as common as monks in Tibet (though that is still substantial).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 12:52:42 AM
I've yet to see a single RPG with a well built polytheism system.

Maybe Arrows of Indra? But it's not a custom built polytheism Pundit took the actual beliefs of India.

The Hârn Religion Team put together some pretty good articles that built out the already interesting polytheism in Hârn. That's the best example I can think of for an original fantasy religion.

https://www.lythia.com/hrt/

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2023, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 12:52:42 AM
I've yet to see a single RPG with a well built polytheism system.

Maybe Arrows of Indra? But it's not a custom built polytheism Pundit took the actual beliefs of India.

The Hârn Religion Team put together some pretty good articles that built out the already interesting polytheism in Hârn. That's the best example I can think of for an original fantasy religion.

https://www.lythia.com/hrt/

Thanks, will read it.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 25, 2023, 09:50:09 PM
I'm talking about how the cosmology of your world is extremely important for setting a definition of 'good' and 'evil'. What realms there are, what happens after you die, what gods there are (if any), etc.

Ok, I just find your way of introducing it rather difficult follow.

I love the idea of exploring different moral structures and the clash of different moral codes.  I don't think that religions and gods have to be central to this.  I fully recognize that religion can be a very real part of why and how a moral code is structured in a certain way.

One of the things I like to do in my own world building is introducing a belief system in a god that doesn't exist.  Actually, I has to introduced multiple said religions in my fantasy setting, some with magic that's misinterpreted as divine power, some with no reality at all, and one that has a high powered immortal that is not a god and not happy being worshiped as one.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2023, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 12:52:42 AM
I've yet to see a single RPG with a well built polytheism system.

Maybe Arrows of Indra? But it's not a custom built polytheism Pundit took the actual beliefs of India.

The Hârn Religion Team put together some pretty good articles that built out the already interesting polytheism in Hârn. That's the best example I can think of for an original fantasy religion.

https://www.lythia.com/hrt/

Thanks, will read it.

Cool. Do you have any Hârn knowledge? The HRT articles are a scattering of essays that assume knowledge of the base Hârnmaster Religion. The PDF for that is available online:

https://sggamma2.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/cg4401-harnmaster-religion.pdf

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2023, 04:49:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2023, 01:36:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 26, 2023, 12:52:42 AM
I've yet to see a single RPG with a well built polytheism system.

Maybe Arrows of Indra? But it's not a custom built polytheism Pundit took the actual beliefs of India.

The Hârn Religion Team put together some pretty good articles that built out the already interesting polytheism in Hârn. That's the best example I can think of for an original fantasy religion.

https://www.lythia.com/hrt/

Thanks, will read it.

Cool. Do you have any Hârn knowledge? The HRT articles are a scattering of essays that assume knowledge of the base Hârnmaster Religion. The PDF for that is available online:

https://sggamma2.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/cg4401-harnmaster-religion.pdf

Thanks, no I don't, so now I have more to read.

When you kill the village blacksmith the price of nails goes up for everyone while the quality of such goes down, as a general thing, ergo this is wrong absent any god or morality and is to be considered self destructive & hostile behavior.

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2023, 01:29:50 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 25, 2023, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 25, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
There are Buddhist nuns, though there are differences among branches. Only in Mahayana Buddhism could they be fully ordained (until modern times). For example, Wing Chun is a martial art created by Buddhist nun Ng Mui. There was a good film "Wing Chun" starring Michelle Yeoh that documented it. Though I wouldn't say nuns are a great signal of women's rights either way.

In general, Christianity was historically more open to women's participation than Judaism and some other prior Mediterranean religions, but it wasn't the leader in that. (Paul's exhortation that women should be silent in church comes to mind.) In northern Europe, women often lost rights as the countries were Christianized. Norse women, for example, had the right to divorce and own property as widows. The Laxdaela Saga was a pre-Christian story about the family of the powerful matriarch Aud the Deep-Minded.

I'd give historical Christianity a B+ on the world scale in rights of women.

Thanks! I don't know much about Norse religion and I'm glad to learn.

I remember watching Vikings and noticing that Norse women seemed to have more rights - but at the same time they seemed to be more accepting of murder, robbery, torture, human sacrifice and illiteracy, so I was always rooting for the Christians (I know this is beside the point but I think worth mentioning).

I eventually stopped watching for unrelated reasons (the plot armor was too strong for my tastes - I hear it gets better).

I like the idea of Norse matriarchs, seems fun for world-building.

About Buddhism, am I right in assuming Buddhist nuns/monasteries are a rarity compared to Christians/Catholicism?

Just to be clear, I want pointing to nuns (or pastors) as a sign of woman's rights, more of a sign of being able to participate in religious rites, become saints, etc. Or saints AND warriors like Joan of Arc.

No, Buddhist monks are certainly not a rarity compared to Christianity. From one report (https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat6/sub34/item218.html), nearly a quarter of Tibetan males were monks until recently - and there are 46,000 currently even under Chinese rule. And according to another article (https://www.japan-experience.com/all-about-japan/temples-shrines) (and Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan#Buddhism)), there are 340,000 Buddhist monks in Japan alone currently. That's much more than Christian monastics in any similar-sized country.

I mean, Buddhist monks are the basis of the monk class in D&D. :-)

The population of Buddhist nuns seems to vary a lot - along with the rules for them. They seem to be non-existent in Japan, maybe because of Shinto influence - and are only 1/10th as common as monks in Tibet (though that is still substantial).

Sorry, I was not clear; I was talking specifically about female monks. I'd think they are very rare compared to nuns, but I do not know.

Pundit has a monotheistic implied setting, in Lion & Dragon; with opposing entities / forces, at work.  I like that scenario, myself.  That's good enough for me.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEqual rights. The dignity of all human beings. Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity.

...The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Though I'm a Catholic myself I think you may be doing some of the other faith and philosophical traditions of the world a bit of a disservice.  C.S. Lewis wrote a book called The Abolition of Man which shows how the majority of the world's faiths and belief systems mostly agree on the broad strokes of morality, at least when applied to one's own people or kin-group -- the mechanics of expression may differ, but the motives and goals are much the same.  Keeping one's word, refraining from murder and violence for one's own gain, not coveting others' goods or wives, showing due respect to others, honouring the dead, looking after widows and orphans and the needy, all are touted as virtues in the vast majority of moral systems.

Christianity's great moral innovations were threefold:
1) It was the first moral system to emphasize forgiveness of sins and enemies as a prerequisite for personal salvation;
2) It was the first system to truly universalize the moral status of all men as brothers in spirit, trumping all worldly considerations of rank, status, wealth or background.  It is not an accident that while slavery coexisted with Christianity for many centuries, it was only people descended from and driven by the Christian philosophical tradition who finally and successfully abolished slavery.
3) It was the first system to completely abolish systematic material sacrifice as a method of interacting with the Divine, emphasizing that God could not be bargained with or bought off as the pagans, or even the Jewish tradition of the Law, held could be the case.

In the typical fantasy RPG environment, a rising new religion teaching these things could give you adventure mileage in many ways:

- Adherents of the New Faith are trying to launch an anti-slavery campaign. Your average paladin might well be on the side of such a movement, until its more fanatical fringe elements start insisting that even feudal oaths should be abolished (look up the Albigensian Crusade for some of the fallout this political stance could cause).

- A local prince has had a religious epiphany and wants to convert and join the New Faith. Unfortunately his father has responded to this with great fury and disowned him as a result, which the young man is sad about but accepts; now his younger brother, a wastrel and good-for-nothing if ever there was one, has to be brought back from the far kingdoms where he's been spending money on wanton living. Which would be an easy enough job for your PCs, if the King's enemies weren't seeing an opportunity to gain power by seizing the younger Prince or killing him ....

- The noble who has hired you to clean out the local nest of orcs has hit you with a completely unexpected demand: He doesn't want the orcs killed, because he's recently become convinced of the immorality of such extermination. Instead, he's hired a bunch of wizards to write up a boatload of sleep spell scrolls and has built a whole platoon of wagon-cages.  Your job is to incapacitate the orcs and haul them, alive, to the border of neighbouring territory and then ... release them. Quite aside from the ludicrously difficult nature of this in the first place, how do you stop the orcs from just heading straight back and moving in again? Or, if they're "encouraged" to run in the other direction, does that make you responsible for whoever they hit with their marauding when they find other human lands again?

I do have some notes on a setting where the surface of the world is hellish and its inhabitants demonic but above in the clouds are the cities of angelic beings.   The historical belief is that the demons were cast out of the angelic cities.  I created the world as an adjunct to GURPS Banestorm's Yrth where medieval Christians brought Christianity with them when they were displaced from that world.  The thing is that the centaurs, satyrs, and other chimera are from one world and the goblins and gargoyles from another and I thought, then the demons and angels must be from yet another.  But here's the interesting bit.  Imagine the introduction of Medival Christian ideas to that world of Angels and Demons where there are certainly parallels and yet no notion of redemption.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 28, 2023, 11:31:27 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMEqual rights. The dignity of all human beings. Those ideas are not self evident but come from two separate religions- Buddhism and Christianity.

...The list goes on, but the important thing to take away is that if you remove the supreme deity you remove every single justification for Christian morality, just as removing karma removes every justification for Hindu or Buddhist morality.

Though I'm a Catholic myself I think you may be doing some of the other faith and philosophical traditions of the world a bit of a disservice.  C.S. Lewis wrote a book called The Abolition of Man which shows how the majority of the world's faiths and belief systems mostly agree on the broad strokes of morality, at least when applied to one's own people or kin-group -- the mechanics of expression may differ, but the motives and goals are much the same.  Keeping one's word, refraining from murder and violence for one's own gain, not coveting others' goods or wives, showing due respect to others, honouring the dead, looking after widows and orphans and the needy, all are touted as virtues in the vast majority of moral systems.

Christianity's great moral innovations were threefold:
1) It was the first moral system to emphasize forgiveness of sins and enemies as a prerequisite for personal salvation;
2) It was the first system to truly universalize the moral status of all men as brothers in spirit, trumping all worldly considerations of rank, status, wealth or background.  It is not an accident that while slavery coexisted with Christianity for many centuries, it was only people descended from and driven by the Christian philosophical tradition who finally and successfully abolished slavery.
3) It was the first system to completely abolish systematic material sacrifice as a method of interacting with the Divine, emphasizing that God could not be bargained with or bought off as the pagans, or even the Jewish tradition of the Law, held could be the case.

In the typical fantasy RPG environment, a rising new religion teaching these things could give you adventure mileage in many ways:

- Adherents of the New Faith are trying to launch an anti-slavery campaign. Your average paladin might well be on the side of such a movement, until its more fanatical fringe elements start insisting that even feudal oaths should be abolished (look up the Albigensian Crusade for some of the fallout this political stance could cause).

- A local prince has had a religious epiphany and wants to convert and join the New Faith. Unfortunately his father has responded to this with great fury and disowned him as a result, which the young man is sad about but accepts; now his younger brother, a wastrel and good-for-nothing if ever there was one, has to be brought back from the far kingdoms where he's been spending money on wanton living. Which would be an easy enough job for your PCs, if the King's enemies weren't seeing an opportunity to gain power by seizing the younger Prince or killing him ....

- The noble who has hired you to clean out the local nest of orcs has hit you with a completely unexpected demand: He doesn't want the orcs killed, because he's recently become convinced of the immorality of such extermination. Instead, he's hired a bunch of wizards to write up a boatload of sleep spell scrolls and has built a whole platoon of wagon-cages.  Your job is to incapacitate the orcs and haul them, alive, to the border of neighbouring territory and then ... release them. Quite aside from the ludicrously difficult nature of this in the first place, how do you stop the orcs from just heading straight back and moving in again? Or, if they're "encouraged" to run in the other direction, does that make you responsible for whoever they hit with their marauding when they find other human lands again?

I think you are missing Christianity's main difference, which also happens to be the main concern when creating an RPG setting's religious milieu and institutions.  Call it (which other theologians have) the first question of religion.  In short, is something Good because God says it is good, or does God saying something is good make it Good (call these "Post-Enlightenment" and "Pre-Enlightenment" respectively as an incomplete but convenient shorthand)?  There is a great divide between religions based on their answer to this question.  On one hand, many of the ancient pre-Enlightenment Western and Near-Eastern religions have fallen solidly in the second category.  God's commands literally create Good.  In the Torah or Old Testament, in the Koran and the Hadiths, and in other similar old religions (like the Norse or early Greek mythos), gods may directly declare the need to slaughter men, women, and children, to take slaves, to rape or procure wives by force, and other acts that would be considered evil by most contemporary readers.  But these acts were considered to be objectively Good by all believers at the time.  An example of this might be if a Pre-Enlightenment believer were to have fallen into a well and was rescued by a non-believer/other tribe/etc.  A Post-Enlightenment believer would consider this a good act by the non-believer.  But the Pre-Enlightenment believer would still view the non-believer as evil (unless the could be converted to the believer's religion), and all hostile religious commands towards that non-believer would be justified, even though they had just saved the believer.

This is one of the things that make Christianity (especially post-Enlightenment, read the excellent book Aristotle's Children for a history of how the rediscovery of Greek and Roman texts dramatically influenced the development of Christianity very differently than Islam) and several other Far Eastern religions different.  The parable of the good Samaritan serves as a direct answer to this question for Christians (even though, for much of pre-Enlightenment western history, the medieval Christians behaved much like the earlier religions... see their relations with heretics, for examples).  To Judaism at the time of Jesus, the Samaritan, simply by the nature of his tribe and birth, was an unclean other, who was still unclean and unholy even though his actions were noble.  The parable asserts that the Samaritan behaved in a way that was universally Good, and not dependent on the religious or tribal affiliations of the Samaritan.  So, where historical Judaism answers the fundamental question in one way, Christianity answers in a completely different way.  It's one of the reasons that Westerners (who are generally shaped by Enlightenment Christianity, even if they are not religious) cannot understand the behavior of radical Wahhabist Islamists: they always assume that they can show the Islamist that they are "good" people and should be treated as such.  But, to the Islamist, if you are not a Muslim (and usually one of their particular sect) you are evil by definition, and subject to the rules of Dal al Harb (the "domain of war").  No act you can take can redeem you in their eyes (except "submission").

So, the answer to this first principle of religion is probably the most important choice you can make in your RPG religions.  Is there a Universal Good, that even gods can be judged by?  Or is Good defined by the declarations of the deity that you follow?  This is especially important in a world where gods might be physically present and directly interact with mortals.  It is interesting to note that, by explicitly categorizing deities in D&D by alignment, Gygax, et al., implicitly reflected their post-Enlightenment cultural beliefs that there is a universal Good and Evil by which those gods can be judged.  One of the reasons that the "baby orcs" question can be a problem for for players and DMs is that the decision what to do with them presupposes an answer to the fundamental question of religion, which most players and DMs don't really explicitly consider.  For a post-Enlightenment viewer, killing innocent orc babies will violate an implicit concept of Good, whereas there is no such qualms for those who answer the question the other way (and are tasked by their deity with exterminating them).  So the answer to this question can save a lot of later confusion in your game...

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 24, 2023, 08:21:56 PMHomosexuality is bad: Supreme deity said sex with another of your sex is bad.

The Bible is, I believe, not clear on these matters while understandably being texts based upon the mores of their time. (There's probably a lecture about ethnography and transference to be had here, too, but I'm no Biblical scholar.)

The Bible is extremely clear on homosexuality:

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

My favorite version of leftardism on the Bible is when they say Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked because they were not hospitable to visitors and that's why, not the buttsex or clamdipping.  Or when they tell people the New Testament is what matters the old testament is no longer to be followed because the Cross and whatnot.  Meanwhile the Cross removed the ritual not the rules.

I'm just having fun watching large denominations get gayed and do sermons on how god is a cross dresser and is the god of pronouns.  Some of the best sermons come from those nuts and the idiots who still attend those churches.  Better than the satanic panic.   I'm waiting for Episcoplalians to do a fund raiser to put a golden calf behind the pulpit, its that bad.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM
It is interesting to note that, by explicitly categorizing deities in D&D by alignment, Gygax, et al., implicitly reflected their post-Enlightenment cultural beliefs that there is a universal Good and Evil by which those gods can be judged.  One of the reasons that the "baby orcs" question can be a problem for for players and DMs is that the decision what to do with them presupposes an answer to the fundamental question of religion, which most players and DMs don't really explicitly consider.  For a post-Enlightenment viewer, killing innocent orc babies will violate an implicit concept of Good, whereas there is no such qualms for those who answer the question the other way (and are tasked by their deity with exterminating them).  So the answer to this question can save a lot of later confusion in your game...

You realize Gary was pro- Paladins killing orc babies, right? You've obviously got something seriously wrong here.

But I think the issue is really simple. It's just a game. Alignment 101 is, treat them as arbitrary categories. If the words "good" and "evil" are throwing you off, don't use them. Instead we have a North-South axis, and instead of Law-Chaos, we have East-West. Alignment is just a team jersey.

Alignment 201 is recognizing that instead of team jerseys, we can use moral, ethical, and behavioral codes to distinguish teams. And so we aren't starting with a singular moral code and influencing the game with it. We're setting up a framework within which all moral codes, belief systems, religions, etc, can have a place.

Alignment 301 is using the terms Law & Chaos rather than East & West because that was a motif in ancient stories, like that one time Marduk slew the dragon of of Chaos. And in recognizing that neither Law nor Chaos is inherently positive or negative, that each has its positive and negative aspects to it. And that this has always been present in stories, not just post-enlightenment or post-christ, but back into time immemorial.

Alignment 401 is just systematically filling the gaps, beginning with the four alignments--Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil--then adding neutral for in the Monster Manual to account for creatures that are not sufficiently intelligent, sentient, and/or willed to be otherwise given a team jersey. Then the 9-alignment system filling the gaps. And then the 17 alignment system that add "tendencies".

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM
I think you are missing Christianity's main difference, which also happens to be the main concern when creating an RPG setting's religious milieu and institutions.  Call it (which other theologians have) the first question of religion.  In short, is something Good because God says it is good, or does God saying something is good make it Good (call these "Post-Enlightenment" and "Pre-Enlightenment" respectively as an incomplete but convenient shorthand)?  There is a great divide between religions based on their answer to this question.  On one hand, many of the ancient pre-Enlightenment Western and Near-Eastern religions have fallen solidly in the second category.  God's commands literally create Good.  In the Torah or Old Testament, in the Koran and the Hadiths, and in other similar old religions (like the Norse or early Greek mythos), gods may directly declare the need to slaughter men, women, and children, to take slaves, to rape or procure wives by force, and other acts that would be considered evil by most contemporary readers. But these acts were considered to be objectively Good by all believers at the time.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM
So, the answer to this first principle of religion is probably the most important choice you can make in your RPG religions.  Is there a Universal Good, that even gods can be judged by?  Or is Good defined by the declarations of the deity that you follow?  This is especially important in a world where gods might be physically present and directly interact with mortals.

In Greek religion, for example, there is a difference between what the gods do and what is moral. The Greeks, in particular, philosophized about this a lot. In mythology, Zeus would frequently cheat on his wife, but he would also frequently get in trouble for it. So the Greeks did not define good as what Zeus did. Zeus and other gods would sometimes act in the wrong, and get in trouble for it. The laws of morality weren't defin ed by what the gods did, but were independent.

Likewise, in Hinduism, the mythic figures would often commit sins and be punished for their sins, as in the Mahabharata. Even the gods have their karma and dharma, which are defined by the universe. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think the Vedic texts describe sins, but don't phrase them as "god commands this" but simply as "this is wrong".

This is very different than ancient Judaism, which often held loyalty and obedience to YHWH as the highest good. I think a myth like demanding the sacrifice of Isaac is a bit of an outlier. I think many pre-Enlightenment religions had moral laws as absolutes different from what the gods say.

Christianity doesn't have a clear break from Judaism on this. Many Post-Enlightenment philosophers still say that God is all-powerful and that God defines what is good, but he is infinite and unknowable rather than a personified figure who could commit acts. In general, almost everything in Christianity is open to debate, rather than being clear rules - and practice and interpretation differ between different branches. For example, there is the debate over homosexuality:

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 07:48:57 AM

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 24, 2023, 10:41:09 PM
The Bible is, I believe, not clear on these matters while understandably being texts based upon the mores of their time. (There's probably a lecture about ethnography and transference to be had here, too, but I'm no Biblical scholar.)

The Bible is extremely clear on homosexuality:

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

But Christians generally do *not* follow the laws of Leviticus. For example, most Christians don't have a problem with eating shrimp, yet Leviticus is also quite clear that shrimp is an abomination:

Leviticus 11:10 ~ And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:11 ~ They shall be even an abomination unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall hold their carcasses in abomination.

A better example might be in Paul's letters, like Romans 1:26 - but it's still true that modern Christians don't follow the words of Paul absolutely. For example, Paul also says that women must keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), but many churches allow women to speak during services. Modern Christians tend to treat Paul's advice in letters as suggestions for his own time and place, different than the universal commandments of Jesus like the Golden Rule.

I grew up in a Presbyterian church with a woman pastor, say, who was obviously allowed to speak. And my church was welcoming to gay couples back in the 1970s.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 02:20:05 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM
I think you are missing Christianity's main difference, which also happens to be the main concern when creating an RPG setting's religious milieu and institutions.  Call it (which other theologians have) the first question of religion.  In short, is something Good because God says it is good, or does God saying something is good make it Good (call these "Post-Enlightenment" and "Pre-Enlightenment" respectively as an incomplete but convenient shorthand)?  There is a great divide between religions based on their answer to this question.  On one hand, many of the ancient pre-Enlightenment Western and Near-Eastern religions have fallen solidly in the second category.  God's commands literally create Good.  In the Torah or Old Testament, in the Koran and the Hadiths, and in other similar old religions (like the Norse or early Greek mythos), gods may directly declare the need to slaughter men, women, and children, to take slaves, to rape or procure wives by force, and other acts that would be considered evil by most contemporary readers. But these acts were considered to be objectively Good by all believers at the time.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 29, 2023, 11:12:53 PM
So, the answer to this first principle of religion is probably the most important choice you can make in your RPG religions.  Is there a Universal Good, that even gods can be judged by?  Or is Good defined by the declarations of the deity that you follow?  This is especially important in a world where gods might be physically present and directly interact with mortals.

In Greek religion, for example, there is a difference between what the gods do and what is moral. The Greeks, in particular, philosophized about this a lot. In mythology, Zeus would frequently cheat on his wife, but he would also frequently get in trouble for it. So the Greeks did not define good as what Zeus did. Zeus and other gods would sometimes act in the wrong, and get in trouble for it. The laws of morality weren't defin ed by what the gods did, but were independent.

Likewise, in Hinduism, the mythic figures would often commit sins and be punished for their sins, as in the Mahabharata. Even the gods have their karma and dharma, which are defined by the universe. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think the Vedic texts describe sins, but don't phrase them as "god commands this" but simply as "this is wrong".

This is very different than ancient Judaism, which often held loyalty and obedience to YHWH as the highest good. I think a myth like demanding the sacrifice of Isaac is a bit of an outlier. I think many pre-Enlightenment religions had moral laws as absolutes different from what the gods say.

Christianity doesn't have a clear break from Judaism on this. Many Post-Enlightenment philosophers still say that God is all-powerful and that God defines what is good, but he is infinite and unknowable rather than a personified figure who could commit acts. In general, almost everything in Christianity is open to debate, rather than being clear rules - and practice and interpretation differ between different branches. For example, there is the debate over homosexuality:

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 07:48:57 AM

Quote from: Kage2020 on October 24, 2023, 10:41:09 PM
The Bible is, I believe, not clear on these matters while understandably being texts based upon the mores of their time. (There's probably a lecture about ethnography and transference to be had here, too, but I'm no Biblical scholar.)

The Bible is extremely clear on homosexuality:

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

But Christians generally do *not* follow the laws of Leviticus. For example, most Christians don't have a problem with eating shrimp, yet Leviticus is also quite clear that shrimp is an abomination:

Leviticus 11:10 ~ And all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:11 ~ They shall be even an abomination unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall hold their carcasses in abomination.

A better example might be in Paul's letters, like Romans 1:26 - but it's still true that modern Christians don't follow the words of Paul absolutely. For example, Paul also says that women must keep silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), but many churches allow women to speak during services. Modern Christians tend to treat Paul's advice in letters as suggestions for his own time and place, different than the universal commandments of Jesus like the Golden Rule.

I grew up in a Presbyterian church with a woman pastor, say, who was obviously allowed to speak. And my church was welcoming to gay couples back in the 1970s.

You throw out the ritual not the rules.  The Bible is extremely explicit on homosexuality.  You can use every form of left moral degenerate argument to degrade Christianity to state the Bible is wrong, people are hypocrites, new covenant etc, however we follow the 10 commandments from the Bible.  Generally when God is calling for death for a behavior, it doesn't fly.  There is a big difference about having to sacrifice some doves for a sin (removing the ritual) and God stating outright death for behavior and then him following up nuking two cities for said behavior.  I'm sorry but shelfish <> nuking two cities.  An abomination isn't the same as outright death for a behavior, is probably a behavior we should avoid.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for people doing whatever they want, in fact bronze is cheap and people can cast a bronze bull and pick and choose what they want from the Bible, I'm all for it just give it a new name so you don't lie to people about what the place of worship believes and is.  I won't consider them Christian, they are more in the line of  jehovas and mormon territory at that point.  They are something new, and quite twisted and deranged.  At one time there were whores who used the christian name to get people into the "church" to make money for the pimp pastors, that isn't a church but its opinions are just as valid as the churches pushing homosexuality and hard core pronoun/left wing marxism in chuch see video below for an example.

And women keeping silent in church was probably a very good idea.  When you look at churches putting up progressive pride flags and BLM flags (false idols) in the church, its a woman pastor 9 times out of 10 putting up that sacrilege in a place of worship.  Like this woman going off on pronoun in church calling God the God of Pronouns.  It should make people vomit.  Men tend to be more traditional and women tend to be very emotional and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings, they are the prime target for degeneracy.  Mind you a decade ago, I'd have your opinions but looking at what women have done to the nation and church, its got me full on revulsed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvvTZ12TcxU

if this is going to devolve into another homosexuality debate, two things to know
1. I apologize for bringing it up in the OP
2. Please take it somewhere else

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 02:20:05 PM
In Greek religion, for example, there is a difference between what the gods do and what is moral. The Greeks, in particular, philosophized about this a lot. In mythology, Zeus would frequently cheat on his wife, but he would also frequently get in trouble for it. So the Greeks did not define good as what Zeus did. Zeus and other gods would sometimes act in the wrong, and get in trouble for it. The laws of morality weren't defin ed by what the gods did, but were independent.

Likewise, in Hinduism, the mythic figures would often commit sins and be punished for their sins, as in the Mahabharata. Even the gods have their karma and dharma, which are defined by the universe. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think the Vedic texts describe sins, but don't phrase them as "god commands this" but simply as "this is wrong".

This is very different than ancient Judaism, which often held loyalty and obedience to YHWH as the highest good. I think a myth like demanding the sacrifice of Isaac is a bit of an outlier. I think many pre-Enlightenment religions had moral laws as absolutes different from what the gods say.

Christianity doesn't have a clear break from Judaism on this. Many Post-Enlightenment philosophers still say that God is all-powerful and that God defines what is good, but he is infinite and unknowable rather than a personified figure who could commit acts. In general, almost everything in Christianity is open to debate, rather than being clear rules - and practice and interpretation differ between different branches. For example, there is the debate over homosexuality:

Incorrect.  Greek religion changed over time (like most do), and later Greek philosophers treated stories of the gods much differently than earlier believers did.  You are cherry-picking (as usual) later beliefs and applying them across the whole civilization.  I think Hinduism might qualify as an Eastern religion... which I said tended to answer the question in the same way as Christianity... thanks for proving my point.

As for your objection vis a vis Christianity, you really didn't contradict anything I stated.  Instead, you post some babble about "almost everything in Christianity is open to debate."  Which is not true.  Just because your church ignores half of the Bible doesn't mean that the tenets of Christianity are obscure or debatable.  It just makes that church grossly heretical.  But honestly, the only way someone in the Universalist Church is going to find Jesus is if Jesus doesn't see him coming first...

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2023, 05:25:21 PM
if this is going to devolve into another homosexuality debate, two things to know
1. I apologize for bringing it up in the OP
2. Please take it somewhere else

Agreed.

(Fair point, MeganovaStella - I'm dropping the stuff about homosexuality.)

Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 30, 2023, 09:35:40 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 02:20:05 PM
In Greek religion, for example, there is a difference between what the gods do and what is moral. The Greeks, in particular, philosophized about this a lot. In mythology, Zeus would frequently cheat on his wife, but he would also frequently get in trouble for it. So the Greeks did not define good as what Zeus did. Zeus and other gods would sometimes act in the wrong, and get in trouble for it. The laws of morality weren't defin ed by what the gods did, but were independent.

Likewise, in Hinduism, the mythic figures would often commit sins and be punished for their sins, as in the Mahabharata. Even the gods have their karma and dharma, which are defined by the universe. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think the Vedic texts describe sins, but don't phrase them as "god commands this" but simply as "this is wrong".

This is very different than ancient Judaism, which often held loyalty and obedience to YHWH as the highest good. I think a myth like demanding the sacrifice of Isaac is a bit of an outlier. I think many pre-Enlightenment religions had moral laws as absolutes different from what the gods say.

Christianity doesn't have a clear break from Judaism on this. Many Post-Enlightenment philosophers still say that God is all-powerful and that God defines what is good, but he is infinite and unknowable rather than a personified figure who could commit acts. In general, almost everything in Christianity is open to debate, rather than being clear rules - and practice and interpretation differ between different branches. For example, there is the debate over homosexuality:

Incorrect.  Greek religion changed over time (like most do), and later Greek philosophers treated stories of the gods much differently than earlier believers did.  You are cherry-picking (as usual) later beliefs and applying them across the whole civilization.  I think Hinduism might qualify as an Eastern religion... which I said tended to answer the question in the same way as Christianity... thanks for proving my point.

As for your objection vis a vis Christianity, you really didn't contradict anything I stated.  Instead, you post some babble about "almost everything in Christianity is open to debate."  Which is not true.  Just because your church ignores half of the Bible doesn't mean that the tenets of Christianity are obscure or debatable.  It just makes that church grossly heretical.  But honestly, the only way someone in the Universalist Church is going to find Jesus is if Jesus doesn't see him coming first...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about Greek religion. I agree that Greek religion changed over time, but both early and late Greek religion is a very long time before the Enlightenment. I don't think either early Greeks or late Greeks defined good as "what the gods say". Even prior to the Sophists, the gods were powerful being that needed to be appeased, but their word was not taken as the absolute in moral behavior. The gods can and did do things that were seen as sinful, and would sometimes be punished for it.

It is similar in Norse religion. In the historical sagas, if someone's actions needed to be judged, it was usually brought to a secular legal authority. So religion didn't necessarily determine right and wrong for people. Religious authorities like gydja were consulted for omens of the future, when to plant crops, what sacrifices to make, and so forth - and less often about "did this person do right or wrong".

I think that is fairly common for many early societies, where they turned to religion for predicting the weather, healthy birth, and other practical matters - but not necessarily for morality. In modern times, we turn to science for this and to religion for morality, but that was often not the case historically. Human morality used to come from social mores and spiritual beliefs than the gods. i.e. I think what is tapu to Polynesians isn't a matter of what the gods say. Something is tapu because of its inherent nature, not because of divine action.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2023, 05:25:21 PM
if this is going to devolve into another homosexuality debate, two things to know
1. I apologize for bringing it up in the OP
2. Please take it somewhere else

This gets back to the point I made earlier.  It was entirely predictable that such a discussion would arise.  If this were to come up in one of my gaming groups, the Baptist player and I would say that this is definitely in "thou shalt not" territory.  The Methodist would say its fine.  The two nominal, unenthusiastic Christians would say "who cares?"  I would rather not have this discussion at my gaming table; it could take a lot of time and has the potential for creating acrimony between friends.  There are two ways to avoid this, first as DM I could make sure religious issues never come up in game.  But in this case why am I bothering to include a religion in the first place?  The other way is to create a well defined fictional religion that none of the players have a personal investment in.  That's my preference.

QuoteI also had a long-standing Call of Cthulhu character who went to being a devout Catholic, and considered all the anti-Christian stuff he was seeing to be a test of people's faith in the End Times.

Nice. My 30's Polish priest considered monstrosities (great snake with human head, and this bhakiye something space vywern) as ante-dilluvian monstrosities that were created by ancients (presumably Nephilims) and should still be treated as natural although monstrous beasts. You know... like pitbulls.

QuoteI remember watching Vikings and noticing that Norse women seemed to have more rights - but at the same time they seemed to be more accepting of murder, robbery, torture, human sacrifice and illiteracy, so I was always rooting for the Christians (I know this is beside the point but I think worth mentioning).

I'd note that in Christian countries ability of women to inherit property were vastly different between various people and were mostly based on local traditions not on Christianity.
Though Hebrew custom presented in Bible generally implies firstborn son should get major part of inheritance after father, and care about widow-mother as his father.
But it's not enforced in Christianity as moral order.

QuoteAs for the reason I'm not sure that starting with cosmology always yields a definition of good and evil is because the rules for morals and ethical codes do not necessarily apply to divine beings.

I mean considering D&D tradition of applying alignment to good, and having many gods of one alignment it always seems cleared to me that deities are below Cosmic Force of Alignment and if they fuck around they can find out just like wanton paladins. Hey why my divine fortress was removed to Gehenna, WTF?

QuoteChristianity's great moral innovations were threefold:
1) It was the first moral system to emphasize forgiveness of sins and enemies as a prerequisite for personal salvation;
2) It was the first system to truly universalize the moral status of all men as brothers in spirit, trumping all worldly considerations of rank, status, wealth or background.  It is not an accident that while slavery coexisted with Christianity for many centuries, it was only people descended from and driven by the Christian philosophical tradition who finally and successfully abolished slavery.
3) It was the first system to completely abolish systematic material sacrifice as a method of interacting with the Divine, emphasizing that God could not be bargained with or bought off as the pagans, or even the Jewish tradition of the Law, held could be the case.

I have mixed feeling about this.
Point 1 is I think spot on, at least I never heard about something simmilar.
Point 2 - while Christianity indeed preached brotherhood of spirit, actual social egalitarism is done by Englightement, enemies of Christendom - because Christianity also supported social hierarchies as Divine Orders, and see no contradiction between their existence and brotherhood. Just like there was hierarchy in early Church with Apostoles leading rest. In this vein one could see Englightement as authistic leading of one Christianity aspect too maximum while abandoning others. And IIRC there were previous antislaving religions - like zoroastrianism in Persia. I agree that Englightement would probably not developed without Christianity as it is clearly twisted form of cherry picked Christian values. (And of course Englightementers replaced slavery wide world wide colonialism so...)
Point 3. Of course not. All Christianity is based on Sacrifice as interacting with Divine. I'd even say The Sacrifice. And plenty Fathers described it precisely with bargain/bought off logic.
This intuition among pagan people was top notch correct. Sacrifice was necessary. The problem was of course 99,9999999% sacrifices in history were not in any way valuable for side they tried to bargain with.

QuoteSo, the answer to this first principle of religion is probably the most important choice you can make in your RPG religions.  Is there a Universal Good, that even gods can be judged by?  Or is Good defined by the declarations of the deity that you follow?  This is especially important in a world where gods might be physically present and directly interact with mortals.  It is interesting to note that, by explicitly categorizing deities in D&D by alignment, Gygax, et al., implicitly reflected their post-Enlightenment cultural beliefs that there is a universal Good and Evil by which those gods can be judged.

I mean yes and not.
Christianity is strictly monotheist and God is Absolute Source of well Everything. Including Good. There is no escaping it. There is no place of primordial Good preceding Triune God. In Enlightement eyes maybe there is that's why they love judge God for killing firstborns of Egypt or wrecking Caanaan. But that's not Christian perspective. In Christianity divine hidden ousia, essence precedes in logical fashion any actions between God and Creation (energies in Greek theology) - and morality is basically whole in energy departament. So yes very clearly Christianity stands in "things are Good by God decrees" but also due to logocentrism - "God decrees are not whimsical but flowing from his unfathomable essence and therefore they cannot be changed in any fundamental way". But that still very different situation to Enlightened notion that you can judge God. You cannot. You may judge Torm, Hextor or Tempus - you cannot judge Absolute - unless you wanna do fool out of yourself.

Now D&D gods are just very powerful beings. You can kill them after all. If there is supreme Absolute God - he is  not intereacting with PCs. So yes in this case Absolute Good (and also Absolut Evil which is Equal to Good - also extremely different perspective from both Christianity and Englightement) precedes Gods.

But also quite frankly maybe by accident, not by plan, maybe just as in-game adjustment Gygax created cosmology that does not really fit any real world one. Gygaxian cosmology is unique and utterly fantastical.

QuoteMy favorite version of leftardism on the Bible is when they say Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked because they were not hospitable to visitors and that's why, not the buttsex or clamdipping.

I mean while this is used by Christian left as method to diminish graveness of homosexual acts, there are good in Bible reason to consider Sodom faith to be more complex than just buttsex thing.
First of all we have open and clear breaking of hospitality - which is very accursed thing in ancient morality - let's remember simmilar case though with woman led to civil war with Beniaminites withing ancient Israel. And Ezekiel speak about Sodom: ""This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.""

So generally holistic perspective is quite clear - Sodom was not destroyed for some one specific incident but for being immoral assholes on every possible field. And the bargain between Abraham and God, when Abraham tries and fail to find 10 just Sodomites kinda confirm the rot on many possible levels.

QuoteLikewise, in Hinduism, the mythic figures would often commit sins and be punished for their sins, as in the Mahabharata. Even the gods have their karma and dharma, which are defined by the universe. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think the Vedic texts describe sins, but don't phrase them as "god commands this" but simply as "this is wrong".

TBH Hebrew word for sin, later translated literally to Greek meant "missing the mark".

QuoteThis gets back to the point I made earlier.  It was entirely predictable that such a discussion would arise.  If this were to come up in one of my gaming groups, the Baptist player and I would say that this is definitely in "thou shalt not" territory.  The Methodist would say its fine.  The two nominal, unenthusiastic Christians would say "who cares?"  I would rather not have this discussion at my gaming table; it could take a lot of time and has the potential for creating acrimony between friends.  There are two ways to avoid this, first as DM I could make sure religious issues never come up in game.  But in this case why am I bothering to include a religion in the first place?  The other way is to create a well defined fictional religion that none of the players have a personal investment in.  That's my preference.

Or just make them all play Coptic Orthodox and follow their tenants (which despite being Christian will probably be somehow alien to all those protsy lot) ;)