Christianity and pseudo-Christianity in otherwise fantasy worlds

[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]

…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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.