*not a troll attempt*. Depicting religion in games

hi all,
As stated above this is not an attempt to start a flame war or anything, it's an attempt to define a boundary suitable for a majority of players (since someone will always be offended over something) so please keep this civil.

As background, I made a paper prototype of a new 2-player strategy game using noughts & crosses. Testers liked it & I have been tweaking rules & retesting. One complaint was it was hard to take in the board while looking at just those symbols so I made cards using cows & sheep in paddocks with stone walls for fencing.

After a few play tests using these new cards I thought of a variant, switching it up from a balanced 2-player to an asymmetrical 2-player game. I haven't made or tested it yet but as I worked through the possible rules & objectives I realised that it could be representative of various acts throughout history ranging from aspects of the holocaust, apartheid, & even Israel/Palestine.

Now I know I can't use people as characters without narrowing the focus right down & actually making a statement which is something I don't want to do, but I am happy if people extrapolate to those issues & it makes them think about them in some way. I would like to keep using animals but switch from cows & sheep to wolves or foxes & sheep as they have a natural opposition. In your opinion is there a risk of causing offence to a majority of players if people do make those connections mentioned above?


TL;DR
More generally, can religions only ever be represented in historically accurate games or those using aliens to represent some religion that just happens to share some ideals with a human religion? Animal Farm used animals to represent different classes in society without to much offence but is religion too sensitive to be given a similar treatment even if the animals were selected with care?

 

Warning: politically charged arguments:

"Religion teaches to be satisfied with not understanding the world" (can't remember if Hitchens or Dawkins said that)

But regardless of that, I would say do whatever you want, it is your game and your freedom of expression.

I find it ridiculous that people will demand things to be changed because they get offended by games in any way. I was offended by "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare"-Series because it is utter American Propaganda. I even get offended when people say they can believe what they want, because that statement is bullshid (can you believe that George Washington was not the first President of USA? No, you are a slave to the evidence like on everything else). Anita Sarkeesian will not put your game on her list of "Valuable"-games (which are, btw., all PG12 or something, really, look it up) when there is a female butt in it.

As a game maker you are also educating people, and the message that has to be sent to the next generation is this:
You have the right of freedom of expression but no right whatsoever not to be offended, and that is good, because only then we can pursue our different ends through conversation and compromise rather than through oppression and violence.

 

Let's move this to RSP. Oh, wait, wrong site

The right to offend is very important to me. YOUR right to offend is just as important. I also think a couple of my ideas on games with religious themes will be far more offensive than anything listed above. And that's while keeping them 100% factual!

If you've seen any typical Internet forum with upvote/downvote comment systems you've also seen the truth downvoted many times. If people are offended by verifiable truth there's nothing that won't offend, so you might as well take the gloves off. HAVE AT IT!

 

I think religion can be done in non-historical settings as long as it is apparent that it is fantasy religion or that it is a fantastical version of a real religion.

An example is the religion in tabletop games like World of Darkness, particularly their Vampire books. I have also played games that touch upon religions such as Neo-paganism and Voodoo and have done it without making a statement about anyone's beliefs. Of course, there is the danger that one stereotypes Pagans or others in a negative way, therefore making a statement that Pagans are evil or bad. Sorry, but I have known many Pagans, and I have only met a few that are just not nice people but that has nothing to with their religion.

The safest way to add religion to games is to just make up the religions. Of course, when we do this, there will always be bits of current religions mixed with the fantasy. However, we can still make statements about morality, mortality, dogma, zealotry, etc., without too much offense..but maybe enough to make our own statement.

I do agree that it is okay to offend as long as you realize that some people who are offended might not play your game. Personally, I would be okay with that.

I am not a religious person and my biggest fear is making a multiplayer game and having it co opted by some religious group or even a political group. I worked on a game that happened to include a monotheistic god as one of the religions in the game and we had a few people try to use that as a platform for their own beliefs. In my mind, religion is personal, not something that I want shoved down my throat in a game or elsewhere.

Nice thing about a game..I can just not buy it or throw it away if it becomes to preachy. I want a break from real life when I play games.

 

*predicts doom*

 

I agree with all of the above. Just one thought to add: wolves and sheep is a well-known metaphor (or at least, everybody thinks they know darn well what it means). So using that makes a much stronger statement than picking pretty much any other predator/prey relationship: sharks and minnows, eagles and rabbits, foxes and voles, etc. Or you could go all herbivore: cows and grass, rabbits and strawberries, deer and garden plants, etc.

So, depending on how strong a statement you want to make, pick your metaphor accordingly.

 

Religious people have a much thicker skin then you seem to think. The ones who will find your game offensive aren't in your target audience anyway, that group thinks all video games are of the devil, and won't read Harry Potter because it promotes sorcery and witch craft.

If you are going to tackle religion, do it deliberately and intentionally. Use actual historical events and figures as your source. A game about the conflict between Richard and Saladin will be far more palatable then a generic combat game with Christians and Muslims.

 

Not entirely true. Had one guy say he would not play our game because it has "gods" in it and he won't play a game with gods that are not his god. lol He makes games, btw.

Played Star Wars Galaxies and role played with a group. One guy was a real life seminary student who spent most of his time trying to "save" me in PM's...in-game.

 

These are all pretty much what I thought. I didn't want to make it historically accurate to one situation as the bit in the game that is relevant has been done by different religions, or to different religions, throughout history so I was trying to keep it generic so people may realise this as a side effect (I want the game to stand on its own regardless of whether people relate it to those incidents) But, that said, I only realised the application after working through the design & seeing it instead of thinking of the situation & trying to gamify it.

I realise not every religious person is on the hunt for some sort of offence (my mum is a qualified minister), I'm just trying to gauge the sensitivity on the issue of religion in games compared to other moral statements/beliefs (? Sorry, struggled for a term). I also don't want to offend people just because I can simply because I don't see the point of it. What I'm trying to do is create good, engaging games & in that process I got to thinking about this topic. Things like violence towards women etc is generally abhorred by most people yet is shown in games fairly realistically to some small outcry but there also seems to be a degree of acceptance that that sort of stuff is ok in games. Yet it is really hard to find religious representation that is neutral (again I think I've worded this wrong but it is early & I've been trying to give up caffeine lately) I.e. One side isn't portrayed as evil/corrupt. And that is using human avatars.

For some reason when I've polled people in person they seem OK with showing religious people if it is in a strict historical context but as soon as I ask about using animals for a general context they all suck air through their teeth & try to find a nice way to say I'd be stupid to do it.

 

You are absolutely right. Most games show one side as being evil while the other is good. That is always something that bothers me as well. There are good and bad people but their religion or lack of religion has really nothing to do with this. You can be an atheist and be a good person, you can be a deist (includes all who worship a higher being) and be a good person or vice versa.

What is hard is creating multiple religions in a game and NOT make one of them good or bad. In the case of our game, which has multiple cultures and a deep lore, it was a struggle to not make one religion or one god evil....but still find a way to add conflict into the game...through the religions. I think we have succeeded but the players will be the ones to decide in the end.

Trust me..I even had long debates with team members who were attached to one religion or the other..and wanted that particular religion to be the good one. When a religion has in its holy book/scriptures that they value humility, love, and honor, it is tough when trying to explain how while that may be their dogma, but not necessarily what they actually do. Another interesting thing about making game religions. They shouldn't be perfect either to be believable. Good things can be corrupted....and not through evil, but sometimes through human failings.

 

Tolkien was a Christian, and Lord of the Rings features plenty of elements that could be taken as nods to biblical events/characters/ideas. Frodo carries a corrupting power with him that he cannot overcome on his own, Gandalf the grey dies and is resurrected and sent back to Middle-Earth as Gandalf the White, Gondor is a kingdom waiting for the return of it's long-awaited king, ect.

But even so, LotR cannot be said to be a religious work- as those elements are not allegorical, they are applicable. The Ring could apply to the corrupting influence of the industrial revolution, modernist thought, the atomic bomb or technology itself. It's like a mirror, in that what you receive from the work depends on what you bring to it in the first place. That's why the trilogy is so well loved by it's fans. This is what you're after if you want to say something meaningful without being propaganda.

On the flip side of this you have C.S Lewis - who did write allegory. Most people reference Bunyan when they try to explain allegory, I much prefer Lewis. The Chonicles of Narnia features characters who are meant to represent biblical figures- their motives and actions are directly in line with whom they represent. The Great Divorce features characters who represent particular ideas about heaven and hell. Through allegory, Lewis is able to demonstrate his arguments and give them a context, rather than just trying to articulate them.

It's difficult to justify dealing with prickly topics like religion in games when you could just skirt any potential issue by cutting a feature or changing a line of dialogue in order to avoid driving away customers, but game development is both art and product- Religion is a deeply held element of who you are as an artist, and it's natural for that to come out in what you create. Just as there is a place for that in literature, I think there must be a place for that in games as well.

 

Of course there is, and both Tolkien and Lewis were very honest with the inspiration of their games. Of course, this was 50+ years ago, and things were very different then. I read Lewis as a 12 year old good Lutheran girl, but my kids have absolutely no interest in it other than a fairy tale. On the other hand, in my southern state, many kids are not allowed to read Harry Potter because it is about "witches".

The Golden Compass is another book in literature that uses religion as a major theme. The movie that came out a few years ago was boycotted by many Christians. So much so that the sequels were never made. The books are wonderful and although written later than Tolkien and Lewis, they are popular fantasy books.

So...while a book that comes from your personal religion may appeal to some people, it won't appeal to all, just as one that appeals to atheists won't appeal to all.

Of course, I am a huge fan of niche markets so these games, from both perspectives, should definitely be made. Just be honest about your reasons...that will draw your niche market to you.

 

I think people are less religious now than in times past. We have more atheists/agnostics or people who just seem to check "none of the above". I meet young people (people my age included) and they don't really seem to be deeply entrenched in religious practices or beliefs. This idea that everybody is a religious, hypersensitive person is sort of out-dated in my opinion, it probably comes from the 80's->90's when we had a huge Christian revival in the US with televangelists and all of the people who followed suit forming churches as "non-profit" organisations in the US for the tax exempt status... it created an entire generation prior to gen x that was VERY religious (and Pro America, Pro gun and anti-gay) and of course as kids many of us were raised this way...

These days I think we (as a generation) recognize religion as being something that is not for everyone, not necessarily good or bad and just another thing that we can discuss without fear of lightning bolts. Plus many people are very non-spiritual and just see it all as zaniness.

Those who would be offended probably won't be interested in fantasy, because in very hyper-religious practice all fantasy is effectively devil worship. So you can pretty much discount them out of pocket. And atheists don't seem to mind much of anything.

Don't lose sleep over it, dude.

 

I think it's a good idea to look at existing games that deal with religion.

Final Fantasy X is probably the best that comes to mind. It's actually very even-handed in how it approaches religion, even with the whole Corrupt Church trope in full-force (what else do you expect from a Final Fantasy title?) The general gist of it is, the protagonist from a place that's more like the modern world gets 'displaced' to Spira, a world in the equivalent of the Middle Ages, which is more or less ruled by the Church of Yevon, who are technophobic due to the giant flying space-whale that wrecks everything periodically - the giant space-whale in their doctrine is a punishment for humanity's hubris. The truth turns out to be different, but the role of faith is commented on in both the positive and negative ways.

Dragon Age: Inquisition, while in my opinion a bad game, also deals well with how people and faith interact. On the one hand, you have the Chantry, who aren't quite pure, but also aren't quite a corrupt church, either. You have the close interrelationship between the faith professed by the Chantry, and the fear of mages ("Magic exists to serve man!") You have the Qunari, a 'competing' faith to the Chantry who provide an entirely different way of looking at Thedas. The gameplay sucks, but the story BioWare tells is worth paying attention to.

Long story short - my only suggestions with religion are thus:

Suggestion #1 - It must be mostly made-up
Nothing irritates people more than insulting their beliefs. So, don't - in your examination of religion, create an acceptable middle-ground, like the Chantry or Yevon. It will need to probably include some real-world inspiration - the Chantry, for example, has very obvious parallels to Roman Catholicism, but wildly differs in other areas. Be careful that this made-up religion doesn't become a Strawman, though.

Suggestion #2 - Expose the pros and cons of a philosophy equally
We all have biases, but when dealing with religion, you're already in hot water - fundamental beliefs are something one should never mess with lightly. To that end, it's worth pointing out that a philosophy exists to understand or solve certain problems. Also, that it creates or exacerbates others.

Suggestion #3 - Let the player bring their own interpretation to the narrative
This one works not only due to my previous suggestions, but due to how religion and the human mind itself works. In Dragon Age, there's a tenet that is nodded to multiple times: "The less the Maker does, the more he's proven." Religion, historically speaking, is very much a human construct, to impose order on a chaotic world. What makes the stories of these two games work, even if the games themselves could be better, is that the player can decide for themselves what their relationship to that religion is, to a certain degree.

In Final Fantasy X, you will save the world and Yevon's "technophobia" will be exposed for most of what it really is, while certain other characters will adopt more moderate mindsets...but the point remains that you're saving the world in spite of the political apparatuses that exist in response to the religious situation. Along the way, the pro-Yevon party members bring up points about why their faith in the fayth is legitimate, and some of it is hard to argue with - technology, like religion, solves as many problems as it creates. My interpretation of that work, is that the religious questions between the Al Bhed and Yevon is never adequately resolved, on purpose - it doesn't matter why, the point of a JRPG is to save the world, but also both viewpoints are at once valid and invalid.

In Dragon Age Inquisition, a Western RPG, you have much more narrative freedom, but the fact remains that even if you choose every apostate option available, the Inquisition is an agency devoted to rooting out evil...and your character seems to, if not be subject of divine intervention, sure seem to have unnaturally good luck. Is the Inquisitor actually chosen by The Maker? Is it all just a cruel fluke? Some of those questions do get answered...but not all of them. And, that's the point. We can't have all of the answers. Faith untempered by reason, or reason untempered by faith, isn't adequate to handle the greatest challenges a person faces. We all believe in something, but when belief ignores reason, it's easy for faith to be twisted into something more sinister. When you reason without vision of a goal, it's easy to stray from that goal.

TL;DR - Suggestion #3 is by far the hardest. It's easy to say, "I believe in these tenets." We all find it easier to say, "You should believe in these tenets." It's really hard to say, "Here are two sets of tenets. Think about them", and walk away in a meaningful way.