Just responding to some stuff I didn't have the chance to respond to earlier:
I mean, in a world with gemmers eating babies and spreading magical cataclysms every Detal, it's not like the common man has any need to rely on conjecture to deal with the metaphysical. The metaphysical is right there, sitting at the end of the bar, and he's a filthy monster who you'd happily chop up with your bone swordz if you could get away with it. But you can't, so you swear fealty to the biggest monster around and hope he keeps the little ones in line.
The trouble with this argument, I think, is that the average commoner demonstrates at least a basic understanding that magick exists. Furthermore, they understand (or believe) that while most magick is evil, the magick of templars is permissible.
So, in the average commoner's mind:
Elementalists = Bad
Defilers = Very Bad*
Templars = Good**
Therefore, commoners have at least a somewhat nuanced view of magic. What makes a templar's magic okay, but an elementalist's bad? The answer, for most Zalanthans, would be faith; the understanding that the templars are somehow "better" or "different" because their magick serves a higher purpose. In Zalanthas, magick does not equal miracles. Supernatural does not equal divine. This is something every commoner "knows" (although I doubt they'd be able to express it intelligibly). And it is precisely this which allows for characters that live in the shadow of a god-king, but don't worship them. That is to say, agnostic characters that more or less lack any true sense of spirituality or faith. They'd simply believe that Templars = Bad as well, keep their heads down, and leave it at that.
Then there's the whole atheistic thing in the first paragraph. I'm not so sure people are atheistic, as they are agnostic. They dwell within the scope of their own ignorance, and they know this. They know, that they don't know enough about the God Kings, to say anything about them one way or another. They know, that they don't know enough about what happens after they die, to state anything for fact, or even have any kind of solid belief.
This is exactly right. "Agnostic" is much better term than "atheist," at least for most Zalanthans. Thank you, Lizzie.
Though, I figure truly atheistic characters could exist. It's not hard to believe that Muk/Tek is dead, and that his templars are just ruling in his stead. It's probably wrong, and it's likely not a common view, but it's a possibility for a PC background, at least.
Based on a very public event back in '07 or 08 I think perhaps a way to show a difference between Tek and Muk is to play up fear and reliance with Tek and with Muk awe and the sense of omnipresent presence.
I wonder if it'd be appropriate to mention this event in the document. It seems significant, and likely influences Tuluk's view of their king. Still, I'm not going to say anything more about unless I get explicit staff approval that it's okay to document.
So it always made more sense to me to believe that these moods would be the ones being personified into higher powers, rather than relying solely upon one's element, due to the fact that it causes friction and dissention amongst its own practitioners.
That's a perfectly valid view, but the purpose of this document is not to give an exhaustive list of every crazy thing a person in Zalanthas could believe. It's meant to consolidate information and give players a sense of the prevailing views. Setting up a cult around magick moods or spheres is a possibility that I think the docs allow for. Why don't you try and start one up in-game?
Religion makes characters less interesting. The pro-religion argument seems to be "It will create nice RP flavor." I disagree. Religion is a panacea that players will use as an RP crutch in the face of more interesting answers. Sandstorms won't quit? Tek is angry. Tuluk gets flooded? Utep is disappointed in you.
First of all, I really appreciate you reposting and elaborating on your concerns, Old Kank. I want to hear as many opinions on this document as possible, including dissenting ones.
Second of all, I understand your concerns. Believe it or not, I share a lot of your concerns. Extreme religiosity could destroy a lot of the flavor of Arm. That's why I jumped on the task of writing this document; I wanted to make sure that didn't happen. The purpose of this document is not to fundamentally alter the world.
If I do this right, nothing in the game world should change.[/b] The goal of this document is to consolidate and inform, not retcon.
I quoted the above concern because it seems very flimsy and subjective to me. Why is "Tek creates sandstorms when he's angry" a crutch? Why is that answer "less interesting" than other answers? Just because you might not like religion or religious characters, or just because you've had some bad experiences with them, doesn't mean that they can't, shouldn't, or won't exist in the game world. We need to accept the fact that the game world has a spiritual side, and then set to work on the task of making sure that spiritual side fits the game world and is an enjoyable aspect of roleplaying for everybody.
I think the intention of the above documentation is more to capture the essence of what exists in-game already, rather than create a new mode of thought. A small bit of zealotry already exists in-game, without anything written down to encourage it -- I think I disagree with the premise that having a handy reference for newcomers in particular will make the essence of things as they stand change.
Erythil said it better than I did.
I only see FDMWH's work as possible documentation for peopl to use IF they want a religous PC and so they can keep it in line with the world, no more, no less.
This is exactly my intent. If I can achieve this, I'll be happy.
*Just in case somebody asks: "What about preservers?," my answer would be, "the average commoner has no idea what a preserver is."
**Technically, this equation goes more like "Templars = Scary, but they serve the god-king and prevent hordes of ravenous gith from chopping me up in my sweet, dreamless sleep, so I guess they're Good." I was just trying to be brief.
