# Christianity and pseudo-Christianity in otherwise fantasy worlds



## Feo Takahari

Inspired by _The Serpent and the Rose_, but relevant to a lot of different fantasy stories.

If a story is generally "fantasy" and is otherwise not connected to any one time and place, is it distracting to have Christianity in the story? Is it better to name it as Christianity, or to give it a new name while still having it obviously be Christianity? (In _Serpent's_ case, it's the religion of the Young God.) Does the answer to the question differ if you're portraying Christianity as the one true religion (_Lone Wolf_), the evil oppressor of a good pagan religion (_The Wayfarer Redemption_), or somewhere in between (_Serpent_)?

I'm asking specifically about Christianity because it's the only religion I see treated like this. _Elantris_ is the only thing I've ever read with fantasy Islam, and fantasy paganism is almost always an incredibly broad "nature worship" not directly comparable to any extant religion.


----------



## FifthView

Doesn't the answer to your question depend on the author's intention or desire for the world she's created?

I think that using Christianity, named "Christianity," is a perfectly valid approach — in two cases at least: 1) When the world is an alterna-verse of our own, 2 ) When the author's intention is to show that Christianity is universal, i.e. that Jesus Christ could have appeared in other worlds at some point, not just our own.

In the first case, you could be looking at a post-apocalyptic version of Earth set sometime in the very far future or maybe just a world in an alternate dimension with a somewhat different history.  Maybe this alternate Earth could include the use of various magics in addition to Christianity, continents, weather, fauna and fora, and some common features of historical Earth cultures and history as an analogue to our own world.

In the second case, I'd find the approach to write Christianity as a universal phenomenon, with Jesus Christ appearing on multiple worlds throughout time, as an interesting approach.  Doesn't the Church of Latter-Day Saints believe that Jesus appeared in America at some point?   A similar idea would have him appearing on different worlds, perhaps in the same way he appeared on our own.  I don't think one would have to be a Christian to utilize this idea in a fantasy setting, but at the same time I could see this approach being a spiritual/religious statement, possibly something profound, for a Christian writer who wanted to use this idea.

As for the "somewhere in between" and other uses of the ideas, rituals, symbols of Christianity....Well, there's precious little under the sun that is new, as tropes and metaphors are often repeated with variation in literature throughout time.  Even utilizing pagan Earth religions with minor or major tweaks is a common approach, as is the use of so many other things like types of government, currency, warfare, armor, horses,......Etc.  So I don't see why the one approach (paganism re-invention) should be valued above the other.


----------



## MineOwnKing

Personally I cannot abide it.

I want my fantasy to be fun and offer escape, not to be a reminder of something, which in my case would immediately take me out of the story.

Finding it in the middle of an otherwise pleasant read, to me, is how I would imagine it feels to have a disturbed person invading my home and going through my things, or peering at me through the shadows as I sleep.

Very creepy.


----------



## ThinkerX

I have a pseudo Christianity in my world...but one with a reason for being.

Solaria, the main nation in my world, was founded by several thousand 3rd century AD romans in one of the last big 'people snatches' by the 'ancient aliens' of my world - including a couple hundred 'Christians.'   At this point in time, 'Christianity' was a far more varied and diverse beast than present day Christians are comfortable with - the books making up the bible were in vehement dispute, the Trinity was a hotly contested theoretical concept, and the vast majority of Christians were Gnostics who borrowed a great deal from paganism.  (The early church fathers waged endless literary war on the Gnostic sects, but were unable to suppress them completely until after Christianity became the state religion.)

Anyhow, the 'True Church' of my world was founded by 'Gnostic Christians' who viewed Christ more as a guide and saint than savior.  The True Church grew by Saintly Orders - some cleric or layperson would have a vision, or start preaching, gather a bunch of followers, and the whole lot would become another Order.  Orders also merged or split and were sometimes suppressed (sometimes violently) if the underlying theology varied too much.  Eventually, a series of reforms gave the really important orders authority over this or that aspect of life - farming, soldiering, justice, and the like.


----------



## Gurkhal

I'd say that having a complete Christianity in a fantasy setting can be a real turn off, unless the author takes care to explain it and show why its relevant to the story in a significant way. If the author just wants a generally Christianity-ish religion for the world, its far better and in my mind safer to go with a fictional religion that can be inspired by Christianity.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Both and neither I'm afraid. Avoiding the issue of whether an author is actually specifically trying to paint a Christian picture, it really comes down to your world build. If the world is completely other Earth - eg Tolkein's Middle Earth, than dropping Christianity in the middle of it would be wrong. If on the other hand the world is one that is historically accurate at least to an extent, then leaving Christianity out of it would be wrong.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## evolution_rex

Perhaps if there is some post-apocalyptic elements like in The Dark Tower series, which reference Christianity and other real-life elements quite often. Personally, I would be very displeased to find it in a fantasy. I don't mind allegories but what you're talking about would come off as a bit preachy. It comes off as saying "Christianity is the right religion so much that even fictional universes believe in it." It's sort of a bloated statement in my opinion. If that's not the intent, then it still comes off that way.


----------



## Miskatonic

You can always create a monotheistic form of religion without using real world examples.


----------



## Lunaairis

Narnia is a perfectly good series even with its Christian symbolism.
 In game of thrones the new gods are basically christianity, with a little different practices and ways of worship.   Neither of these did I ever once feel jolted out of because of the depiction of religion. Yes you can use christianity as a major religion in your works, or as a theme for a work.  It's just a tool your work will not be greater or poorer for using it.


----------



## Russ

It really depends on the author's intention.  If part of the book is social or other commentary about Christianity than using it (by name or another) strikes me as fine.  If the author wants to make a comment or needs something monotheistic and does not feel the need to build a new religion to make a small point, then borrowing from it or using it also seems fine.  

Just tossing it in for the heck of it might seem odd.

I am not of the school that feels fiction should be pure escapism.  I think the best fiction teaches me something about my life, my world, or the human condition.  I don't want to be lectured to or at, but I do want to learn and grow from the fiction I read, not just be entertained.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

Firstly, I'd like to say I'm an athiest, and I'm really not a fan of the ideologies presented by monotheisms, so when I read a carbon-copy of Christianity in a book, it pisses me off, especially when everyone in that religion is amazing and wonderful - look at history. Religion is anything but. 

However, Christianity is a monotheism (one god). It shares a good 95% of its roots, beliefs and ideas - oppression of women, hatred/ need to "redeem" heathens, the idea of an afterlife split into heaven/paradise and hell/jahannam, with the other major monotheisms of the world - Islam and Judaism. Core ideologies will be, if not the same, then similar, and if you have sects (which you should, something else that you don't see much, whilst history is full of them) be prepared for them to hate each other (again, history). If you are going to write a monotheism - it makes sense to do so, after all, the biggest religions today are monotheism, they are successful, not least due to the aggressive, expansion mindset they encourage - in the "evolution" of religion they out-compete polytheisms (many gods) because the polytheisms simply don't know they have to compete.

So basically, what it boils down to, is yes, write a monotheism, which will have many of the same traits as Christianity/ Islam/ Judaism - that is especially true if your world's social history is anything like ours, especially in the middle east where these religions came from -i.e heavily male dominated, so on and so forth. But don't set out to write Christainity - I think the easiet way to do this is to avoid many of the "Christain" holidays (all of which were stolen from pagan religions to make them more compliant to Christianity) - here I'm talking about celebrating Christmas (yule/ winter solcitice on Mithras' bday), easter (Germanic Goddess Eostre), the idea of three being "holy" - from Celtic europe and Ireland, ect, and various saints that used to be gods, such as Ireland's Saint Brighid. 

Hope this wild, passive aggressive rant helps in some form - I've been reading too much Dawkins lately and the idea of monotheisms just makes me sigh and feel a bit depressed.


----------



## Tom

I'm always a bit disappointed when I come across a pseudo-Christian religion in fantasy. As someone who is fascinated by anthropology, I'd rather see a myriad of religions whose systems differ wildly from each other. That's an area where a lot of fantasy falls short. You have your pseudo-Abrahamic monotheistic faith, then maybe a pseudo-Greek polytheistic religion, and possibly a pseudo-Gaelic polytheistic faith. The latter two will invariably ignore the intricacies of the real-world faiths they're based on in favor of a gradeschool understanding of how they function. 

Where's the animism? The ancestor worship? The literally thousands upon thousands of gods that populate faiths such as Hinduism?  I want to see many different religions, all treated like real religions--none of the sharp boundaries that we tend to establish around religions, both real and not. Religions bleed together, combining deities, swapping traditions and rituals, and fusing their myths and creeds. 

I'd like to see more of that.


----------



## FifthView

Tom Nimenai said:


> You have your pseudo-Abrahamic monotheistic faith, then maybe a pseudo-Greek polytheistic religion, and possibly a pseudo-Gaelic polytheistic faith. The latter two will invariably ignore the intricacies of the real-world faiths they're based on in favor of a gradeschool understanding of how they function.



Then there is the pseudo-Manichaeistic (or alternatively, the pseudo-Zoroastrian) faith that seems fairly common in fantasy, where there is one Ultimate Good God and his antithesis, the Ultimate Evil God, who are involved in perpetual battle.

Of the pseudo-Greek style, there is one particularly common approach, which I'll call the "pick a profession, create a god" approach.  I.e., you have the god of sailors, the god of vintners, the god of thieves, the god of blacksmiths, ....

I wonder if the creation of an absolutely new religion is completely impossible for authors, given the various permutations that have already actually occurred on Earth, combined with the authorial license and penchant for stealing (utilizing) from reality.

_How_ religion is used makes some difference for me as a reader, but it's not always a significant issue, depending on the novel I'm reading.  I remember when I was first becoming enamored with Japanese anime and I kept running into various permutations of Christianity:  I thought it was odd, a little off-putting, but I no longer do.  I've wondered if Christianity is just as "exotic" to some Japanese authors as Shinto or Hinduism or other polytheistic religions would be to many Western authors.


----------



## Tom

FifthView said:


> _How_ religion is used makes some difference for me as a reader, but it's not always a significant issue, depending on the novel I'm reading.  I remember when I was first becoming enamored with Japanese anime and I kept running into various permutations of Christianity:  I thought it was odd, a little off-putting, but I no longer do.  I've wondered if Christianity is just as "exotic" to some Japanese authors as Shinto or Hinduism or other polytheistic religions would be to many Western authors.



Exactly. The first (and only) time I saw Hellsing Ultimate, I cringed my way through the first episode as the writers seemed bound and determined to reinforce every stereotype within Christianity. The "Protestant=Good, Catholic=Bad" thing was especially bothering. I mean, I was raised Protestant, but both my parents grew up Catholic, and both of their families have strong Catholic roots. I grew up with a great respect and appreciation for the rich history of the Catholic Church. Seeing it trivialized and reduced to stereotypes that way was...painful, to say the least.


----------



## ThinkerX

> Where's the animism? The ancestor worship? The literally thousands upon thousands of gods that populate faiths such as Hinduism? I want to see many different religions, all treated like real religions--none of the sharp boundaries that we tend to establish around religions, both real and not. Religions bleed together, combining deities, swapping traditions and rituals, and fusing their myths and creeds.



Oh, I have that as well.  Get out past the bounds of the Empire...well, there be ancestor worship, pagan deities, and Lovecraftian abominations.  I realized a long time ago that a world is a big place, room for all kinds of things.


----------



## Mindfire

Feo Takahari said:


> If a story is generally "fantasy" and is otherwise not connected to any one time and place, is it distracting to have Christianity in the story? Is it better to name it as Christianity, or to give it a new name while still having it obviously be Christianity? (In _Serpent's_ case, it's the religion of the Young God.) Does the answer to the question differ if you're portraying Christianity as the one true religion (_Lone Wolf_), the evil oppressor of a good pagan religion (_The Wayfarer Redemption_), or somewhere in between (_Serpent_)?



Giving my unpolluted opinion first before I check out what others have said in the replies.

Being a Christian myself, it depends. Mostly on two things: 

How similar the fantasy religion is to Christianity and what branch of Christianity it appears to be patterned after.
What light the artist seems to be painting said Christianesque religion in.
These two things are related. In general, the more similar the fantasy religion is to Christianity, the more likely I am to be put off from the work if the religion and its followers are cast in a largely negative light while a positive portrayal might gain the artist a few bonus points in a "yay, we have similar views!" sort of way. But even still, I get annoyed when it's clear the writer is prioritizing their Christian themes over good storytelling. On the other hand, if the resemblance is more vague, only a few elements are borrowed, or the religion is patterned mostly after Christianity's Catholic branch (apologies to our Catholic scribes, I'm a Protestant), then I tend to more easily accept a negative portrayal because it doesn't hit as close to home. However, I can't stand the "Christian oppressors" narrative, not because I think Christians have never done wrong or should never be depicted as doing wrong, but because this narrative is almost always a painfully obvious neopagan soapbox. And if the wholesome pagans live in a goddess-worshiping feminist utopia until the patriarchal Christians march in to muck it up, I might vomit. As for the name, I think it's better to give it a new name unless your story explicitly takes place on some version of our Earth. But that's distracting for worldbuilding reasons and nothing to do with how the work treats Christianity.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> However, Christianity is a monotheism (one god). It shares a good 95% of its roots, beliefs and ideas - oppression of women, hatred/ need to "redeem" heathens, the idea of an afterlife split into heaven/paradise and hell/jahannam…


Let's try to keep the tone respectful. Some of our members are religious and some are not, and MS isn't the place to dissuade others of their beliefs. It's difficult to have a respectful discussion if we have our members pointing out negative aspects of the beliefs of others, whether those aspects are accurate, exaggerated or a misconception.

It seems that other than this paragraph, the thread is on-topic and related to writing. So I'm just asking everyone to please keep it that way, though I may end up moderating the offending post(s) or shutting down the thread if I get another report.


----------



## Steerpike

Thank you @Legendary Sidekick.

I think it is important, when talking about these things in the context of fantasy, to remember that we're talking about a fantasy world, not the real world. You can raise issues about how religions work in the real world, or have worked throughout history (and people may disagree over these points, certainly), but that doesn't dictate how it has to work in your fantasy world. You're not dealing with the real world and aren't constrained by its history.

if you want to have a religion, whether monotheistic or not, in your fantasy world, and it turns out adherents to that religion are wonderful, noble people, that's fine. In a fantasy context, I can see someone building that world. If you're writing allegory, then depending on what you're doing it may be necessary to write it that way. Even if you're basing your fantasy religion on a real-world religion, what you're writing about is still a fantasy variant because it takes place in a fantasy world, and you can give the religion and its adherents any attributes you want. 

The idea that X happened in the real world, so it has to be so in a fantasy world is a fundamental misconception about the possibilities of fantasy fiction.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> The idea that X happened in the real world, so it has to be so in a fantasy world is a fundamental misconception about the possibilities of fantasy fiction.




Thank-you!  I've had the exact same thought multiple times recently, spanning multiple topics.


----------



## Steerpike

FifthView said:


> Thank-you!  I've had the exact same thought multiple times recently, spanning multiple topics.



Thanks. I have as well, over threads here and at another forum. One example that pops up a lot is the idea of good and evil races, where people say you can't have them because it's just not realistic - people are shades of gray and a whole race can't be good or evil. That's true, in the real world, but not necessarily so in a fantasy world. Strange to be OK with dragons and wizards hurling fireballs, but the idea of an evil race suddenly raises "realism" issues.

Some people may not _like_ the idea of good and evil races. That's fine - people like what they like, and it's subjective. But there is nothing any more unrealistic about them than anything else that occurs in a fantasy world, and again depending on your theme or what you're doing with a work it may be perfectly reasonable to set up good and evil races. And in a fantasy world that may have an ethos of absolutes, with interactive gods who are good or bad and involved in creation, having good and evil races certainly makes sense. It's logical within the context of the world.


----------



## valiant12

Personally i believe that there shouldn't be any propaganda in fiction.




> I can't stand the "Christian oppressors" narrative, not because I think Christians have never done wrong or should never be depicted as doing wrong, but because this narrative is almost always a painfully obvious neopagan soapbox.



Unfortunately some of the people who claim that are pagans are anti semitic white supremacist. I was so disapointed when I discover that.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Steerpike said:


> …the idea of good and evil races…


Funny thing… I probably once thought of myself in the camp of liking good/evil races. My true feelings seems to manifest themselves playing your game, where my character finds the idea that all [insert fantasy race/monster]s are evil is…







I still like having the concept of good and evil characters, but basing good/evil on personal choices rather than race/nation. For religions, I tend to have demon-worshippers and such, and the rituals aren't subtle so there's no mistaking "evil" vs. "misguided." I try not to take religious issues of the real world and use them as plot devices, but then, my work is intentionally cartoonish.

I like polytheism in fantasy probably because it's so unlike my own religion, and I also like characters following the god/dess of X, and having that religion help shape that character's personality.


----------



## Steerpike

@LS

I tend not to use evil races either, because they don't really work for what I'm writing. I'm just saying there is nothing inconsistent, necessarily, about having them in a fantasy world, and you could easily create a fantasy world where such races are internally logically consistent


----------



## Chilari

Mindfire: I'm 100% with you about being sick to death of the black and white portrayal religion sometimes get. Religion A is evil and oppressive, Religion B is pure and good. The reality of religion in our own history is far more nuanced. Religions of all kinds have been used to justify or encourage actions all across the moral spectrum. And sometimes one group of people use religion for both a postive influence and a negative one at the same time, because their beliefs hold that X is immoral when the rest of society disagrees. So the stories where it's so one-sided, where Religion A and everyone in it is evil and/or Religion B and everyone in it is good, is just so flat and boring and unbelievable.

On the other hand, when religions are presented with that nuance or at least a neutral outlook, it's much easier to accept. We may forget, in this relatively secular time we live in, just how ingrained religion and the things surrounding it were to some ancient peoples. How offerings were made at shrines whenever a ship left port, how nobody went to war until they'd consulted an oracle, how the only people who could read in some places were priests and monks so if you had received a letter you took it to your priest to read it to you. How in some cultures if the harvest was bad, the gods were angry and you needed to do something to appease them - and that might be sacrificing priests who had displeased them. How communities were organised by religious leaders to build community and religious spaces where they would, for generations, go to party every holiday. How many priests, even today, do so much more than write a sermon on Saturday and read it out on Sunday, but also visit sick parishoners and help couples through marital problems and teenagers through teenager problems and act as therapist and as a community care worker and all sorts of things.

That's what I want to see in the fantasy I'm reading. Not the black and white stuff, not even the huge scope where two religions are at odds with one another or the protagonists are trying to bring down a whole religion, but the every day stuff, the year to year stuff, the individuals who make up the religious structure and the individuals who believe what they're told or what they think they've worked out based on their observations and discussions.

Here's a real-world example of religious people doing things they believe are right, but being at odds with one another even though they're the same religion: it was recently announced that a New Zealand cathedral would not accept a performance of Karl Jenkins' A Mass For Peace by a local Christian choir because one small part of it was inspired by a Muslim call for prayer. This is piece of music written in 1999 with influences from religions all over the world and a theme of unity and peace, but because the guy in charge decided a church was no place for something inspired by Islam, it cannot be performed there. Instead, it'll be performed at a nerby college.

These are people that believe in the same religion, belong to the same sect. And this is not something often seen in fiction, especially not in the black-and-white religion landscapes of fantasy. Religious people being individuals, holding slightly different beliefs, deciding to fight different battles and prioritise different priorities, just because they are different people and not defined by their religion or by the fact that they are part of a religious structure. You don't tend to see as often characters in other professions being defined by their profession, but you see it a lot more with religious people.

The Cadfael series would be a good read for anyone wanting to see it done right. Many of the characters are within the religious professions - they're monks and abbots and priors and so on. The other characters all live within, and heavily interact with, this religious framework. And yet each one is individual, with their own desires and goals and sub-beliefs below the main, widely accepted positions. And while the protagonist, Brother Cadfael, is certainly an upstanding and wise character, the same is not always true of his colleagues and there are nuances within the abbey - characters with ambitions, characters with passions, characters who want an easy life, characters who feel duty-bound to act in certain pious ways but not necessarily certain moral ways, and so on. Plus the books are based in the very beautiful and also amazing and wonderful county of Shropshire, which is always a bonus.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

@SP,

Yeah, I'm fine with people having good/evil races in their works. I'm just at the point where I'm not demonizing every demon in my own work.

Literally demons. My WIP involves demons making a "Hell on Earth." The truly evil ones end up with powerful forms, while those who see their mortal forms as a chance for redemption end up with meeker forms. (…which works out so the ones that the heroes fight who end up being the more powerful.)

But that personal preference is limited to what I do as a creator. If someone else's work declares _all orcs are evil_, I'm fine with that. LotR movies probably did right by having the orcs lack a childhood. It's hard to pull off a convincing evil baby.





Yeah. Nice try.


----------



## Steerpike

@LS yeah, and (someone can correct me if this is wrong lore-wise), I think in LoTR, the orcs were a race created by evil, corrupt magic. Maybe out of elves, or something like them if I recall. So it makes sense they might be inherently evil.

And if you're trying to work with certain themes, or write a certain type of story, it may be best for your purposes to deal in absolutes. Other stories, and the more popular ones these days it seems, deal in gray areas.


----------



## Ireth

Steerpike said:


> @LS yeah, and (someone can correct me if this is wrong lore-wise), I think in LoTR, the orcs were a race created by evil, corrupt magic. Maybe out of elves, or something like them if I recall. So it makes sense they might be inherently evil.



That's true, at least as far as their origins. But the orcs also procreate "after the manner of the Children of Eru", meaning that there are in fact orc mothers and babies -- we just don't get to see them, because it's apparently only the men who go out and do the fighting. And Tolkien himself disapproved of the idea that a race is completely evil, as it conflicted with his Catholic upbringing. So to me, that's pretty good basis for the idea of non-evil orcs and the idea that evil is learned, not innate. Even Melkor was once the most beautiful of the Ainur.


----------



## FifthView

@LS & SP:  I don't use an evil race/good race either, but if I did (and I think, as SP does, that one _could_ write an internally consistent version), I'd make it a conflict of partial vs universal divisions.  I.e., the "evil race" would be viewed that way by the other race but wouldn't view itself that way. The "evil race" might view the "good race" as being evil, or might not.  In other words, each race would have a very limited, partial knowledge of and view of the other.

I look at it a little like one might view the alien in the Aliens movies.  I doubt those extraterrestrials view themselves as being evil, while I'd bet that any humans running across them would view them as being evil – or, as "might as well be evil."  It is in their nature, like the scorpion riding the frog's back across a river.  In fact, the orcs from LOTR fit this category.  Are they evil or merely vicious in nature?

The same thing can be achieved with respect to religions.  Although we don't need to base our fantasy on historical models, we can look at historical models and see how two different religious groups might think of each other as being evil.  Or even two sects within one religion may have that view of each other (heretics.)  This doesn't mean that either is evil – or monolithically evil, since individuals within a religion may have different approaches toward their chosen religious views and practices.  But our modern acceptance of the existence of "individuals," which opposes the idea of drawing everyone of another religion from the same cloth, is relatively new in our world (and itself not universal.)

And yet it is this modern view, from modern readers, that might result in cringing when writers write in black & white.


----------



## skip.knox

I keep Christianity out of Altearth for some of the reasons mentioned on this thread, but the main one was that it complicated the history too much. In my world, the Roman Empire survives, and magic is real. The main religion is the traditional Roman pantheon, with plenty of room for regional and cultural variations, among humans. I use other races as a place to experiment with other religious systems, including atheism and monotheism. I have found that by taking this approach with non-humans, I'm more willing to go down unusual paths. I have not spent a lot of time building out these systems. I've platted, but I haven't starting building.


----------



## Mindfire

valiant12 said:


> Personally i believe that there shouldn't be any propaganda in fiction.
> 
> Unfortunately some of the people who claim that are pagans are anti semitic white supremacist. I was so disapointed when I discover that.


That's the kind of thing that is a little surprising, but really shouldn't be. In a way, paganism is the logical extreme of anti-Semitic white supremacism. Jesus was a Jew after all. And very likely a brown-skinned Jew at that.


----------



## Mindfire

Ireth said:


> That's true, at least as far as their origins. But the orcs also procreate "after the manner of the Children of Eru", meaning that there are in fact orc mothers and babies -- we just don't get to see them, because it's apparently only the men who go out and do the fighting. And Tolkien himself disapproved of the idea that a race is completely evil, as it conflicted with his Catholic upbringing. So to me, that's pretty good basis for the idea of non-evil orcs and the idea that evil is learned, not innate. Even Melkor was once the most beautiful of the Ainur.



That's the one thing I think the movies did better, subjectively speaking, than the books. In the films, the orcs aren't really a race. More like bioengineered living weapons. They aren't born, they're spawned from vats of sludge in some undefined but horrific process. This makes them more threatening and explains their inherent malevolence better than if they're thinking creatures with mates and families we just never see (even in Mordor?). Either way, I think the idea of an entirely evil race is easier to buy when they were specifically created to be evil in-universe rather than just happening to be evil or subscribing to some loosely defined "philosophy of evil".


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade

Legendary Sidekick, (actually, anyone who may have been offended by my post) many apologies - didn't mean to offended anyone! It wasn't meant to read in an anti-christian (or anti-Islam/Judaism) manner, though as you've pointed out, it isn't written in the best terms - I'm a history student, and I just put down the facts without too much bias. But as you said, the relevance is questionable. 

I'll delete that paragraph- it got a bit tangled, did not get out what I wanted to say, I really don't want to upset anyone, and quite frankly, Tom puts across a far better argument. 

I hope you don't mind if I keep the later few sentences, which talk about religious evolution? Steerpike makes some good points, but I'm a believer that human evolution and traits will stay the same, especially if they are set in worlds with highly similar conditions to ours. 

Again, sorry.


----------



## Mythopoet

Legendary Sidekick said:


> It's hard to pull off a convincing evil baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Nice try.



I think the problem here is how people define "evil". People tend to think of it as a quality that one can possess, but in actuality it's just a lack or a corruption of virtue. People also tend to use "evil" as an adjective to describe people, but people can't really "be" evil. They can "do" evil. It is actions that are to be judged good or evil, not people. 

Babies absolutely can perform evil actions. Some babies behave in ways we would call "good". Other babies definitely behave in ways we would call "evil" if they were old enough. It's just that we don't hold them culpable because they don't having the reasoning ability to make them capable of knowing right from wrong. But it's that very inability to understand right from wrong that makes babies capable of doing things that older children can't, things that, in themselves, could be called "evil" in as much as they lack any kind of goodness. 

This discussion reminds me of a story author Mike Flynn recently posted on his blog called The Promise of God:

The TOF Spot: BOOK AND STORY PREVIEWS

He posts different stories to this page on a rotation so this one won't be there forever, but it is really worth reading. I would even call it genius and it deals with the morality of actions.


----------



## FifthView

Mindfire said:


> Either way, I think the idea of an entirely evil race is easier to buy when they were specifically created to be evil in-universe rather than just happening to be evil or subscribing to some loosely defined "philosophy of evil".



I think that the fact that they were non-human helped too, and that they verged on the animalistic (as opposed to dwarves and elves and hobbits.)  I go back to my example of the alien in the Aliens movies.  I suppose that I tend to think about the possibilities of extraterrestrial intelligences  more and more these days and wonder at the possibilities.  Is the likelihood that such ET's will have variation in beliefs and temperaments, be neutral or peaceful, realistic or merely anthropomorphism?  In fantasies with non-human races, is it more realistic or less realistic to assume that these races will have as much variation within their populations as humans have?

Religion may be a different consideration altogether — unless religious views bear some strong correlation to inherent biology.  We don't exactly have any example of non-human religions in our world to draw from.

Religion in human societies...ah, a different question.  But would anyone have a problem with labelling a religion "evil" when that religion holds as a major tenet the spiritual efficacy of human sacrifice and cannibalism, if such a religion were included in a fantasy world?  Would any adherent of that religion be called "evil?"  Or merely, "misguided?"

But it seems to me that a lot of this discussion has veered away from the original topic.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> That's the one thing I think the movies did better, subjectively speaking, than the books. In the films, the orcs aren't really a race. More like bioengineered living weapons. They aren't born, they're spawned from vats of sludge in some undefined but horrific process. This makes them more threatening and explains their inherent malevolence better than if they're thinking creatures with mates and families we just never see (even in Mordor?). Either way, I think the idea of an entirely evil race is easier to buy when they were specifically created to be evil in-universe rather than just happening to be evil or subscribing to some loosely defined "philosophy of evil".



Tolkien actually put a lot of thought into the Orcs. The thing is, people tend to make sweeping generalizations based on the very limited time frame and particular conditions we see the of Orcs in the books. But this leads to faulty conclusions.

The Orcs were indeed originally Elves and Men who were corrupted by Morgoth and later by Sauron. Particular emphasis is made of the fact that Morgoth and Sauron cannot make anything, they can only twist it. During all the First Age from the beginning of the emergence of the Orcs they are under the power of Morgoth. Morgoth controls them with his will, making them his slaves and soldiers. When Morgoth is gone, Sauron takes over that role. Basically, whenever there is war between the Elves, Men and Orcs it is because a greater power is controlling the Orcs to use them as foot soldiers. When such a power is not controlling them, they tend to retreat into mountain settlements and only come into conflict with the other races when those races trespass on their territory. This pretty much makes them no worse than many human societies in Middle-earth who were in league with Sauron, often worshiping him as a god. In LOTR, the Orcs are once again under the dominion of Sauron or in some cases Saruman, who is the same order of being as Sauron. 

Tolkien wrote some essays about the Orcs and concluded that they must, ultimately, be redeemable. Even if it was nearly impossible because of their corruption, it could not be completely impossible, since they were still, in their basic nature, Children of Iluvatar. Morgoth couldn't change that.

I think people focus on the Orcs because they are described in very ugly and grotesque ways. But this highlights the evil of Sauron and Morgoth, not the Orcs. Sauron and Morgoth could not make their own minions. And when they took Elves and Men and altered them so that they could be controlled, they also made them ugly and detestable because their own power was so corrupted they could do nothing good with it. The Orcs are an example of what happens when you try to use power such as the Ring.


----------



## Incanus

Just wanted to point out something about orcs in the LotR movies.  We only see the special Uruk-hai- type orcs being created by Saruman, we never see (or hear about) how the standard orcs come into being.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> Legendary Sidekick, (actually, anyone who may have been offended by my post) many apologies - didn't mean to offended anyone! It wasn't meant to read in an anti-christian (or anti-Islam/Judaism) manner, though as you've pointed out, it isn't written in the best terms - I'm a history student, and I just put down the facts without too much bias. But as you said, the relevance is questionable.
> 
> I'll delete that paragraph- it got a bit tangled, did not get out what I wanted to say, I really don't want to upset anyone, and quite frankly, Tom puts across a far better argument.
> 
> I hope you don't mind if I keep the later few sentences, which talk about religious evolution? Steerpike makes some good points, but I'm a believer that human evolution and traits will stay the same, especially if they are set in worlds with highly similar conditions to ours.
> 
> Again, sorry.


I don't feel the need to delete (though, if you'd like me to delete any part of it, go ahead and PM me which text you want removed). I'm not surprised you had no intention to offend and that you didn't see how someone with a different POV could take offense. That's almost always the case.


----------



## MineOwnKing

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I don't feel the need to delete (though, if you'd like me to delete any part of it, go ahead and PM me which text you want removed). I'm not surprised you had no intention to offend and that you didn't see how someone with a different POV could take offense. That's almost always the case.



I suggest not encouraging MonkeyBlade to delete.


----------



## Mythopoet

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> Firstly, I'd like to say I'm an athiest, and I'm really not a fan of the ideologies presented by monotheisms, so when I read a carbon-copy of Christianity in a book, it pisses me off, especially when everyone in that religion is amazing and wonderful - look at history. Religion is anything but.



Actually, I'm curious about this reaction. Because I have NEVER, ever, ever come across a book where everyone in a Christian-esque religion is amazing and wonderful. I almost always find, in books that deal with historical Christianity or any Christian-esque religion that the majority of the members of the religion are nasty, petty, depraved people and there might be a few odd ones out that are actually good, but only because they don't really follow the tenets of the religion. So basically, it comes down to "all Christians are bad, the only good ones aren't really Christians at all". Seriously, almost every single time. And, as a Christian, it pisses me off. 

So, I'm curious about what kinds of books you've read where Christians are all painted as wonderful? Aside from Christian Fiction, obviously. Can you give me the name of a generally well regarded fantasy novel that makes the monotheists all perfect? I can't think of anything even remotely like that myself.


----------



## MineOwnKing

Mythopoet said:


> Actually, I'm curious about this reaction. Because I have NEVER, ever, ever come across a book where everyone in a Christian-esque religion is amazing and wonderful. I almost always find, in books that deal with historical Christianity or any Christian-esque religion that the majority of the members of the religion are nasty, petty, depraved people and there might be a few odd ones out that are actually good, but only because they don't really follow the tenets of the religion. So basically, it comes down to "all Christians are bad, the only good ones aren't really Christians at all". Seriously, almost every single time. And, as a Christian, it pisses me off.
> 
> So, I'm curious about what kinds of books you've read where Christians are all painted as wonderful? Aside from Christian Fiction, obviously. Can you give me the name of a generally well regarded fantasy novel that makes the monotheists all perfect? I can't think of anything even remotely like that myself.



I would hope that you could relax about this topic. I think he was trying hard to be respectful.

We are all programmed differently to be sensitive to our core beliefs.

Being born an atheist is not a choice, but it doesn't mean that we do not love those of faith, as obviously we do.

I believe that we are all born good, and that self reliance is the only gold standard worth spit.

I think writers in general are over sensitive to their core beliefs and that we all suffer from mild forms of mental illness.

Please give him a break and chill out.

We are all writers, and therefore must stick together.


----------



## Steerpike

Let's remain focused on the subject matter at hand, not on the individual forum members.

My experience coincides with what @Mythopoet stated, above. Mainstream fiction seems to me much more likely to cast Christianity in a negative, rather than positive, light. I'm not religious, so I don't have a personal reaction to it, but I've certainly noticed it.


----------



## Incanus

Hey... Whoa.  I thought I saw a hippogriff just fly past my window.  Na, couldn't have been--


----------



## Reaver

Ireth said:


> And Tolkien himself disapproved of the idea that a race is completely evil, as it conflicted with his Catholic upbringing. So to me, that's pretty good basis for the idea of non-evil orcs and the idea that evil is learned, not innate.



Excellent point friend Ireth! As it just so happens, I have a first hand account that proves that orcs are just average joes, trying to make an honest buck:

*                                                                                            ORC*

_'"I see here on your resume that your previous employer was an 'evil wizard'. Is there a reason why you didn't put his name?"

"Yes!" the orc growled, leaping out of his comfy chair. He reached for his sword but suddenly remembered that he'd checked it at the security desk. A sheepish grin covered his scarred, grayish-black face and he sat back down. "It's embarrassing to even be associated with him. Because of the way he died and everything."

The interviewer nodded. "Oh... I know who you're referring to. Yeah, I wouldn't put his name on a resume either. Unfortunate how close he came to ruling alongside the other one with the similar sounding name."

"Stupid halfling!" the orc roared, leaping to his feet yet again and pounding his spade-clawed hands on the interviewers desk. "Wish it would've died! If I'd been there I'da caught it and ate it."

"I know, right?" the interviewer agreed. "And what's with those giant eagles?"

"Bloody deus ex machinas!" the orc grumbled. "That's all they are. Complete bullshit."

"Well, truth be told," the interviewer started, "I'm sorta glad that the halfling did what he did. Business soared after S-er... you know who was destroyed."

The orc sat down in a huff. "I suppose you have a point. Gave me a chance to heal up and go to business school."

The interviewer looked at another piece of paper. "Oh yes, that's right. You're a disabled veteran." She smiled. "Thank you for your service."

"I am an orc!" the orc roared, leaping to his feet and thumping on his barrel chest. "I live to serve!"

"Very good!" the interviewer said, rising to her feet and extending her hand. "You're hired."_


----------



## X Equestris

Mythopoet said:


> Actually, I'm curious about this reaction. Because I have NEVER, ever, ever come across a book where everyone in a Christian-esque religion is amazing and wonderful. I almost always find, in books that deal with historical Christianity or any Christian-esque religion that the majority of the members of the religion are nasty, petty, depraved people and there might be a few odd ones out that are actually good, but only because they don't really follow the tenets of the religion. So basically, it comes down to "all Christians are bad, the only good ones aren't really Christians at all". Seriously, almost every single time. And, as a Christian, it pisses me off.
> 
> So, I'm curious about what kinds of books you've read where Christians are all painted as wonderful? Aside from Christian Fiction, obviously. Can you give me the name of a generally well regarded fantasy novel that makes the monotheists all perfect? I can't think of anything even remotely like that myself.



This is much the same as my experience.  Too often the members of a pseudo-Christianity are all painted with one brush, and the only good ones are at the lower levels and/or don't really follow it.  

That's part of why I like the Andrastian Chantry from Dragon Age.  It and its followers are given a fairly nuanced portrayal, with some sympathetic, heroic characters and some downright vile ones.


----------



## Devor

I haven't read all the posts here.  I'm sorry if I'm missing something or repeating someone.

I have trouble believing any real religions were ever as, I guess I would call it "monotone" as the ones in the fantasy stories we read.  So I find myself frowning on most portrayals of religion that I see in fantasy books - good, bad, Christian, pagan, whatever.  If you think of a real world religion as being somewhat monotone, you probably don't understand it very well.

In my opinion, doing religion well is a "higher level" technique that most people should just kind of skimp by.  The risks are high that you'll pull people out of the story with over done messages, misportrayals, or stereotypes.  Too often they just lack the depth and character that real world religions do.

That said, there is a religion in one of my stories that I worked pretty hard on getting down right.  I wanted to develop the six gods as characters who have shaped the world, giving each of them depth, while also tying each of them to the unique magics featured in the story.  Since the gods are openly real in this setting, but limited to their own form of magic by a vow they made with each other, what develops in the culture are different ideologies for viewing whether the gods are good or bad, or behaving the way they should, as well as different "serving traditions" which focus on developing the magics the gods create to do good for society.

For instance - to keep it simple - a master of the judging tradition would spend his or her life learning how to use the rules of karma (dragon god), personality typing (tortoise god), and so on to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime, or should be trained as a scholar, or given a loan for a business.  They might also criticize one of the gods for being too harsh with slobs or too generous to criminals with the chi that such people are given or the lives they'll be reborn into, and they'll argue about it with others of their tradition.  Different regions might have really crappy or corrupt judging houses, some might have really good ones, and some might only have judging masters they've paid to come in from outside.  And the judging tradition is just one of ten serving traditions that have similar roles shaping their society into something unique and deep.

But when you put it all together, with the six gods and the subtle magics and the ten traditions and the individual ideologies, I actually have plenty of material to talk about real world religions if I wanted to, I would say, in ways that are more deep and nuanced than you typically see.

It all goes back to that word:  Monotone.  I've known Catholics who have said they yell at God or Jews who complain that the Messiah is late - and would still describe their faith as strong.  If you really want to create and understand a religion that feels real, start by picturing a feast and a dance, and try to understand how the religious doctrines help people to celebrate and society to function a little more strongly because it does so a little more cohesively.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

The problem with "monotone" religions has the same root as monotone anything else that's complicated in a fantasy world. I see this problem with governments. How often do we see people in a society going about willy-nilly defying the rule of law? All the time. What are the consequences for such defiance? Nothing. They never get sued, go to court, or suffer any of the consequences. At worst they go to jail and escape, at best they're thanked for their defiance. It's annoying, but it is what it is. This monotone comes from the fact that not one single person is or can be an expert on everything. By understanding this we will overcome world builder's disease and instead of building a world we'll actually write the book. 

In any event, those are my thoughts on that.


----------



## Devor

Brian Scott Allen said:


> This monotone comes from the fact that not one single person is or can be an expert on everything. By understanding this we will overcome world builder's disease and instead of building a world we'll actually write the book.



In business school, one of the things that comes up a lot is to "control your competitive advantage, go ahead and outsource everything else."  I mentioned a story of mine where the religion is a central facet of what's going on so I put a lot into it.  In most cases, it isn't, and people shouldn't spend too much time on it.

The longer I've been here, the more I've started to get put off by the debate around "worldbuilder's disease" because I think it misses the point.  To me, it's more like:  If religion is not a central concept of your story, what are the "quick guidelines" of doing it right?  If religion is a big piece of my story, what are the more involved things that I can do with it?

I kind of answered the second question with my previous example.  But the answer to the first question, I've come to feel, is to just skip through the details and focus on the characters' attitudes towards it. With religion in particular, I think you run the risk of stereotyping, bringing in your own preconceived, underdeveloped notions, and breaking immersion by recalling real-world elements.  It's something that's a big part of people cultural identity and deserves, for that reason, to be treated with a little more thought when it's included.

Take ASOIAF.  My favorite portrayal of the religion there was the one brief moment where Tyrion prayed to the stranger ahead of the capital being attacked.  That one moment made me like GRRM's whole portrayal because it felt real.  But then came the sparrows and the thing with Cersei and the religion became a faction / player in the game, and while I was reading it, it honestly made me consider giving up on the series.  It felt tried and tired and simple and monotonous.  The more he developed the religion itself, beyond the main characters' attitudes towards it, the more put off I was by reading it.

At the same time, with Arya Stark the religion of the faceless man is a central concept of her story, and you can see that play out very strongly in the level of depth it's given.


----------



## Mythopoet

MineOwnKing said:


> I would hope that you could relax about this topic. I think he was trying hard to be respectful.
> 
> We are all programmed differently to be sensitive to our core beliefs.
> 
> Being born an atheist is not a choice, but it doesn't mean that we do not love those of faith, as obviously we do.
> 
> I believe that we are all born good, and that self reliance is the only gold standard worth spit.
> 
> I think writers in general are over sensitive to their core beliefs and that we all suffer from mild forms of mental illness.
> 
> Please give him a break and chill out.
> 
> We are all writers, and therefore must stick together.



I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to get on the poster's case. I was really just honestly curious about what sorts of books he found that treat Christianity as amazing and perfect. I'm certainly not upset or anything. (My comment about books making me pissed off was just to mirror his comment about books making him pissed off, to show the other side of the coin.) I still would love to know the names of some books or authors that treat Christianity that way, because really I've never come across that before outside of Christian Fiction, which is a whole other can of worms. 


On the subject of monotone religious depictions... I can't help thinking that it is at least partly because a lot of atheists seem to be incapable of viewing religion as more than a fraud, even in a fictional setting. And many atheists tend to paint religious people all with the same brush in real life too, so they do the same thing in fiction. I think it's easier for Christians to understand what it's like to disbelieve in God because we all have times of doubt. Many atheists don't seem to be able to understand what it's like to believe in God, and can't even imagine it. So they tend to include religions, because there's always been religion whether they like it or not, but can't make it believable because they can't really fathom it.


----------



## Russ

WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade said:


> Firstly, I'd like to say I'm an athiest, and I'm really not a fan of the ideologies presented by monotheisms, so when I read a carbon-copy of Christianity in a book, it pisses me off, especially when everyone in that religion is amazing and wonderful - look at history. Religion is anything but.
> 
> However, Christianity is a monotheism (one god). It shares a good 95% of its roots, beliefs and ideas - oppression of women, hatred/ need to "redeem" heathens, the idea of an afterlife split into heaven/paradise and hell/jahannam, with the other major monotheisms of the world - Islam and Judaism. Core ideologies will be, if not the same, then similar, and if you have sects (which you should, something else that you don't see much, whilst history is full of them) be prepared for them to hate each other (again, history). If you are going to write a monotheism - it makes sense to do so, after all, the biggest religions today are monotheism, they are successful, not least due to the aggressive, expansion mindset they encourage - in the "evolution" of religion they out-compete polytheisms (many gods) because the polytheisms simply don't know they have to compete.
> 
> So basically, what it boils down to, is yes, write a monotheism, which will have many of the same traits as Christianity/ Islam/ Judaism - that is especially true if your world's social history is anything like ours, especially in the middle east where these religions came from -i.e heavily male dominated, so on and so forth. But don't set out to write Christainity - I think the easiet way to do this is to avoid many of the "Christain" holidays (all of which were stolen from pagan religions to make them more compliant to Christianity) - here I'm talking about celebrating Christmas (yule/ winter solcitice on Mithras' bday), easter (Germanic Goddess Eostre), the idea of three being "holy" - from Celtic europe and Ireland, ect, and various saints that used to be gods, such as Ireland's Saint Brighid.
> 
> Hope this wild, passive aggressive rant helps in some form - I've been reading too much Dawkins lately and the idea of monotheisms just makes me sigh and feel a bit depressed.



You have been reading too much Dawkins lately, and he really has not written anything of quality since he stopped being a scientist and has become a professional atheist.  Many of his comments on history are both inaccurate and intentionally dishonest.  You really need to read him critically if you want to get anywhere close to the facts.

Your post contains a number of both factual and logical errors and since it involves real groups of real people I think it important to point out a few of them so people who read it are not left with the impression it is true.  I waited a while to respond which means this won't be right beside it, but it seems still worth the exercise.

I literally don't have time to correct all of the errors in this post but will just hit a few highlights.

Although your post is not clear, it should be clear that Judaism while monotheistic is not the slightest bit expansionist.

St. Brigid is not a stolen pagan god, she was a real person.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare

She has the same name as a pagan god, but saying that having the same name means they used to be that person is silly.  All of the people names Jesus or Mohammed used to be those people?  Is the terminator really trying to say he is a black plowman?   That is just a kind of silly/slanderous misinterpretation.

The origin of the english word "easter" possibly having a connection to a German god is interesting, but does not mean that the idea of easter has anything to do with that goddess.  Even a moment's thought would make it clear that there were words for that celebration in Latin and Greek which had nothing to do with any German goddess, but were rather more closely related to the word for passover.  So Christians were celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus as a holiday long before any reference in literature to this German goddess, and thus since the idea of easter long pre-dates any findings of the name of this German goddess.  You have unfortunately confused the etiology of the English word with the origin of the idea or event.  It is like suggesting that the idea of courage did not exist before that particular word did.  Faulty logic leading to a false conclusion.

I can't blame you for falling into these traps, there is plenty of pseudo-history being published these days that is hostile to the Abrahamic faiths and spouts lots of factual and logical errors that feed into pre-conceived biases, but with a solid grounding in history and a little basic logic you can avoid the worst of it.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> Basically, whenever there is war between the Elves, Men and Orcs it is because a greater power is controlling the Orcs to use them as foot soldiers. When such a power is not controlling them, they tend to retreat into mountain settlements and only come into conflict with the other races when those races trespass on their territory. This pretty much makes them no worse than many human societies in Middle-earth who were in league with Sauron, often worshiping him as a god.



Well, yes... and no. The books make it clear that orcs/goblins and trolls are cannibalistic and inherently malevolent, even when there's no dark force directing them. I mean Sauron wasn't technically around during The Hobbit, or at least the orcs and trolls had no knowledge of the Necromancer in Dol Goldur. And yet they're still depicted as vicious, unintelligent savages.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> On the subject of monotone religious depictions... I can't help thinking that it is at least partly because a lot of atheists seem to be incapable of viewing religion as more than a fraud, even in a fictional setting. And many atheists tend to paint religious people all with the same brush in real life too, so they do the same thing in fiction. I think it's easier for Christians to understand what it's like to disbelieve in God because we all have times of doubt. Many atheists don't seem to be able to understand what it's like to believe in God, and can't even imagine it. So they tend to include religions, because there's always been religion whether they like it or not, but can't make it believable because they can't really fathom it.


This seems to assume that all or most fantasy writers are non-religious. Given that the vast majority of the world's population is religious in some form, that seems improbable. Of course it's not impossible, but the implication is that- for some reason- non-religious people are more likely to write, or at least to write spec fic, than religious people are. Looking at the history of literature, I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe in sci-fi, which has typically been a haven for atheists and skeptics, but in fantasy?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Mythopoet said:


> On the subject of monotone religious depictions... I can't help thinking that it is at least partly because a lot of atheists seem to be incapable of viewing religion as more than a fraud, even in a fictional setting. And many atheists tend to paint religious people all with the same brush in real life too, so they do the same thing in fiction. I think it's easier for Christians to understand what it's like to disbelieve in God because we all have times of doubt. Many atheists don't seem to be able to understand what it's like to believe in God, and can't even imagine it. So they tend to include religions, because there's always been religion whether they like it or not, but can't make it believable because they can't really fathom it.


I think religious characters should be viewed as any other "diversity" case.

That is, if you want your world to be more "real," you want a diverse cast. But at the same time, you want to respect whatever ethnicity, orientation, religion, etc. that you represent. That doesn't mean that all characters not like you must be awesome, or you're dissing the ethnicity/orientation/religion… but you do want to avoid stereotypes and misconceptions, and strive for an honest depiction of the world through another's eyes.

A simple way of looking at a religious character or religion, for me, is based on two questions. (1) What the the god/dess stand for? (2) Is S/he good or evil?

A religious MC who follows a good battle goddess (properly) will be courageous and take risks for innocents, because these are good actions that are true to the religion. If she's ripping hearts out of her enemies and eating them for power, that blood magic might be good for a battle goddess, but not if the goddess is good. I know grey morality is popular, but I think the religion or the god/dess should be more "extreme" good/evil. It's the followers who are too human to be 100% good or evil. So maybe the devout follower of the battle goddess does get carried away, keep beating a corpse into an unrecognizable mess, and walk away from a fight speckled in the blood of many and with a piece of intestine knotted in her hair—or the villainous blood mage isn't so evil that she'd eat a baby, and she would turn on any blood mage who would.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

A little shout out to original Star Wars: Obi-Wan is an awesome religious character. Han Solo is an awesome atheist. Both ideologies are depicted respectfully.


----------



## FifthView

Mythopoet said:


> I was really just honestly curious about what sorts of books he found that treat Christianity as amazing and perfect. I'm certainly not upset or anything. (My comment about books making me pissed off was just to mirror his comment about books making him pissed off, to show the other side of the coin.) I still would love to know the names of some books or authors that treat Christianity that way, because really I've never come across that before outside of Christian Fiction, which is a whole other can of worms.



We are dealing with two different things here:  Christianity expressed (expressly!) as Christianity, and pseudo-Christianity which might go under a different name but bears some of the trappings of Christianity.  

As for explicit Christianity, I haven't read many fantasy novels or stories that include it.

"Trappings" might seem a derogatory term, but I don't mean it to be derogatory.  However, when handled in monotone or as propaganda, "trappings" might seem an appropriate description, since authors take some of the tenets, symbolism, stereotypes, etc., of Christianity and slap them onto a "new" religion.  This new religion might, on the surface, be polytheistic or pantheistic; but usually one expression of it will seem (at least to this reader) to be thinly veiled Christianity.  Watching season 5 of Game of Thrones, I cringed when the Sparrows were on-screen; obviously, they were modeled on one historical manifestation of Christianity.  Shaming, asceticism, the persecution of women, the hidden altar deep below ground, etc., I mention as examples.

For that matter, I wonder whether authors who are Christian will or should object to showing a medieval style of Christianity in a fantasy novel which has as its basis a medieval-ish society; or will they insist that a more moderate and modern Christianity should be slapped into that world, if Christianity is used as any kind of model in the novel?  I don't mean to insult anyone's Christian faith, although I do wonder whether a modern Christian suddenly transported to 1200 A.D. Europe would find issue with some of the practices and tenets of the Church that was in power then.  I also don't mean to imply that ALL expressions of Christianity in medieval periods were uniformly of one type, or that there was no variation or difference of opinion even at that time.

On the other side of things, I _have_, many times, experienced the "only positive" pseudo-Christianity in fantasy novels.  Most inclusions of monasteries and monks don't bring to mind the Eastern, Asian variety (e.g., Buddhist monks) as described, particularly when they are a scholarly class copying texts and prone to give sanctuary to weary travelers.  Often, clerics and priest-healers, and so forth will be drawn as selfless helpers following in the path of their peaceful god.   Cathedrals, churches, and so forth will sometimes be where these healers and priests work.   I even remember one example of a "savior" god of one of these priestly classes who sacrificed himself for the people—although I frustratingly can't remember the novel right now.  Often in these novels, the primary villain will be some Dark Lord or a priestess of a dark religion involving demons, sacrifices, and all kinds of evil, and one of the MCs or significant side-character will be a member of the peaceful, selfless, golden-rule-following church.  Sometimes, the infrastructure of the religion, the priestly class, won't play a major role in the novel (e.g., when the novel's main plot is not a war against some supreme evil but is instead some sort of internal political struggle), and so that class will play a background role — for whenever healing is needed or the MCs seek wise advice or need a place to pray and prepare for something.

Now, when looking for these pseudo-Christian examples, it can be easy to say that, no, this or that priest or healer is actually a pagan — pagan religions can be peaceful too! — and, it can alternatively be easy to say that the oppressive, persecuting, negative version could be thinly-veiled Islam, Zoroastrianism or polytheism.  When the surface of the religion in question involves polytheism, these other cues could be misinterpreted, one way or another.  So I wonder if an over-sensitivity might lead one to dismiss, or see, either the positive or the negative treatment of Christianity. 




> On the subject of monotone religious depictions... I can't help thinking that it is at least partly because a lot of atheists seem to be incapable of viewing religion as more than a fraud, even in a fictional setting. And many atheists tend to paint religious people all with the same brush in real life too, so they do the same thing in fiction. I think it's easier for Christians to understand what it's like to disbelieve in God because we all have times of doubt. Many atheists don't seem to be able to understand what it's like to believe in God, and can't even imagine it. So they tend to include religions, because there's always been religion whether they like it or not, but can't make it believable because they can't really fathom it.



Most atheists seem to me to have been raised in religious households or religious communities, many were in fact early adherents in childhood and even young adulthood (at least, have attended a church or temple as non-atheist during formative years), and actually have an ability to "imagine it."  Atheists are not so thick-headed, stupid, and stubborn as you might assume.  Of course, some are; but so are some believers.


----------



## Mindfire

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I think religious characters should be viewed as any other "diversity" case.
> 
> That is, if you want your world to be more "real," you want a diverse cast. But at the same time, you want to respect whatever ethnicity, orientation, religion, etc. that you represent. That doesn't mean that all characters not like you must be awesome, or you're dissing the ethnicity/orientation/religion… but you do want to avoid stereotypes and misconceptions, and strive for an honest depiction of the world through another's eyes.


This is good advice, but I think there's an elephant in the room. Namely: if you have conflicting ideologies in your world, then clearly one of them has to be wrong and one of them has to be right. Unless you have some kind of higher transcendant truth that makes them both wrong, or both right for that matter. (Dragon Age was mentioned earlier and it seems to be moving in that direction. The Trespasser DLC is awesome!) But while you could use this technique to believably make the case that all religions are true or all religions are false (speaking solely of fantasy worlds here), I don't think it works for atheism vs. any kind of theism because these two stances are inherently contradictory. There can't be both gods and no gods at the same time. So the question is, how do you show that a belief in your world is false while still treating that viewpoint with respect? Won't designating a certain in-universe belief false be itself perceived as an attack on its real-world equivalent?


----------



## Steerpike

In fiction, you can always create a divide between reader knowledge and character knowledge. You could have atheists in a fantasy world where, while it is clear to the readers and even some characters that gods exist, it is unclear and unproven to other characters.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Mindfire said:


> So the question is, how do you show that a belief in your world is false while still treating that viewpoint with respect?


I think Star Wars did that well with Han Solo. Clearly, the Jedi religion is correct. There is a Force. _The _Force. But Han Solo's seen all kinds of hokey religions. BS, he says in a PG sort of way.

I think you could also have a religious character and an atheist character and leave both of their ideologies unproven. Those followers of good and evil battle goddesses I mentioned were being true to their goddesses, but none of their actions proved either goddess is real. Even the aforementioned blood magic might not be Proof of Goddess but the result of an adrenaline surge that happens whenever anyone eats a freshly plucked heart from one who died while experiencing an adrenaline surge himself, but only battle mages are crazy enough to do that.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> This seems to assume that all or most fantasy writers are non-religious. Given that the vast majority of the world's population is religious in some form, that seems improbable. Of course it's not impossible, but the implication is that- for some reason- non-religious people are more likely to write, or at least to write spec fic, than religious people are. Looking at the history of literature, I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe in sci-fi, which has typically been a haven for atheists and skeptics, but in fantasy?



No, I don't believe it does assume that. I certainly don't. Because I was addressing an issue that occurs within only a small percentage of fantasy stories, I was not implying anything at all about fantasy or spec fic in general. I was addressing "monotone" portrayals of religion in fantasy and what might be one of the main reasons for them, from my perspective. So already I'm not talking about fantasy that doesn't deal with religion at all, or fantasy that deals with religion well. And of fantasy that has "monotone" religious depictions I said merely that I _think_ it is "at least partly" because of atheists who can't imagine true  religious belief in a positive way. So, I'm not making assumptions about anything. 



FifthView said:


> Most atheists seem to me to have been raised in religious households or religious communities, many were in fact early adherents in childhood and even young adulthood (at least, have attended a church or temple as non-atheist during formative years), and actually have an ability to "imagine it."  Atheists are not so thick-headed, stupid, and stubborn as you might assume.  Of course, some are; but so are some believers.



Well, there's a huge difference between being raised as a child in a religion and actually being able to understand religion as an adult. The one does not automatically lead to the other. And I'm not sure it's even the case that "most" atheists were raised in religious homes these days. I am certainly not assuming anything in general about atheists. But there definitely are some thick-headed and stubborn atheists out there and I'm sure some of them write spec fic. After all, it's an attitude that's pretty common among sci fi writers.


----------



## Mythopoet

FifthView said:


> On the other side of things, I _have_, many times, experienced the "only positive" pseudo-Christianity in fantasy novels.



Ok, but you still haven't given me a single concrete example. I'm really interested in a title or an author that I can look up because I would be interested in seeing how that kind of portrayal is executed.


----------



## Mindfire

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I think Star Wars did that well with Han Solo. Clearly, the Jedi religion is correct. There is a Force. _The _Force. But Han Solo's seen all kinds of hokey religions. BS, he says in a PG sort of way.


Well yeah, but by the end of it all Han accepts the Force as real. (Anyone would after seeing Darth Vader block blaster fire with his hand before snatching the gun away with telekinesis.) And I'm pretty sure he says "May the Force be with you" either in Empire or RoJ.



Legendary Sidekick said:


> I think you could also have a religious character and an atheist character and leave both of their ideologies unproven.


Theoretically yes... unless you're writing a story where gods/demons/spirits are directly involved. Or if for whatever reason you want to vindicate your protagonist's beliefs.



Mythopoet said:


> I was addressing "monotone" portrayals of religion in fantasy and what might be one of the main reasons for them, from my perspective.


Well I'm not convinced the fraction of books with "monotone" religions is as small as you say. I think the religions in most fantasy could be fairly described as "monotone", because most people don't really flesh them out. You say "monotone" religion is the work of atheists. I observe that most fantasy religions are "monotone". I therefore conclude that you are implying, though perhaps unintentionally, that most fantasy is the work of atheists. That seems unlikely to me, so I am skeptical of your explanation.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> Well I'm not convinced the fraction of books with "monotone" religions is as small as you say. I think the religions in most fantasy could be fairly described as "monotone", because most people don't really flesh them out. You say "monotone" religion is the work of atheists. I observe that most fantasy religions are "monotone". I therefore conclude that you are implying, though perhaps unintentionally, that most fantasy is the work of atheists. That seems unlikely to me, so I am skeptical of your explanation.



Well, I think that fantasy that spends much time at all dealing with religion is only a small subset of all the fantasy. 

And no, I didn't say that monotone religion "is the work of atheists". I said that I think it is at least _partly_ due to a certain type of atheist. Please stop misrepresenting what I said.


----------



## FifthView

Mythopoet said:


> Ok, but you still haven't given me a single concrete example. I'm really interested in a title or an author that I can look up because I would be interested in seeing how that kind of portrayal is executed.



When I can find the time, I'll sift through my brain and three decades' worth of reading and create you a list.

I find it odd that you've not run into any of these examples, however, because there are many.  Of course not all, and in fact not most, fantasy novels utilize the types of examples I gave in my previous post.  But examples do exist.  Mostly I've made a note of them in my head when I've been reading, then kept reading unperturbed.  But I didn't keep a running written list over the decades because I didn't expect to have to pull out one as an example of how Christians aren't uniformly lambasted in fantasy literature when Christian tenets, organization, etc., (the "trappings") are used.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think Christians have been uniformly lambasted. I've read fantasy novels with positive views of Christians. I think Andrew Greeley even wrote some stuff that qualifies as fantasy. But I'd say that at least among modern fiction, books that take a dim view of Christian theology and morality, directly or indirectly, are more prevalent.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> But I'd say that at least among modern fiction, books that take a dim view of Christian theology and morality, directly or indirectly, are more prevalent.



I'd like a more thorough discussion of something I mentioned in my previous post, which seems to have gone by the wayside since I wrote it.

When developing a medieval-ish society in fantasy, what is particularly wrong with styling a pseudo-Christian church after medieval Christian beliefs and practices, in part or in whole?


----------



## Mythopoet

I'm not looking for books where Christians just aren't lambasted. WeilderoftheMonkeyBlade specifically mentioned reading books where there are "carbon-copy of Christianity" religions where "everyone in that religion is amazing and wonderful". I've never, ever come across such a thing. Never, ever heard of a depiction of religion based on Christianity where all the people in the religion are "amazing and wonderful" in any fantasy book. That's what I'm interested in. I could name works where Christianity or pseudo-Christianity is depicted positively. Not the same thing. I'm wondering if there really are any works out there that are as unbalanced in Christianity's favor as all the books I've read are unbalanced against it.


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> I'd like a more thorough discussion of something I mentioned in my previous post, which seems to have gone by the wayside since I wrote it.
> 
> When developing a medieval-ish society in fantasy, what is particularly wrong with styling a pseudo-Christian church after medieval Christian beliefs and practices, in part or in whole?



Nothing.  But acting like such an organization is almost entirely one thing or another is something of a disservice.


----------



## FifthView

X Equestris said:


> Nothing.  But acting like such an organization is almost entirely one thing or another is something of a disservice.



Sometimes a story only needs the persecution, and a segue to some tiny, powerless sect within the church opposed to burning witches would only be a distraction, however fair and balanced.

I say this never having written such a thing.  My current WIP has a society that practices a sort of deistic form of religion, albeit founded upon belief in a goddess who has stepped back after designing the world and setting things in motion.  And there is a philosophical schism, and a handful of extremists on either side of the point of dispute.  And both are wrong about their goddess and the origin of their empire -- so, not monotone.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> When I can find the time, I'll sift through my brain and three decades' worth of reading and create you a list.
> 
> I find it odd that you've not run into any of these examples, however, because there are many.  Of course not all, and in fact not most, fantasy novels utilize the types of examples I gave in my previous post.  But examples do exist.  Mostly I've made a note of them in my head when I've been reading, then kept reading unperturbed.  But I didn't keep a running written list over the decades because I didn't expect to have to pull out one as an example of how Christians aren't uniformly lambasted in fantasy literature when Christian tenets, organization, etc., (the "trappings") are used.



Factually I am with MP on this one.  I can't think of a example in modern fantasy fiction I have read that portrays Christianity or Christianity in disguise in the positive light WMB suggested is troubling.  At the very least I think Steerpike has it right, that books critical of traditional Christianity are far more common than the very few that might have positive portrayals.

I think there are reasons for this, and am not the slightest bit concerned about it, but I do think we have to recognize it is a trend of some staying power.


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> Sometimes a story only needs the persecution, and a segue to some tiny, powerless sect within the church opposed to burning witches would only be a distraction, however fair and balanced.
> 
> I say this never having written such a thing.  My current WIP has a society that practices a sort of deistic form of religion, albeit founded upon belief in a goddess who has stepped back after designing the world and setting things in motion.  And there is a philosophical schism, and a handful of extremists on either side of the point of dispute.  And both are wrong about their goddess and the origin of their empire -- so, not monotone.



All you need in that story would be one person to speak up.  Just one.  It could be done easily enough, without being intrusive.  

Further, the notion that witch burning was some big thing in the Middle Ages is fundamentally flawed.  In fact, for quite a while the belief that magic was real was considered heretical.  Witch hunts didn't really take off until the tail end of the Middle Ages/ early Renaissance, and even then they've been over exaggerated in popular history.


----------



## FifthView

@Mythopoet & @Russ,

We may have been arguing past each other, because I wasn't addressing works "as unbalanced in Christianity's favor." Although, I do think that including a positive portrayal, however limited, without a corresponding negative portrayal within a novel could be counted as an overall positive portrayal.  So most of my non-specific (unreferenced) examples were meant to cover such cases.  I don't think that a writer would have to write variations of the Narnia books to be considered among those who have given a positive portrayal -- although writing an explicitely pro-Christian novel is not the same thing as borrowing Christian themes.


----------



## FifthView

X Equestris said:


> All you need in that story would be one person to speak up.  Just one.  It could be done easily enough, without being intrusive.
> 
> Further, the notion that witch burning was some big thing in the Middle Ages is fundamentally flawed.  In fact, for quite a while the belief that magic was real was considered heretical.  Witch hunts didn't really take off until the tail end of the Middle Ages/ early Renaissance, and even then they've been over exaggerated in popular history.



They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.

And, again, story scope is an issue.  Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.  The idea that you'd "need" just one person to speak up sounds like the imperative to write politically-correct.  Well, yes, the witch's family might speak up; but they may not be members of that church.  A neighbor of that witch who is a member of the church may not be an official in the church--and might in any case keep his mouth shut.


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.
> 
> And, again, story scope is an issue.  Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.  The idea that you'd "need" just one person to speak up sounds like the imperative to write politically-correct.  Well, yes, the witch's family might speak up; but they may not be members of that church.  A neighbor of that witch who is a member of the church may not be an official in the church--and might in any case keep his mouth shut.



I'm saying that all you need to show that the religion and its followers aren't some monolithic evil organization is one person at any level to saying something.  I'm not saying you have to do that.  Just don't pretend it's something super hard to do, because it isn't.


----------



## FifthView

X Equestris said:


> I'm saying that all you need to show that the religion and its followers aren't some monolithic evil organization is one person at any level to saying something.  I'm not saying you have to do that.  Just don't pretend it's something super hard to do, because it isn't.



And I'm saying there is no imperative to do so--for some stories.

Besides, I'm not sure that one or two lone voices can really counterweigh an institutional representation that also runs deep culturally.  Their turning away from that establishment only reinforces that negative representation, doesn't it?  And the idea of potential reformation of the institution may be out of place for the story.

But I do get what you are saying.  I don't think we are necessarily debating over the utility of simplistic caricatures.  I mean, saying that all adherents of a religion drool blood from their lips -- from eating babies.  BUT, acquiescence to flogging adulterers or stoning gays....such acquiescence can happen.


----------



## Devor

FifthView said:


> They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.



Witchcraft persecutions were almost entirely local events and most had more to do with property disputes and local hysteria than organized religion.  On the macro-level, they happened during times of religious upheaval, when people all over the place were worshiping "strange new ideas," and people generally had real fears about the unknowns of what people did or didn't believe.  But in general, they were mostly still local, petty events - disorganized, inconsistent, odd.

So if people were to start listing times and events where religions are poorly, unfairly portrayed, witchburning would be at the top of almost any list.  It simply didn't happen the way most people want to portray it, and when it's used as the basis of a story, it's a framework that's ripe for promoting ignorant stereotypes.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.



No, but the claims in many pop culture or counter-culture sources that millions of women were burned are simply false.


----------



## FifthView

And, again, story scope is an issue. 

I.e. localized vs. expansive.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> And, again, story scope is an issue.
> 
> I.e. localized vs. expansive.



Except that the original comment and your response did not evolve in the context of story.  X Eq just said that this phenomena has been portrayed inaccurately "in popular history."  So story scope has nothing to do with that question in the real world, which was what the comment was about.  It was not a "story" comment X Eq made.

But, if you feel irresistibly driven to put it in the context of story, the question of the writer then becomes, do I want to write a story that reinforces a false negative mythology, or do a want to write something more truthful at any level?

Let us say you lived in a place where the popular mythology was that Jews killed babies in rituals, but you understood that was not true.  Do you want to write a story that reinforces that myth (directly or indirectly) or do you want to write something subversive on behalf of the truth that runs contrary to a popular falsehood?

Either way, knowing the truth of a thing is important and should not be ignored.


----------



## FifthView

Devor said:


> So if people were to start listing times and events where religions are poorly, unfairly portrayed, witchburning would be at the top of almost any list.  It simply didn't happen the way most people want to portray it, and when it's used as the basis of a story, it's a framework that's ripe for promoting ignorant stereotypes.



We are not talking about portraying medieval Europe, nor about portraying existing forms of Christianity.

We are talking about fantasy religions in fantasy worlds.

I am not talking about any fantasy world in which the religion is called "Christianity" and follows every precept of some existing form of Christianity.   The world is not called "Earth."

The religion _I_ am using (in this theoretical novel) may need to be hierarchical, prone to persecution of witches – after all, my MC is a witch and so is her female lover; so, drama, tension, etc. – so I might take from the idea of historical witch burnings and expand it to flesh out my fictional religion.  Because my MC is female and has a female lover, I might also decide to make this fictional religion homophobic.  Because both of those characters are poor, I might also build into the idea of this fictional church the idea that the wealthy can actually pay the leader of that church a large sum of money to be forgiven any witchery or homosexual activity, as long as they promise to no longer indulge in those.  (Consequently, some wealthy lesbian witches can keep paying for these special absolutions. But there are few of these.)  Only men are allowed to serve in the church.  This religious institution, while not a part of the political institutions, has great sway over them. Additional features of this religion may involve rituals, beliefs and practices from other traditions, and some may even be entirely my own invention.




Russ said:


> But, if you feel irresistibly driven to put it in the context of story, the question of the writer then becomes, do I want to write a story that reinforces a false negative mythology, or do a want to write something more truthful at any level?



"At any level" may be the crux of the issue, or one crux.  Witch burnings happened.  Some religious pretext was involved, or excuse if you will, regardless of whether they were primarily politically motivated or economically motivated.  And we can include the burning of other, non-witch heretics.  And other practices and beliefs that will serve a story.  And these things can serve truth, in the way that metaphor serves truth.  Persecution happened. One form or another.  And still does.

Is writing about demon-summoners "[reinforcing] a false negative mythology?"  Are we serving truth when we write about dragons, magic, and so forth?


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> "At any level" may be the crux of the issue, or one crux.  Witch burnings happened.  Some religious pretext was involved, or excuse if you will, regardless of whether they were primarily politically motivated or economically motivated.  And we can include the burning of other, non-witch heretics.  And other practices and beliefs that will serve a story.  And these things can serve truth, in the way that metaphor serves truth.  Persecution happened. One form or another.  And still does.
> 
> Is writing about demon-summoners "[reinforcing] a false negative mythology?"  Are we serving truth when we write about dragons, magic, and so forth?



Of course those things occurred, and showing them is fine.  On the other hand, making the group carrying them out a giant, monolithic, puppy kicking strawman would be a disservice, and that would feed off of and reinforce negative stereotypes about religious people in general.  It doesn't have to be specific to any single religion.

No organization is entirely black or white.


----------



## Devor

FifthView said:


> We are not talking about portraying medieval Europe, nor about portraying existing forms of Christianity.
> 
> We are talking about fantasy religions in fantasy worlds.
> 
> I am not talking about any fantasy world in which the religion is called "Christianity" and follows every precept of some existing form of Christianity. The world is not called "Earth."
> 
> The religion _I_ am using (in this theoretical novel) . . .



The conversation is about pseudo-Christian religions; religions that are obviously based somewhat on Christianity.  Is it me or do you keep moving the benchmark for the conversation?  I was responding to a comment you made that witch burnings "_weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned."  _But now you're responding as if I was condemning your book?

Also, again, witch burnings weren't a thing in "medieval" Europe.  They didn't happen until the religious upheavals of the Renaissance and Reformation.  They weren't McCarthy-ist "give me a name" hunts.  They weren't hunting down and exterminating old pagan sects.  They were petty people hearing about all sorts of silly new beliefs, getting antsy of what new old things might be out there.  Witch hunts were, in fact, shunned and frowned upon even by the very Spanish Inquisition.  So, again, stereotypes.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Devor said:


> Witch hunts were, in fact, shunned and frowned upon even by the very Spanish Inquisition.  So, again, stereotypes.



Well I never expected that if the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Steerpike

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Well I never expected that if the Spanish Inquisition.



That's because their chief weapon is surprise. Well, fear and surprise are their TWO chief weapons.


----------



## FifthView

Devor said:


> The conversation is about pseudo-Christian religions; religions that are obviously based somewhat on Christianity.  Is it me or do you keep moving the benchmark for the conversation?  I was responding to a comment you made that witch burnings "_weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned."  _But now you're responding as if I was condemning your book?
> 
> Also, again, witch burnings weren't a thing in "medieval" Europe.  They didn't happen until the religious upheavals of the Renaissance and Reformation.  They weren't McCarthy-ist "give me a name" hunts.  They weren't hunting down and exterminating old pagan sects.  They were petty people hearing about all sorts of silly new beliefs, getting antsy of what new old things might be out there.  Witch hunts were, in fact, shunned and frowned upon even by the very Spanish Inquisition.  So, again, stereotypes.



The original comment about witches was my own and dealt _specifically_ with writing a story, i.e., within the context of fantasy fiction:

Sometimes a story only needs the persecution, and a segue to some tiny, powerless sect within the church opposed to burning witches would only be a distraction, however fair and balanced.​
The comment you referenced was a comment I made to X Equestris, who had said "Witch hunts didn't really take off until the tail end of the Middle Ages/ early Renaissance, and even then they've been over exaggerated in popular history."  In other words, the conversation had leapt from a consideration of the story to a world-historical consideration.  So when you responded to my comment about over-exaggeration, I thought you had read the rest of that comment; the very next line in particular was an attempt to move the discussion back to story-writing:

They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.

 And, again, story scope is an issue. Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.​
I would explain that first line by saying that falling back to world-historical fact-checking seemed to me an attempt to dismiss the utility of witch-burning, as an idea, for fleshing out a fantasy religion.  Hey, if it didn't happen_ exactly that way in Earth history_, it can't be used in a fantasy novel!  (Fire-breathing dragons notwithstanding.)

Your comment quoting that first line also fell into line with the world-historical argument.  So my comment to you was, again, an attempt to turn the conversation back to story telling and away from a debate over what actually happened, in its absolute entirety and utter truth, in Earth history.

But my comment was also something of a fishing expedition for clarity.  I mean, me wanting clarity.  Because we are talking about portrayals of pseudo-Christianity in fiction, specifically in fantasy fiction.  So, what constitutes such an identifiable portrayal?  How do we know that someone is attempting to portray Christianity, when only a handful of precepts and practices are used, intermixed with things that are entirely original or from other actual religions?  If he is utilizing witch-burning, is the author slamming Christianity?  Or can one incorporate some ideas, expand on them, alter them — indeed, veer from the world-historical fact — without intending or desiring for readers to read it as an anti-Christian text?  After all, "pseudo-" means false, so isn't there an assumption that this is a "false Christianity" when we reference a pseudo-Christianity?  People don't use the term "pseudo-Christianity" in their novels of course.  But isn't there already the assumption that readers should not take the fictional religion for anything other than a fictional religion?

 But then, how much correspondence to Christianity, historical or modern, needs to occur before one can even make the assumption that it's a "pseudo-Christianity."

So when, within this long conversation thread, people mention "negative portrayals of Christianity," what, exactly do they mean? What are those portrayals, what do they include?


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> The original comment about witches was my own and dealt _specifically_ with writing a story, i.e., within the context of fantasy fiction:
> 
> Sometimes a story only needs the persecution, and a segue to some tiny, powerless sect within the church opposed to burning witches would only be a distraction, however fair and balanced.​
> The comment you referenced was a comment I made to X Equestris, who had said "Witch hunts didn't really take off until the tail end of the Middle Ages/ early Renaissance, and even then they've been over exaggerated in popular history."  In other words, the conversation had leapt from a consideration of the story to a world-historical consideration.  So when you responded to my comment about over-exaggeration, I thought you had read the rest of that comment; the very next line in particular was an attempt to move the discussion back to story-writing:
> 
> They weren't overexaggerated for the women who burned.
> 
> And, again, story scope is an issue. Not all stories are expansive, realist opuses, covering every region of a nation or countryside and including treatises on every variation in ideology and religious practices.​
> I would explain that first line by saying that falling back to world-historical fact-checking seemed to me an attempt to dismiss the utility of witch-burning, as an idea, for fleshing out a fantasy religion.  Hey, if it didn't happen_ exactly that way in Earth history_, it can't be used in a fantasy novel!  (Fire-breathing dragons notwithstanding.)
> 
> Your comment quoting that first line also fell into line with the world-historical argument.  So my comment to you was, again, an attempt to turn the conversation back to story telling and away from a debate over what actually happened, in its absolute entirety and utter truth, in Earth history.
> 
> But my comment was also something of a fishing expedition for clarity.  I mean, me wanting clarity.  Because we are talking about portrayals of pseudo-Christianity in fiction, specifically in fantasy fiction.  So, what constitutes such an identifiable portrayal?  How do we know that someone is attempting to portray Christianity, when only a handful of precepts and practices are used, intermixed with things that are entirely original or from other actual religions?  If he is utilizing witch-burning, is the author slamming Christianity?  Or can one incorporate some ideas, expand on them, alter them — indeed, veer from the world-historical fact — without intending or desiring for readers to read it as an anti-Christian text?  After all, "pseudo-" means false, so isn't there an assumption that this is a "false Christianity" when we reference a pseudo-Christianity?  People don't use the term "pseudo-Christianity" in their novels of course.  But isn't there already the assumption that readers should not take the fictional religion for anything other than a fictional religion?
> 
> But then, how much correspondence to Christianity, historical or modern, needs to occur before one can even make the assumption that it's a "pseudo-Christianity."
> 
> So when, within this long conversation thread, people mention "negative portrayals of Christianity," what, exactly do they mean? What are those portrayals, what do they include?



Let me state that there was no attempt to dismiss witch hunts.  My statement was to 1) to correct a factual inaccuracy (you specified medieval Christianity, and witch hunts were practically nonexistent in that era), and 2) note the fact that when witch hunts pop up in fiction, they're almost always exaggerated far beyond the events they are based on.  Too often, writers use witch hunts as shorthand for "This religion is bad, m'kay.", much like dressing your bad guy all in black.  

Here's some characteristics that set off alarm bells for "thinly veiled author tract" for me, aside from the aforementioned witch hunts.  Not all of these are necessary, but the more a work hits, the more likely I am to put it away.

1.  The clergy are all corrupt and/or hypocrites.  
2.  Any clergy that aren't corrupt and/ or hypocrites are fanatics
3. Any clergy that aren't corrupt, fanatical, or hypocrites are so far down the food chain that they might as well not exist.  
4. Super patriarchal, to the point of woman hating.
5.  Constantly wages holy wars on its totally innocent neighbors (often presented like a grossly oversimplified account of the Crusades)
6. Totally intolerant of any other way of thinking
7. Hates science and learning
8. Never does anything beneficial to the community
9.  The common folk who follow the religion are all stupid
10.  The religious organization knows what it preaches is false, but carries on anyway so it can exploit its loyal followers
11.  Nobody at any level ever raises any objections with the way things are done
12.  There are no sympathetic characters that follow the religion
13.  If there is a sympathetic character that identifies with said religion, they don't actually follow its teachings in any meaningful way.
14. Nobody ever willingly converts to said religion: they're either forcibly converted or born into it.  

I might have left a few out, but those are the ones that annoy me the most and start making me think the author has an axe to grind.


----------



## ThinkerX

Ugh...getting into touchy issues here.

Still, from my own reading most of two decades ago...the Catholic Church had a long list of theological enemies from its inception.  (Parts of Acts and Paul's letters get into faction fights.)  Up until around AD 300, what is now the Catholic Church was a large minority faction within the ranks of those who considered themselves 'Christian' - with most of the others being Gnostics of one stripe or another.  Early Church fathers wrote lengthy diatribes against the Gnostics, with one of the chief charges being these sects made free use of magic.  (To my mind, most of these early Church Fathers also come across as first class control freaks, insisting on absolute obedience to the hierarchy in all aspects of life, though others may dispute that).  

In the middle ages, the Catholic Church did stamp down very hard on deviant groups.  The most appalling of these crackdowns was against the Cathar, centered in what is now France.  That led directly to the 'Fourth Crusade,' a campaign of military extermination.  It's also where we get the phrase 'kill them all, as God knows his own.'  (Massacring a town with an uncertain number of Cathar.)   There was also a tendency during this period for Popes to view themselves as kings or emperors in their own right - and some of these pope kings were major league disgraces, along with most of the ranking bishops.  We get the word 'porn,' from the term 'pornocracy' which was applied to an especially decadent stretch here.  

May be debatable how many witches the Spanish Inquisition killed, but they did engage in massive, heavy duty persecution of Jews and Moslems.  Forced conversions, entire populaces displaced.

Protestantism...also a bloody mess.  The 'Thirty Years War,' an especially nasty conflict had part of its roots in the rift between Protestantism and Catholicism.  And Luther, who set the whole Protestant thing in motion, had a pretty serious hatred of the peasantry going on.  

The secret societies that gave us Free Masonry got started about the same time as the Thirty Years War, and were condemned from the outset by the Catholic Hierarchy.  These groups had a reputation for alchemy, which was considered a type of magic in those days.  (In actuality, they laid the groundwork for modern science.)


----------



## X Equestris

The Fourth Crusade ended up attacking Constantinople because of a messy series of events.  You're thinking of the Albigensian Crusade.


----------



## ThinkerX

> The Fourth Crusade ended up attacking Constantinople because of a messy series of events. You're thinking of the Albigensian Crusade.



Like I said, it has been most of twenty years since I last looked into this stuff.

But even back then, I remember being

1 - appalled at the corrupt and horrible things done by allegedly pious folk; and

2 - thinking there was a lot of potential story material here.  (I did snatch bits and pieces for use in world building, and an appropriate fantasy work set in my world is on the 'someday' list.)  I mean, some of what transpired was so freaking weird you probably couldn't use it in a conventionally published novel today - like the pope who had his predecessors body dug up and put on trial.


----------



## skip.knox

FifthView said:


> I'd like a more thorough discussion of something I mentioned in my previous post, which seems to have gone by the wayside since I wrote it.
> 
> When developing a medieval-ish society in fantasy, what is particularly wrong with styling a pseudo-Christian church after medieval Christian beliefs and practices, in part or in whole?



You need only look at the current thread for at least a partial answer. Taking Christianity head-on is likely to stir up a wide range of reactions, many of which you as the author may not intend or want. It's a perilous path; are you sure you want to tread it?


----------



## skip.knox

Wouldn't the Perelandra series qualify as a fantasy tale in which Christianity is favorably portrayed? Though, I would rather say it was intelligently explored. But I agree with the broader point--Christianity or even monotheism rarely comes off well in fantasy tales, where it appears at all. 

I'm not sure this is particularly significant. In earlier times, fantasy tales were heavily influenced by Romanticism, so we got a strong dose of natural religions, animism and polytheism. Not so much, I think, because of any theological positioning so much as because those forms were exotic and were thought of as folkloric. More modern treatments merely reflect our current cultural milieu. Also, fwiw, I don't find fantasy stories tackle real-world subjects in general. How many do a good job with economics, for example? Or have political systems that actually make sense? Some, but not many.

So, I am untroubled by how fantasy handles religion.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> That's because their chief weapon is surprise. Well, fear and surprise are their TWO chief weapons.



Fear, surprise, AND an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> Fear, surprise, AND an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!



You forgot ruthless efficiency! And nice red coats.


----------



## Russ

Mindfire said:


> Fear, surprise, AND an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!



Actually the Spanish Inquisition was a much more local issue with deep connections to the secular rulers of the country and the very specific history of the reconquista.  The relationship between the Papacy and the Spanish inquisition was always troubled with the Pope often writing and directing bishops to curtail and moderate the inquisition and Spanish royalty pushing the reverse.

In fact one Pope wrote a letter that stated as follows:



> In Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, and Catalonia the Inquisition has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls but by lust for wealth. Many true and faithful Christians, on the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves, and other lower and even less proper persons, have without any legitimate proof been thrust into secular prisons, tortured and condemned as relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and property and handed over to the secular arm to be executed, to the peril of souls, setting a pernicious example, and causing disgust to many.



And King Ferdinand in response accused the Pope of having been bribed by secret Jews and openly defied the Popes directions to moderate the inquisition in Spain.



> Things have been told me, Holy Father, which, if true, would seem to merit the greatest astonishment. To these rumors, however, we have given no credence because they seem to be things which would in no way have been conceded by Your Holiness who has a duty to the Inquisition. But if by chance concessions have been made through the persistent and cunning persuasion of the conversos, I intend never to let them take effect. Take care therefore not to let the matter go further, and to revoke any concessions and entrust us with the care of this question.



There are many, many further examples, but you get the idea.


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> Actually the Spanish Inquisition was a much more local issue with deep connections to the secular rulers of the country and the very specific history of the reconquista.  The relationship between the Papacy and the Spanish inquisition was always troubled with the Pope often writing and directing bishops to curtail and moderate the inquisition and Spanish royalty pushing the reverse.



...Dude. I was quoting a Monty Python sketch. It's not that deep.


----------



## Russ

Mindfire said:


> ...Dude. I was quoting a Monty Python sketch. It's not that deep.



Good education is never wasted even in a moment of humour.  

Or is there a story scope issue here?


----------



## Mindfire

Russ said:


> Good education is never wasted even in a moment of humour.
> 
> Or is there a story scope an issue here?



Never mind, then.


----------



## FifthView

X Equestris said:


> Here's some characteristics that set off alarm bells for "thinly veiled author tract" for me, aside from the aforementioned witch hunts.  Not all of these are necessary, but the more a work hits, the more likely I am to put it away.



For me, there are two separate issues:


What features lead to the identification of a fictional religion with Christianity, or suggest it was modeled on Christianity? 
What are the negative features of that religion that are offensive or annoying or simply oversimplified/clichÃ©?

For me, the list you gave covers #2.  But those features could be used to describe the negative portrayal of any fictional religion and don't for me cover #1.  They don't suggest to me that the religion was modeled on Christianity, at least not well enough to be an obvious portrayal of a pseudo-Christianity.

The things that trigger the identification for me are:


Physical infrastructure:  monasteries/abbeys/priories, churches, cathedrals —particularly if these actual words are used.

Institutional organization:  hierarchy, with a single person at the head of the organization and many levels between him and the lowest level official.  Again, this is especially the case when specific words are used:  pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, vicar.  

Some features of ritual:  Communal praying, on knees; singing hymns, use of incense, lighting candles, etc.  Many of these things can be imagined outside a Christian religion; so, when used in context with some of the above institutional features.

Some tenets:  Atonement for sin, asceticism or moderation of desires (vs. licentious sex, liquor use, gluttony, greed, etc.), heaven/hell as reward or punishment in the afterlife, the Church alone has God's ear or is the final interpreter and judge of textual meaning.  There may be others.  Again, these things can be imagined for other religions; so, these in combination with some of the above points.

Not all of these would need to be present.  I may have missed some things, also.

Those are the major signals, for me.  I do vaguely recall one novel that mentioned a "savior god" who died to save his people.  I don't remember a cross being used as a religious symbol in anything I've read that wasn't explicitly referencing Christianity.  These would be additional signals, if used.

When I've read novels that heavily featured the above things, the most common negative portrayals seem to be your #1-#3, i.e., corrupt and/or fanatical officials.  #6, intolerance of other beliefs, is also common.


----------



## Reaver

Russ said:


> Good education is never wasted even in a moment of humour.



Neither is a good fart.


----------



## Russ

Reaver said:


> Neither is a good fart.



Could that be the Rabbit of Caerbannong perchance?


----------



## X Equestris

FifthView said:


> For me, there are two separate issues:
> 
> 
> What features lead to the identification of a fictional religion with Christianity, or suggest it was modeled on Christianity?
> What are the negative features of that religion that are offensive or annoying or simply oversimplified/clichÃ©?
> 
> For me, the list you gave covers #2.  But those features could be used to describe the negative portrayal of any fictional religion and don't for me cover #1.  They don't suggest to me that the religion was modeled on Christianity, at least not well enough to be an obvious portrayal of a pseudo-Christianity.
> 
> The things that trigger the identification for me are:
> 
> 
> Physical infrastructure:  monasteries/abbeys/priories, churches, cathedrals —particularly if these actual words are used.
> 
> Institutional organization:  hierarchy, with a single person at the head of the organization and many levels between him and the lowest level official.  Again, this is especially the case when specific words are used:  pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, vicar.
> 
> Some features of ritual:  Communal praying, on knees; singing hymns, use of incense, lighting candles, etc.  Many of these things can be imagined outside a Christian religion; so, when used in context with some of the above institutional features.
> 
> Some tenets:  Atonement for sin, asceticism or moderation of desires (vs. licentious sex, liquor use, gluttony, greed, etc.), heaven/hell as reward or punishment in the afterlife, the Church alone has God's ear or is the final interpreter and judge of textual meaning.  There may be others.  Again, these things can be imagined for other religions; so, these in combination with some of the above points.
> 
> Not all of these would need to be present.  I may have missed some things, also.
> 
> Those are the major signals, for me.  I do vaguely recall one novel that mentioned a "savior god" who died to save his people.  I don't remember a cross being used as a religious symbol in anything I've read that wasn't explicitly referencing Christianity.  These would be additional signals, if used.
> 
> When I've read novels that heavily featured the above things, the most common negative portrayals seem to be your #1-#3, i.e., corrupt and/or fanatical officials.  #6, intolerance of other beliefs, is also common.



Yeah, I was only seeking to answer number two with the list.


----------



## Devor

I think we did get a little sidetracked here.

When I mentioned that religions often felt "monotone," I wasn't limiting that statement to "negative" portrayals or to "pseudo-Christian" portrayals.  To me, I think religions are often used to provide that "stark contrast" between two cultures or between an individual and the rest of the culture.  It's often painted in broad rough strokes like a highlighter.  It's a short-hand way of creating a generational divide, or an ethnic divide, or as a foil to the "old magics."  Religion is usually given that limited purpose in the story and very seldom feels flushed out or developed.

I think there are better ways to do that . . . . like developing the relationship between the characters or cultures beyond that stark contrast.


----------



## valiant12

Reaver said:


> Neither is a good fart.




Is this real it look so fake.





> It's a short-hand way of creating a generational divide, or an ethnic divide, or as a foil to the "old magics." Religion is usually given that limited purpose in the story and very seldom feels flushed out or developed.



If religion is not central to the plot I don't see why writers must spend a lot of time making original and flesh out fake religions.


----------



## Reaver

valiant12 said:


> Is this real it look so fake.





Real or fake is irrelevant. It's all about entertainment.


----------



## Devor

valiant12 said:


> If religion is not central to the plot I don't see why writers must spend a lot of time making original and flesh out fake religions.



I didn't say they should . . . I said they should find a better way than religion to accomplish the same feat.  If religion is being used as a short-hand way to create a contrast between characters or cultures, then don't go with the short-hand.  Create better characters and cultures with a more developed relationship between them.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Way late for this, but the most positive portrayals of pseudo-Christianity I've seen in non-Christian fantasy have generally been fast and loose. For instance, _Lone Wolf_ has a benevolent god called Kai who's pretty much equivalent to the Christian God, but Christianity is just a starting point for the worldbuilding, and the author freely diverges in both substance and doctrine whenever it makes for a better story. The goal is to entertain, not sermonize, and if the author has a message, it's not praising or condemning any real-life religion.

The reason I originally started this topic was that _The Serpent and the Rose_ bugged me, but _Thief_ bugged me way more. In _The Serpent and the Rose_, using a blatant Christian parallel felt distracting and lazy. It didn't seem like there was any effort made to fit it into the world and make it seem like a natural part of the setting, the way the religion of Andraste felt natural in _Dragon Age_. It was just sort of there, like a botched Photoshop job with a smaller image awkwardly copy-pasted into a larger one.

_Thief_, on the other hand, felt almost slanderous. The Hammerites are clearly Christian-inspired, but they explicitly and violently reject all of Christianity's more merciful aspects. Their teachings are pure fire and brimstone, scorning any possibility of mercy and redemption, and that makes them feel hollow, barely representing Christianity at all. (They're not slammed to make the pagans look better--the pagans are almost as bad--they're just slammed so you won't feel guilty about playing a character who steals from and potentially murders them.)

I'm not necessarily sure what I'm looking for. You could argue that _Lone Wolf_ isn't really a solution, either, since it feels incredibly awkward when a character who seems to be analogous to Jesus refuses to forgive a foe and condemns him to eternal torture. I guess _Dragon Age_ handled it okay, maybe?


----------



## Scribe Lord

In every religion in the world there have been those people who have been beneficial to society and those people who have committed atrocities. That's what I want to see in fantasy books; both the good and the bad. Also, just because a member of a certain religion has done wicked things, that shouldn't mean that the entire religion is condemned for it. Personally, I don't have a problem with fantasy books that base their religions off of real world ones, as long as they are all depicted fairly. Otherwise it becomes too 'preachy' for me.



Feo Takahari said:


> I guess _Dragon Age_ handled it okay, maybe?



I only ever played one of those games, and only a few hours of it, but the thing that stuck with me most was the Chantry. So I'd agree there. Then again from what I remember Dragon Age's worldbuilding in general was top notch.


----------



## trentonian7

I personably would avoid using Christianity as a religion in your world, unless of course the story is set on our own world. While it's perfectly fine to develop a Christianity- like religion, avoid words that conjure Christian images; avoid crosses specifically and any names found in the Christian faith. Furthermore, I might even go as far to avoid a Jesus parallel. While tenants or aspects of your faith may resemble Christianity, in the end, fantasy readers will find it perturbing if there is a Jesus or a bible or "Christians".


----------



## X Equestris

trentonian7 said:


> I personably would avoid using Christianity as a religion in your world, unless of course the story is set on our own world. While it's perfectly fine to develop a Christianity- like religion, avoid words that conjure Christian images; avoid crosses specifically and any names found in the Christian faith. Furthermore, I might even go as far to avoid a Jesus parallel. While tenants or aspects of your faith may resemble Christianity, in the end, fantasy readers will find it perturbing if there is a Jesus or a bible or "Christians".



I'd mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure a fantasy religion without a Jesus analogue could really be called a pseudo-Christianity, considering how central Jesus is to Christianity.  Even if it had the imagery of Christianity, it would probably be pretty different in beliefs.


----------



## Steerpike

> While tenants or aspects of your faith may resemble Christianity, in the end, fantasy readers will find it perturbing if there is a Jesus or a bible or "Christians".



Some might. Some would not. For some stories this is exactly what you'd want to do.


----------



## trentonian7

Steerpike said:


> Some might. Some would not. For some stories this is exactly what you'd want to do.



If it's set in a past/ present/ future/ alternate version of earth, yes.


----------



## Steerpike

trentonian7 said:


> If it's set in a past/ present/ future/ alternate version of earth, yes.



Not just that, though that's one option. You might be writing allegory, wherein you may well have a Jesus figure, even if by a different name, a Bible, and so on.

Also, if you're writing something that takes place on another world, somewhere out in the universe, you may very well use a parallel religion to advance the thesis that Christianity (or any other religion you choose) is true. If god is universal, then you might construct a world that has clear evidence of Christianity, even though there has never been contact with earth. That could include Jesus, a Bible (even the same Bible that exists on earth, if you wanted to put forth the universal, incorruptible nature of the book as part of your theme). 

There are all kinds of things you can do with this. Some readers will be OK with it, some will actively like it, and others will be put off by it. Fantasy has boundless possibilities. There's really no reason to tell people that some area of subject matter, method of getting your theme across, or elements of religion that you want to paint as universal, are off-limits. That's an artificial restraint on the genre that any given author may impose, but there is no objective basis for it.


----------



## trentonian7

X Equestris said:


> I'd mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure a fantasy religion without a Jesus analogue could really be called a pseudo-Christianity, considering how central Jesus is to Christianity.  Even if it had the imagery of Christianity, it would probably be pretty different in beliefs.



Frankly I would avoid pseudo- Christianity altogether. The likelihood of a religion exactly like Christianity developing in an entirely different world is extremely unlikely; 

That being said, it's extremely unlikely for the human race to exist in another world, but while it is unlikely, it keeps the story familiar and allows the readers to actually relate to the story's characters. There are ample reasons to reuse humanity and other familiar and human- like races like elves and dwarves, but there is very little reason to explicitly imitate Christianity in your stories, but for laziness or larger themes.


----------



## Ireth

This discussion puts me in mind of Tad William's _Memory, Sorrow and Thorn_ trilogy. The Aedonite religion is blatantly Christianity under a different name. There's explicitly a Redeemer who was hung on a tree and died there. It's been a while since I read the books, but it didn't bother me overmuch.


----------



## Steerpike

trentonian7 said:


> That being said, it's extremely unlikely for the human race to exist in another world...



Except that if the Christian religion is true, and god is creating beings in his own image, then other humans is _exactly_ what you would expect on other planets. So if that's the theme you are going for, that approach makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Russ

trentonian7 said:


> Frankly I would avoid pseudo- Christianity altogether. The likelihood of a religion exactly like Christianity developing in an entirely different world is extremely unlikely;
> 
> That being said, it's extremely unlikely for the human race to exist in another world, but while it is unlikely, it keeps the story familiar and allows the readers to actually relate to the story's characters. There are ample reasons to reuse humanity and other familiar and human- like races like elves and dwarves, but there is very little reason to explicitly imitate Christianity in your stories, but for laziness or larger themes.



It depends on how and why you are writing your work.

Your objection is effectively a statistical/scientific one, which is fine.  There is actually a fairly rational counter-argument to that objection, but as I am just getting ready to head out on vacation I don't have time to detail it here.  If you are interested drop me a line in ten days and I am happy to outline it for you.

But if one is using one's fiction to comment on the real world, than using a disguised version of Christianity or other aspects of our world is the right thing to do.  

To me the highest level of fantasy doesn't just entertain me with stories of unreal places, it makes comment on, or challenges, or gets me to think about things in my life and my world.  To me that is one of the things that separates the run of the mill material from really memorable literature.


----------



## trentonian7

Steerpike said:


> Except that if the Christian religion is true, and god is creating beings in his own image, then other humans is _exactly_ what you would expect on other planets. So if that's the theme you are going for, that approach makes a lot of sense.



Then it would no longer be pseudo- Christianity.


----------



## ThinkerX

Hmmm...

As pointed out, Tad Williams 'Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn' did merge an alternate Christianity into the setting.

Kate Eliot's 'Crown of Stars' did much the same, with the twist that most of the clergy was female.

Monotheistic religions that might as well be Christianity under another name appear in Barbara Hambly's works, and fit the tone of the world.


----------



## FifthView

Ireth said:


> This discussion puts me in mind of Tad William's _Memory, Sorrow and Thorn_ trilogy. The Aedonite religion is blatantly Christianity under a different name. There's explicitly a Redeemer who was hung on a tree and died there. It's been a while since I read the books, but it didn't bother me overmuch.



Ah, I think that's the one that I've been remembering all along.  Thanks!


----------



## Mythopoet

Ireth said:


> This discussion puts me in mind of Tad William's _Memory, Sorrow and Thorn_ trilogy. The Aedonite religion is blatantly Christianity under a different name. There's explicitly a Redeemer who was hung on a tree and died there. It's been a while since I read the books, but it didn't bother me overmuch.



Yeah, that's always the one I think of first when this subject comes up. It didn't so much bother me as it completely broke my immersion in the story. My enjoyment was shaky from the beginning, but suddenly finding the Catholic Church plopped right there in the middle of this supposed fantasy world just ruined it totally for me as a secondary world.


----------



## Ireth

My first thought was actually Narnia, but I think that one was so obvious few people if anyone wanted to mention it. (At least I haven't seen it yet in this thread.) Lewis was kinda heavy-handed with the allegory there.


----------



## Mythopoet

Ireth said:


> My first thought was actually Narnia, but I think that one was so obvious few people if anyone wanted to mention it. (At least I haven't seen it yet in this thread.) Lewis was kinda heavy-handed with the allegory there.



Narnia does not have a depiction of the Christian religion though. Certainly there is no "religion" as most people would identify it.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> Narnia does not have a depiction of the Christian religion though. Certainly there is no "religion" as most people would identify it.



I think that's subject to some discussion - their attitude towards Aslan is religious and obviously Christian - but certainly it doesn't look anything like the type of structured organizations you see in most fantasy.


----------



## ThinkerX

Narnia is pretty heavily infused with Christian concepts, minus the clergy.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Devor said:


> I think that's subject to some discussion - their attitude towards Aslan is religious and obviously Christian - but certainly it doesn't look anything like the type of structured organizations you see in most fantasy.



Then again even these questions lead to deeper considerations about what is a religion. Seems to me we fantasy writers often only have a religion of it fits a certain western mold. This I think is another monotone problem. There's one sect with one belief and no individualized or generalized deviation.


----------



## Queshire

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Then again even these questions lead to deeper considerations about what is a religion. Seems to me we fantasy writers often only have a religion of it fits a certain western mold. This I think is another monotone problem. There's one sect with one belief and no individualized or generalized deviation.



I have a text book from one of my old college classes titled "The Anthropology of Religion" and a significant part of the first chapter deals with the definition of religion and even then they provide multiple definitions. It's not an easy subject to cover.


----------



## Steerpike

Queshire said:


> I have a text book from one of my old college classes titled "The Anthropology of Religion" and a significant part of the first chapter deals with the definition of religion and even then they provide multiple definitions. It's not an easy subject to cover.



That's cool. Any Malinowski in there?


----------



## Queshire

Steerpike said:


> That's cool. Any Malinowski in there?



Bronislaw Malinowski? According to the index, yes. Actually he seems to be referenced a lot in it. It's been years since I took the class though, so I'm not really familiar with him.


----------



## Steerpike

Queshire said:


> Bronislaw Malinowski? According to the index, yes. Actually he seems to be referenced a lot in it. It's been years since I took the class though, so I'm not really familiar with him.



Yeah, a big name in anthropology, particularly anthropology of religion and the intersection of science, magic, etc. A structuralist, I think. I bet I can find something.


----------



## Steerpike

For example: Magic, Science and Religion


----------



## Mindfire

Whenever people start talking about discrete definitions or academic analyses of religion, it makes me nervous. I don't think religion- or to be more precise, faith- is something you really can understand in an academic fashion. This is partly a problem baked into anthropology as a whole. There will always be a disconnect, no matter how small, between the observer of a culture and someone actually living in it. But I think this issue is magnified to brobdingnagian proportions when it comes to the subject of religion and faith. I came to this conclusion while taking a comparative religion class. It was more or less a guided tour of several of the more influential theories about how religion works and where it comes from. And while I found some more useful than others, ultimately all of them rang false to me. I think the reason for this is that most if not all of these theories came from people who approached the subject of religion trying to explain it away or dissect it. In the process of the dissection, they kill the specimen and end up completely missing the point in one way or another.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Whenever people start talking about discrete definitions or academic analyses of religion, it makes me nervous. I don't think religion- or to be more precise, faith- is something you really can understand in an academic fashion. This is partly a problem baked into anthropology as a whole. There will always be a disconnect, no matter how small, between the observer of a culture and someone actually living in it. But I think this issue is magnified to brobdingnagian proportions when it comes to the subject of religion and faith. I came to this conclusion while taking a comparative religion class. It was more or less a guided tour of several of the more influential theories about how religion works and where it comes from. And while I found some more useful than others, ultimately all of them rang false to me. I think the reason for this is that most if not all of these theories came from people who approached the subject of religion trying to explain it away or dissect it. In the process of the dissection, they kill the specimen and end up completely missing the point in one way or another.



You should probably read some Malinowski then (which I'm surprised you didn't read if you took a comparative religions class). He doesn't fall into the trap you're talking about, and he's focusing on specific types of religion at specific cultural levels. You could also look at Claude Levi-Strauss, but I like Malinowksi better in this regard. Maybe because functionalism does a better job, in my view, of treating the subject than structuralism.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mindfire said:


> Whenever people start talking about discrete definitions or academic analyses of religion, it makes me nervous. I don't think religion- or to be more precise, faith- is something you really can understand in an academic fashion. This is partly a problem baked into anthropology as a whole. There will always be a disconnect, no matter how small, between the observer of a culture and someone actually living in it. But I think this issue is magnified to brobdingnagian proportions when it comes to the subject of religion and faith. I came to this conclusion while taking a comparative religion class. It was more or less a guided tour of several of the more influential theories about how religion works and where it comes from. And while I found some more useful than others, ultimately all of them rang false to me. I think the reason for this is that most if not all of these theories came from people who approached the subject of religion trying to explain it away or dissect it. In the process of the dissection, they kill the specimen and end up completely missing the point in one way or another.



That is an interesting point. Although, I think coming at this question from a different angle could be important to a fantasy writer. They should ask themselves whether they want to define religion broadly or narrowly. A broad definition would include beliefs but without a formal structure (I am unsure off the top of my head of a real world corollary). A narrow definiton would include belief but would require a certain formal structure (like most Christian sects). So what kind of religion do you want the broad or narrow. I think most of the time we only consider the narrow approach and fail to consider the broader definition, which leads to monotony.


----------



## Devor

Brian Scott Allen said:


> That is an interesting point. Although, I think coming at this question from a different angle could be important to a fantasy writer. They should ask themselves whether they want to define religion broadly or narrowly. A broad definition would include beliefs but without a formal structure (I am unsure off the top of my head of a real world corollary). A narrow definiton would include belief but would require a certain formal structure (like most Christian sects). So what kind of religion do you want the broad or narrow. I think most of the time we only consider the narrow approach and fail to consider the broader definition, which leads to monotony.



I talked about a religion I was working with earlier.  But in my notes, most of it is actually labeled under the magic system, with additional notes under culture.  I don't normally consider religion as its own separate entity. Done well, I believe, it's infused into the setting.

I don't have the patience or time for the article Steerpike posted above right now, but here's an excerpt from Malinowski posted on his Wikipedia entry:



			
				Malinowski said:
			
		

> Yet it must be remembered that what appears to us an extensive, complicated, and yet well ordered institution is the outcome of so many doings and pursuits, carried on by savages, who have no laws or aims or charters definitely laid down. They have no knowledge of the total outline of any of their social structure. They know their own motives, know the purpose of individual actions and the rules which apply to them, but how, out of these, the whole collective institution shapes, this is beyond their mental range. Not even the most intelligent native has any clear idea of the Kula as a big, organised social construction, still less of its sociological function and implications....The integration of all the details observed, the achievement of a sociological synthesis of all the various, relevant symptoms, is the task of the Ethnographer... the Ethnographer has to construct the picture of the big institution, very much as the physicist constructs his theory from the experimental data, which always have been within reach of everybody, but needed a consistent interpretation.



But I would say this ^ is the trap we fall into as writers.  We want to be the ethnographers, and we don't see it _first and foremost _from the eyes of the people in our stories.

Christianity has a structured, organizational component to it.  I think that's pretty clear to everyone.  But it would be a tremendous mistake to try and reduce it to that structure and ignore the deeper side of it.  That would only serve to ignore the way that the religion shapes the culture and the way that our culture shapes the way our religion surfaces.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Devor said:


> But I would say this ^ is the trap we fall into as writers.  We want to be the ethnographers, and we don't see it _first and foremost _from the eyes of the people in our stories.
> 
> Christianity has a structured, organizational component to it.  I think that's pretty clear to everyone.  But it would be a tremendous mistake to try and reduce it to that structure and ignore the deeper side of it.  That would only serve to ignore the way that the religion shapes the culture and the way that our culture shapes the way our religion surfaces.



A bit OT, but this gets right to the heart of the problem I've always faced when trying to write characters who believe things I think are false. It wouldn't feel true to myself and my beliefs if I took, say, a social Darwinist character and wrote the story as if he was right about everything. But at the same time, I think it would be a tremendous mistake to portray him as stupid. If he has reasons for his beliefs, it's my responsibility to show those reasons, and depending on what he does with his beliefs and whether he causes any harm, I may not have any basis to judge him.

Ultimately, I don't think I'm capable of perfectly writing a religious character. I simply don't have enough in common with them. But that's no reason not to try, right?


----------



## Mindfire

devor said:


> Malinowski said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet it must be remembered that what appears to us an extensive, complicated, and yet well ordered institution is the outcome of so many doings and pursuits, *carried on by savages*, who have no laws or aims or charters definitely laid down.
Click to expand...


ಠ_ಠ

Ummmmmmmmm...


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> ಠ_ಠ
> 
> Ummmmmmmmm...



You have to put his language and word choice in the context of the early to mid-1900s when he was working. It requires reading beyond the superficial.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> You have to put his language and word choice in the context of the early to mid-1900s when he was working. It requires reading beyond the superficial.



Yes, I know. "Man of his time" and all that. But those types of phrases are still markers that cause me to regard a text with suspicion. Or at least to take it with a hefty amount of salt.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> Yes, I know. "Man of his time" and all that. But those types of phrases are still markers that cause me to regard a text with suspicion. Or at least to take it with a hefty amount of salt.



I hope it goes without saying, but I didn't quote him to endorse his sentiments, or even his work, but only because I happened to notice that the overall point about viewing the religion from inside or as a larger cultural structure was similar to the one I was going to make.


----------



## FatCat

Going back to OP's topic, why would you use a topic as clearly debatable as religion to establish a platform for your story unless you're story is exclusively about it. The magic of fantasy is allegory, you can prove as many points as you want but deliver it in a way that doesn't offend. 

So why single out Christianity in a long list of monotheistic religions? Is it because it's easy? It seems weak to use this religion as a stepping stone to a motive of writing in this context. Either buck up and say what you want or don't make metaphors for something that means a lot to many people.


----------



## speculativejester

In my personal opinion, every aspect of world-development (especially the religions) should serve to either add more content to a central theme in the story or provide a means of achieving a desired scene. 

My current work features a pseudo-christian religion that has some Islamic influences. I'm purposefully trying to remind the reader of apply the themes of my narrative to a greater perspective. I'm attempting to convey very specific ideas about the notion of the Abrahamic religions. 

I don't really see why you would go out of your way to use Christianity in your story unless you're trying to say something about it. There are many easier ways to get a good plot device.


----------



## Heliotrope

What are people's thoughts on using Judeo-Christian beings in fantasy such as angels, demons etc? Especially in a non-conventional sense? 

Say like: 

The Fallen series
The Mortal Instruments Series (City of Bones, City of Ashes etc) 
The Infernal Devices Series (Clockwork Angel, Clockwork Prince etc) 
Hush Hush 
The Golden Compass series (His Dark materials) 


Or movies like Legion or the series Dominion 

I'm fascinated with the concept of angels from a mythological stance and would like to explore using them in a fantasy or sci-fi setting. I saw on the cover of The Best Short Stories in Science Fiction of the Year there was an angel depicted as an interplanetary being… gorgeous white wings, but she was in a space suit… here is a link. 

The Year's Best Science Fiction: Thirty-Second Annual Collection: Gardner Dozois: 9781250064424: Books - Amazon.ca

For me I found this fascinating and wanted to explore it a bit more. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Heliotrope

And there are some complaints and Jesus did not show up in Gaiman's American Gods… 

Thoughts on this? 

*: Gaiman's "American Gods": Why No Jesus?


----------



## ThinkerX

> What are people's thoughts on using Judeo-Christian beings in fantasy such as angels, demons etc? Especially in a non-conventional sense?



No great issue.  Something to keep in mind:

Contrary to what many Christians (and Jews, and Moslems) believe, their religion did not emerge in a vacuum.  It's founders drew upon a collection of stories and myths spanning the entire middle east and beyond.  

A couple of minor examples, both from the OT:

Moses - to Christians, Jews, and Moslems, the name of a mighty prophet. However, the name itself is actually Egyptian.  More accurately, its part of a name, meaning 'servant of' or 'child of.'  In Egyptian, it is usually combined with the name of a god.  Most famous example would be 'Ramses' ('Servant of Ra.') 

Likewise, EVERBODY in the region very strongly believed in all manner of spirits, angels, and demons.  These entities were deemed responsible for everything from fertility to the weather to ones emotional state, and there were entire classes of these beings found amidst the various pantheons.  Take 'Cheribs.'  In the ancient artwork, these are portrayed as lions or great cats with the heads of men - aka the Egyptian 'Sphinx.'   And as with the prior example...'Senacherib' a rather unpleasant pagan Mesopotamian overlord who laid siege to Jerusalem.  Part of his name is that of a class of divine entities, recognized as such in the bible. 

This borrowing continued right on into NT times...and beyond.


----------



## Devor

Heliotrope said:


> What are people's thoughts on using Judeo-Christian beings in fantasy such as angels, demons etc? Especially in a non-conventional sense?



It's not usually an issue.  I'm not particularly a fan of it (I'm not really sure why), but I know a number of Christians who are actually drawn to that kind of fantasy.

I'm a little curious as to whether practitioners of Islam feel the same way about Djinn.




Heliotrope said:


> And there are some complaints and Jesus did not show up in Gaiman's American Gods…
> 
> Thoughts on this?



Truthfully, if he had included Jesus, I would've had mixed feelings about it, and at the very least it would've pulled me out of the story.


----------



## Scribe Lord

Heliotrope said:


> What are people's thoughts on using Judeo-Christian beings in fantasy such as angels, demons etc? Especially in a non-conventional sense?



Undecided on this one. I generally dislike books where demons are running around, but then again, I really enjoyed Bartimaeus. I suppose it really depends on how it is done.




ThinkerX said:


> Moses - to Christians, Jews, and Moslems, the name of a mighty prophet. However, the name itself is actually Egyptian.  More accurately, its part of a name, meaning 'servant of' or 'child of.'  In Egyptian, it is usually combined with the name of a god.  Most famous example would be 'Ramses' ('Servant of Ra.')



I was under the the impression that it originated from the Hebrew for 'drew out'. Regardless, since the biblical Moses was apparently born in Egypt and raised by Egyptians this could make sense too.


----------



## Ireth

Scribe Lord said:


> I was under the the impression that it originated from the Hebrew for 'drew out'. Regardless, since the biblical Moses was apparently born in Egypt and raised by Egyptians this could make sense too.



According to the Bible, Moses was born in Egypt, but to Hebrew slaves. When the Pharaoh's daughter found him in the river, Moses' sister Miriam came and asked to find a Hebrew woman to be a nursemaid for the baby. The Pharaoh's daughter agreed, and Miriam gave Moses to their own mother, Jocheved. Moses was later returned to the royal household after he was weaned.


----------



## Russ

ThinkerX said:


> Moses - to Christians, Jews, and Moslems, the name of a mighty prophet. However, the name itself is actually Egyptian.  More accurately, its part of a name, meaning 'servant of' or 'child of.'  In Egyptian, it is usually combined with the name of a god.  Most famous example would be 'Ramses' ('Servant of Ra.')



Considering that the OT says he was given this name (as opposed to his other names) by an Egyptian it certainly cannot come as any surprise that the name has Egyptian connections.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner

Mindfire said:


> That's the kind of thing that is a little surprising, but really shouldn't be. In a way, paganism is the logical extreme of anti-Semitic white supremacism. Jesus was a Jew after all. And very likely a brown-skinned Jew at that.


Not all pagans hate Christians and Jews, as paganism is simply a term used for pre-Abrahamic  polytheistic non-organized religions. And not all pagans are white either. Paganism is not a European exclusive club, it's a collection of various non-structured religions around the world. Also, organized religions such as Hellenism do not count as paganism.


----------



## Gurkhal

Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> Also, organized religions such as Hellenism do not count as paganism.



Not sure I agree with this part of the post, but the rest is spot on.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior

One of my current settings has a fantasy version of the Catholic Church because it is based on Renaissance Italy, and I think replacing it with a wholly invented religion would shake up the aesthetic and society too much, and I don't know if I have the motivationto think through the implications all the way through.

Though, alchemy is proven to work in this setting, and is tolerated somewhat by the government.


----------



## The Dark One

Gurkhal said:


> Not sure I agree with this part of the post, but the rest is spot on.



Except for the bits about pre-Abrahamic and non-organised.

Since when did the definition of paganism require these limits? Paganism simply refers to any religion which uses a pantheon - a multiplicity of deities who serve particular purposes. The other aspect of paganism is the relationship between god and believer - it's always defined by sacrifice. Hence what medieval scholars refer to as the paganisation of the church when patron saints were finally allowed, in deference to the residual pagan sentiments of early Christians with deep cultural links to pagan ritual. That's why prayer to patron saints happens...still.


----------

