Has posting on /tg/ in any way affected your roleplay or

File: dungeon-meshi-23.png (49KB, 178x432px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 178x432px

>>49560593
It's made me watch what I say around my group a lot. I've started steering them far away from situations where we'd have to get into romance or basically anything lewd.

For quite a while I thought it made me better, but in truth it just instilled a lot of shitty habits that I've needed to change from.

Found some pretty good indie games.

I think I'm a bit more tolerant with others antics.

>>49560593
Yes. I mine /tg/ for inspiration, and bounce ideas off it.

>>49560593
Not really, I've first came to /tg/ when I was an experienced roleplayer already, and it did not change any of my habits or stereotypes yet. I mean, I guess I hate elves and monster girls even more now, but that's it.

>>49560593
>Has posting on /tg/ in any way affected your worldbuilding?
I'd like to think it helped slightly refine a few edges of my worldbuilding skill.

>Has posting on /tg/ in any way affected your roleplay?
It affected it the same way Lt. Dan posting in /fit/ would affect his legs.

>>49560593
/tg/ is slowly, day by day, building up my will to be a GM.
Especially with the magical realm threads

>>49560593
I mean, I have the confidence to play something other than Colonel Southern Comfort now, and I have you guys to thank for that.

I still fucking hate GNOMES, though. That will never change. Little pointy-hat dwarf-abortions.

>>49560593
In both respects it's broken me away from some retarded habits I had. That and it's inspired me to DM something for a change.

>>49560593
It has made me aware that preparing an intricate setting and story is setting oneself up for failure. Roleplaying is communal storytelling, and so the players must have a say in the story and the world around them. Everything should be subject to change, because only through change is there development. Status quo roleplaying will eventually kill any group.

File: paladin.png (2MB, 2120x3025px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2120x3025px

I use a decidedly greater amount of little girls and things that look like little girls in my campaigns, now.

>>49560644
>I've started steering them far away from situations where we'd have to get into romance or basically anything lewd.
That's not necessarily a good thing. Don't steer them TOWARD it, but don't steer them away from it either. If they all want to go there, let them go there. Don't let /tg/ horror stories make you think that anything remotely reminiscent of intimacy, physical or otherwise, has no place in any campaign.

>>49562942
The little girl mimic is a great tool to have.

>>49563016
Yeah, listening too closely to tg stories is like not wanting to get in a boat because you're afraid of Somalian pirates.
The truly horrifying things that happen, do happen.
But they're unlikely and even then only happen in certain situations.

>Captcha: Please select all the boats.

No. I learned how to place myself in another's perspective. I did this to combat my autistic tendencies. This makes role-playing fluid for me.

It has helped with map construction. Not so much with world building. I did have one waste of carbon try to tell me how to build a religion. The person was clearly a mental invalid.

>>49560644
The subject matter is fine, just don't add any more detail than everyone is comfortable with. Of course that includes you too, so if even broaching the subject squeaks you out then by all means avoid it. Just don't think you're automatically doing anyone else any favors.

>>49560593
I've had /tg/ tell me my shit ideas are shit, so that's handy. But it's not like I'll get the chance to implement them so what the fuck ever.

I have half a mind to find a play by post game somewhere. Are those a thing of any value? I've never considered it really.

>>49563571
>I did have one waste of carbon try to tell me how to build a religion.
Idly curious, was the anon>>49563571
>I did have one waste of carbon try to tell me how to build a religion.
I am idly curious, was this anon the same anon who spergs over how a religion is more than just a God?

>>49560593
It's made me avoid common mistakes in world-building, game design and running a game.

It's made me more selective about how I/we choose new players joining our group.

It's given me some great inspiration when I see people here creating settings and fun gaming ideas.


>>49562942
>shitty pedo kill urself

File: smug again.png (465KB, 583x601px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 583x601px

>>49563848

>>49560593
Writer here, basically >>49561031. Greentext stories and threads and filename threads are always something I sift through.

>>49560593
It made me realize I was a magical realming that guy and made me a better person in general. Thanks /tg/

>>49563990
I know that this board wasn't initially made for this, but I found the writefag threads really helpful. There was always someone answering my stupid questions.

>>49560593
I now pay closer attention to GMs and their methods and try to steer clear from unorganized and railroading ones.

I also state my expectations everytime, communicate better with the GMs and I play a lot more androgynous characters.

It's made me more relaxed about the hobby, for sure. I think after a while of the constant shitpost IMG I saw, something just snapped and I decided not to take any of it seriously anymore.

For example, I used to hate influx of magical realm weebshit that /tg/ kept trying to force into various RPGs, then finally I said fuck it and now I'm going to be GMing a game of Only War inspired by Valkyria Chronicles and with a party made entirely of cute girls.

>And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.

>>49564087
One of us
one of us

>>49561382
This except for the spoiler.

>>49564008
>a magical realming that guy

You didn't specify whether you accepted or rejected the designation after your epiphany.

/tg/ showed me how easy it is to just make a setting with what matters to the story while still being very fleshed out for exploration. I ran one game in the DnD universe and my players kept on saying
>Muh setting
>Muh lore
I either had to crack open all the splatbooks to learn the lore, which was fanfiction tier writing in my opinion, or just make my own setting.
I took the latter.

>>49564427
>just make my own setting.
Always good advice.

>>49560593
Why would I let the opinions off people who don't actually play games affect me?

>>49563750
It may or may not have been the same person, but that is what it did. It was a "unique campaign details" threaf. I shared a story from the mythos of one of the peoples. The person refused to accept that stories about higher beings can be part of a religion.

>>49564427
which D&D universe?

>>49564714
It's piss easy to make a setting.
Making a good setting is another matter, but you don't need a lot.
Just a gimmick, a few factions, and you'll have a campaign your players can easily remember.

"Remember that seaworld campaign? Oh yeah, we did awesome pirates in that."

"Remember that sci fi spelljammers ripoff? Hell yeah."

"Oh, that industrial age fantasy thing! That was terrible!"

File: Loli Mimics.png (1005KB, 1342x957px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 1342x957px

>>49563087

>>49560593
It taught me to cherrypick ideas from you guys and ignore everything else.

File: overbake.gif (1MB, 350x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x300px

>>49567920
This basically.
It gave me a lot of good ideas that I can use, and taught me how I shouldn't use them.

It has taught me that my way of having fun is wrong and I should've played GURPS instead

Everything Marcile is so exploitable.

>>49560593
It's made me crossplay MORE just because it triggers so many anons. I used to do it on a fifty fifty basis, now it's more like 80/20 just because the anger it generates makes me smile.

>>49560593
Thanks to /tg/ the hour or so we spend horsing around pre-game now includes jokes about /tg/ and wider 4chan stuff alongside films, politics and our myriad personal failings.

>>49567527
Pathfinder and 5th edition.

>>49564916
Sounds like it might be the same guy.
Maybe same thread.
The guy sounded like he had some decent thoughts about the difference between developing a god and developing a religion, but the two threads I've seen him in he spent more time raging like an autist at others who had done nothing wrong.
>OP: [Some variation of] tell me about features of your setting.
>Anon: These are my gods...
>Autist: THAT'S NOT A RELIGION!

I find him curious because I've never seen an Anon who came so close to making a cogent point but then veered at the last minute off the cliffs of insanity.

>>49568907
Actually Pathfinder was what I ran. 5th edition is what my group was assuming I'm going to use for the next campaign.

Since I got a request for more monster encounters with lots of role-playing in between, I'm brewing a bloodbourne/innistrad-ese setting.

>>49569062
Yeah, he wanted to talk about religion without myths and gods, explaining it with theology and philosophy. I pointed out to him that in a fantasy setting gods can be actively seen working, or even appearing in person. Don't remember if he replied to that.

>>49569082
>>49564427
>. I ran one game in the DnD universe and my players kept on saying
>>Muh setting
>>Muh lore
I never run games in an established setting if the players know far more than me.
>Who the hell is Vecna and why do all your characters have their body parts?

>>49569124
Yep.
I think I remember your posts.
One anon pointed out that he had developed religions, he just hadn't posted them.
Like I said, he made sense about religion being more than just a God.
But what he was doing was like going into a grocery store and screaming about the lack of quality power tools in their hardware section.

>>49562502
its ok my dude, I'm with you on that, I have a strange, abnormal, unexplained hatred for gnome's, and halflings. I don't mind them in stories, but if I'm GMing something, I immediately remove them as an option from the setting unless they're integral.

>>49569788
In my setting I wrote out handling because I've met half-sized humans and don't feel compelled to mimic Tolkien.
I wrote D&D gnomes out of my setting because they were stupid and badly made.
Then, I ended up writing gnomes back in as Faye squibs.

>>49560593
Yeah we always talk about adding in new races for pcs and npcs but in the back of our minds we always think "FURRY FURRY YER A FURRY FURFAG FURRY REEEE" every time so no lionpeople lizardfolk centaurs or anything like that thus far not even warforged

>>49569322
I am the anon who posted about having religions but not detailing them. The thread asked for a unique detail from your campaign. It did not ask for an in-depth explanation of your campaign religions. I added a unique story from one of the religions of my campaign. The anon freaked the fuck out (from having assumed that I simply had gods and no religion) and then refused to accept that it was wrong.

Not being able to humbly accept being in the wrong is childish.

Browsing /tg/ has made me cut back on my Pratchett-inspired flavor and prose, because I realize how awful it is when people rapid-fire blatantly-derived material without doing all the additional work that made the originals good in the first place.

It's like those people who used to spout Monty Python references continuously, except that the source material actually holds up on its own.

>>49574250
Both Prattchet and Monty Python hold up on their own. You can make it work if you want to (ie All Guardsmen Party being very much City Watch in 40k and it fits the setting flawlessly).

It's the same with concept-characters and tribute characters. Give them a character beyond them being a walking joke (references aren't jokes anyway) and think ahead of time what kind of development they could go through, and you should be alright.

Don't beat yourself up too much over it. Just don't beat people over their heads with it and you should be fine.

>>49560593
It's had a massive impact on my worldbuilding. The worldbuilding threads are themselves great, but the inspiration/history threads, and the OSR & SoS generals are just as good.

I can't give it all to teej though. Reddit was a massive help in showing me what I should never, ever do.

>>49574250
>Browsing /tg/ has made me cut back on my Pratchett-inspired flavor and prose, because I realize how awful it is when people rapid-fire blatantly-derived material without doing all the additional work that made the originals good in the first place.
Ironically, this is exactly how Pratchett started, and exactly what he ended up doing.

Based mods.

>>49560593
/tg/ has given me a thousand good ideas to steal and incorporate into my characters and campaigns, but when it comes to actual roleplaying and GMing I'd take anythig I read here with a huge pinch of salt.

>>49575696
People say this stuff, but I don't see it. What advice do you think is shit?

>>49575714
Anything that involves /tg/ saying what is good and what isn't is very suspect.

>>49575722
That's not very convincing.

>>49575727
If you actually say it, the thread will get flamewarred into oblivion by the idiots who think thy understand all games ever and that their opinion is correct and can't ever be wrong.

You know, white-room-theory crafters who claim all wizards are the end all be all of D&D, GURPS is bad because basic math is hard, 4e is perfectly balanced and not like an MMO at all...basically, anyone who claims that anythign they don't like is BADWRONGFUN and you should never play it.

>>49575748
But people don't say those things.

They are the contrarian opinion here.

>>49575714
I feel /tg/ has a too constrained view on roleplaying and GMing. There's too many posts along the lines of "Doing x is magical realm/makes you That Guy/is railroading", and if I were to have blindly followed some of the common advice I've read here it would have robbed me from some great RP experiences.

>>49560593
we beat the shit out of elf players, we made someone playing a samurai cry, we kicked out all the fucking feminazis, all the sjws, all the normies, and pretty soon the owner should be redoing the art in the place with hot bikini armor chicks and lolis

>>49575763
>>49575714
>>49575727
Okay, not them, but here's an example: Is it ever okay to play a furry character?
The actual answer is some version of "maybe sometimes".
/tg/'s official answer is some version of "die in a tire fire."

>>49575945
Memetically? Sure. In reality? No.

I think it's been made pretty clear that you guys are just autists who take everything said here as if people meant it.

>>49575884
>...and then I woke up in my sad, fetid puddle of fluids, yearning to hold on to the dream.

>>49575884
>and pretty soon the owner should be redoing the art in the place with hot bikini armor chicks and lolis
Oh shit I remember that one.

All right, sometimes /tg/ is fucking stupid.

>>49560593
Can someone explain the joke on OP's?

>>49575950
>Things said here should taken with more than a grain of salt
>No, you guys just shouldn't take everything said here as if people meant it.
I think you need to go work on understanding concepts before you post again, anon.
Your stupid is showing.

>>49575975
It's not advice if it's a joke. Why would you even need to warn people not to take jokes as serious advice?

This sounds like damage control, anon.

>>49575970
It would be inappropriate for us to explain it to a child or Mormon.

>>49575970
The manga had that elf getting grapped by the tentacle of a carnivorous plant and the only thing that autist of a human was thinking about is how awesome it must have felt to be touched by these marvels of nature.

>>49575985
>It's not advice if it's a joke.
>All bad advice on /tg/ is a joke played as straight if that serves my argument
>Everyone is only pretending to be retarded
Some are clearly jokes. Some.

>>49576016
Every single one mentioned so far, yes.

>>49576018
Because literrally nobody on /tg/ genuinely hates furries?
This is the bedrock you are using to secure your position?
Seriously, stop posting. This is sad.

>>49576038
You ARE in damage control.

>>49576042
He'll man, one of the examples was as simple as "railroading".
Everyone on /tg/'s opinions on railroading is just humor?

>>49576062
Have you looked at these threads?

People will go into nuanced discussion. Because that's what it deserves. Hell, the default answer on /tg/ is practically "maybe; it depends".

>>49576071
But you said:
>>49576018
>Every single one mentioned so far, yes [is a joke]
And here:
>>49575819
>"Doing x is magical realm/makes you That Guy/is railroading"
It was mentioned.
Your argument that all examples of all advice mentioned are jokes would mean that anyone whoever said "x is railroading" on /tg/ was joking.
That is your stupidity showing.

File: TracksintheSand1.3.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49576071
And yes, I've glanced at a few of the threads.

>>49576114
That's not what I said at all you stupid faggot.

People say that railroading is bad, because it is within the context they are talking. I.e., it is not bad advice. If you get into actual depth discussion about GMing, you will obviously find more nuance.

>>49575985
>It's not advice if it's a joke.
>>49576018
>Every single one mentioned so far, yes.
>>49576131
>That's not what I said at all you stupid faggot.
So you can't even understand the concepts you post?
Damn.
Let me explain it to you.
When you said it's not advice if it's a joke you were stating that what we had mentioned up to that point had been jokes. You even stated as much. However things we had mentioned included comments made about railroading that others disagree with. You are certain that anything we might have ever considered as bad advice are necessarily jokes and not bad advice suggests either you have an omniscience that allows you to see into the minds of all posters who ever posted anything that could be taken as advice and know that they were really all jokes, or you're stupid.

>>49576215
Now reread my post.

>>49563571
Hey faggot I'm the one you're spending inordinate amounts of time badmouthing in an unrelated thread and I'm just posting here to remind you that GODS are not RELIGIONS

Gods are created BY religions, by religious people. The mantle of divinity is conferred for a reason - a reason that extends beyond "being a powerful skyman". Powerful supernatural creatures are not divine unless people grant them the title, and even then, their divinity is not objective or even universal.

Religion is one of the core aspects of culture. It is not an outlet for your ill-conceived "divine fanclub" mythological bullshit.

And as an aside, that shit is ALWAYS boring and shallow. Your "clever" mythological take on the sun and moon or the seasons or whatever other bland, uninspired, trite fucking garbage you're shitting purple prose all over is BORING. LAME. DULL.

Anyway, back to the issue of actual religion: gods hardly factor into it. A religion is defined chiefly by its fundamental cosmology, then its practical philosophy, and then its theology, and way, way fucking down the road, somewhere between "music" and "festival days" you have the silly mythological bullshit you /think/ constitutes religion.

And another thing: pantheons aren't just divine soaps. They're also not the only religions, and they're also not interesting, even done well. So here's a mind-numbingly stupid misconception popular among you hacks: Graeco-Roman and Norse and Celtic pagan faiths were all very similar and chiefly defined by their mythologies. WRONG. These faiths had equally complex and holistic worldviews, cosmologies, and theologies as Abrahamic faiths. The religion manifested itself within communities chiefly in a liturgical and clerical way, as with Abrahamic and Vedic and Sino and damn near every other kind of faiths. That is to say, religion is not only much more than the shit you think it is, it's also PRIMARILY NOT ABOUT the shit you think it is.

File: 1444191642464.jpg (49KB, 335x606px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 335x606px

>>49576227
Please keep doing whatever it is that you do.

>>49576227
>Gods are created BY religions, by religious people.
Depends on the setting.

I'm the guy genuinely curious if you are capable of discussing your ideas without sounding like an enraged gorilla.
You did sperg out of nowhere on that anon.
Your posts would have made perfect sense had that OP asked about religion.
But just went off full retard man.
You heard nothing about that anon's religions because he was talking about the gods, which we all understand are not the same thing.
Your opinions are of worth, but seriously take a couple Xanax pay a hooker to give you a blowjob, and start a thread about this in a calm manner and I think it could be a great thread.
But keep posting in full retard angry mode like this and, well, it's just not a good look.

>>49575952
>>49575954
Truly such a day when cringe and normie is found in such staggering qualities in these two

>>49576227
>The mantle of divinity is conferred
That is where you have been rused, my friend, for divinity is an objective quality in my world.

>>49576223
Which post, the one where you don't understand the concept of taking something with a grain of salt or the one where you don't understand your own words or what you actually said?
Can you actually refute anything that I've said like an adult or are you just going to throw out bread crumbs for me to reply to? Because I've gotten bored with just showing you and everyone else your stupidity.

>>49576367
Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious you're just trying to back pedal here. I don't have any interest in arguing with someone who is obviously just trying to save face.
>inb4 b-b-but that's ad hominen!

>>49576336
Wait, am I cringe?
Thanks?

>>49576266
>>49576227
He is actually not wrong though. The way he bangs on about it and insults people in the process is annoying and completely unwarranted, and he might have a problem of understanding of what makes mythological and fantastic stories appealing to modern secular people, but he is actually pretty much entirely right on the account and understanding of religion itself.
He is not even entirely wrong on the notion that consistent misunderstanding of what religion is about leading to pretty damn boring mythologies and religions in most fantasy world building.

I don't think being so aggressive and forceful about it helps much. But I would not just dismiss the person as crazy, he knows a fair bit about psychology and cultural basis of religion.

>>49576354
>for divinity is an objective quality in my world.
If I can dare to project myself into this debate: I think his point is that THAT IS THE PROBLEM, because that reflects "poor" understanding of what divinity is and why it's important or even relevant to people. He made a point about that being dumb and boring, not impossible...

>>49576405
>If I can dare to project myself into this debate
You cannot.
>that reflects "poor" understanding of what divinity is
But it doesn't.

File: wizard4.jpg (292KB, 1411x1144px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1411x1144px

>>49560593
It helped me stop making grim and gritty edgelord characters for every game and start making jolly and wise old wizards instead.

>>49575763
Yes people really say those things all the time in /tg/. And they mean them.

>>49576405
Oh yeah, he surely has a point, this makes it so interesting and fun to see him rambling, because he seems to fall on his nose half-way and not getting what the appeal of active intervening gods in a made-up setting could be.

>>49576385
So it's "back peddling" now?
I thought I was "damage control".
You sure do like those terms that do nothing to refute the points that I am standing by.
Pity you don't seem to understand them.
Come on, restate your arguments and how it refutes what I've said.
I know you can do it!
Just look back at the things you've posted and put them together in one solid statement that is your position regarding what's been posted.
If your statement has any relevance to the actual things that have been posted I will be very surprised, but also proud of you.

File: Male Future 5.jpg (16KB, 243x523px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 243x523px

>>49576414
Fucking this. It's so much fun playing the affable old guy.

>>49576427
No they don't.

Contrarian faggot.
>>49576435
Yep, you sure are persistent.
>You sure do like those terms that do nothing to refute the points that I am standing by.
Oh the irony.

>>49576227
Except when the reverse is true.

Which is entirely possible in both fantasy and science fiction.

Just so you know.

Also, your person opinion on how interesting it may or may not be is subjective and anecdotal - c.f. Lord of Light, The Man Who Fell To Earth, Time's Master series, etc.

>>49576442
>I've never been in any D&D thread ever
Yeah, whatever.

>>49576442
>irony
There's another term!
Come on, try for a whole statement, we believe in you!
What is your position?

>>49576413
It really does though. Divinity is a symbolic notion, remove the symbolic aspect of it and it kinda loses any meaning at all. It just becomes a thing that "is" in your world, like meteors or floods or flue.

>>49576429
>not getting what the appeal of active intervening gods in a made-up setting could be.
I think he is mostly just quite proud of his knowledge on the subject (which I can't blame him, that is actually some pretty advanced stuff) and at the same time a bit insecure so he REALLY needs to push that knowledge on others, which I can blame him for, that makes him a bit of a dick.

But if we remove the whole dick-waving and insecurity aspect of it, I think the point is quite pertinent and worth considering. After all, most of religion and mythology related stuff in fantasy is boring as fuck and extremely repetetive, and his point is kinda the reason why that is the thing.

>>49576227
I'm just curious about one thing:
Where did you get all of this? Any authors, articles, books that drove you towards thinking like this? Ever heard of Peterson, Sperber, Piaget, Levi-Strauss? Eliade? Just Jung perhaps?

>>49576469
It takes serious autism to think D&D threads are serious.
>>49576472
Why stick to one?

Many is more fun.

>>49576475
>Divinity is a symbolic notion
Not in my world.
>remove the symbolic aspect of it and it kinda loses any meaning at all
Citation needed.
>It just becomes a thing that "is" in your world
Now you understand.

But come on; you have never heard of essences?

>>49576475
Thank you for elucidating my thoughts for me, better than I did.
a.k.a.: This

>>49576485
>Why stick to one?
>Many is more fun.
Awww.
Maybe next time champ.
Do try to work on making your posts less non-sensical, okay?
See you next time little fella.

>>49576523
>if I try and use the meme words, he will surely think I am not rustled!
Maybe next time champ.

>>49576405
It's a reasonable perspective. But it's also needlessly antagonistic, and he foregoes discussing his theory in favour of calling others stupid. If you strip away the insults, the entire point can be boiled down to "religions are value structures" which is great, but that's a starting point of a discussion, not the end, as he seems to think.

It's obvious to everyone but the most retarded that if you want to make a pseudo-Roman Fantasy setting, you also have to mimic the way Romans did religion, instead of just copying their gods. But what he doesn't go into is HOW you do that, what the operating conditions are in his way of worldbuilding. And that is irksome, because there are reams of test calling everything else "boring".

>>49576499
>Not in my world.
It's literally the meaning of the word. It's like saying "blue is not blue in my world, it's actually pink". And then being confused why people find such notion just stupid...

>Citation needed.
I've mentioned some great authors who studied the subject matter in the last line of my previous posts.

>Now you understand.
I always understood. That means it's not divine anymore, and loses what makes the idea of "divine" interesting and appealing. If you redefine cars as being immobile pieces of rock in your world that serve no purpose other than sitting on the ground, then anyone who took interest in your world because he is interested in cars will probably lose that interest pretty quickly.

>>49576560
>But it's also needlessly antagonistic, and he foregoes discussing his theory in favour of calling others stupid.
Again: I understand why he does it, but I also agree that it's a pretty silly way of doing it.

>But what he doesn't go into is HOW you do that,
Maybe this is because I subscribe to very similar way of looking at it, but to me it seems the implications are actually pretty obvious... I can understand that he might not realize that is not the case for everyone.

Again if I might project myself, I'd say the way to avoid the mistakes he points out is to understand religion a as a point of view through which inhabitants read and understand reality around them, rather than being an actual aspect of the reality.
In other ways, it might be worth considering the people first, their needs, their fears, their history and experience and the kind of moral lessons they might find most important to remember (and their sources of inspiration) first and only after start thinking about what their religions might look like. View religion as a code of communication and way of looking at world.
I'm sorry if this still sounds too vague, I can expand on it if you are interested, but I'm running out of space for this post.

>>49576660
>I've mentioned some great authors who studied the subject matter in the last line of my previous posts.
You listed fucking Jung, anon, you can see why he ignored you.

>>49576668
Jung did some EXCEPTIONALLY good work on psychology of religion and myth, and was all-round a pretty damn smart person. I'd argue his contribution to understanding religion and mythology is actually far greater than his contribution to psychology of personality.
The fact that a lot of his work has been outdated by more modern research does not actually mean he is not worth listening to - he did lay out foundations on which most of modern cognitive science still stands.

Dismissing him is like dismissing Pavlov: yeah, a lot of it may seem funny today, but it's not like he was not onto some pretty big and good ideas.

I think you're using different definitions of god.

>>49576660
you mean "a character that people worship"

>>49576499
you mean "really powerful spirit creature"

>>49576736
I think the main difference is in why would such character be important and interesting to us to begin with.

>>49560593
I got gud

>>49576881
Anything powerful's bound to have people interested (in-universe).

>>49576660
I understand what he means. I'm just saying that on its own, it's a fairly simplistic point, and it doesn't mean anything unless you talk about it. He also does not mention anything about applying this logic in a setting where the gods are also real.

For that I would have to go all the way back to Terry Pratchett, who is the only source I can point to who expouses and explains a view like this. Particularly, in Small Gods. It's probably my favorite Pratchett book for that reason, and for successfully making a Fantasy god a compelling character. Of course, the Discworld itself is one big deconstruction of Fantasy tropes, so taking it as an example of how to do proper Fantasy is a bit suspect.

He makes the point, so the burden is on him to provide a framework for his logic. Or at the very least provide some background from real life. It's easy to make a general point, and to shit on people who "misinterpret" Greco-Roman or Nordic myth. But that completely blows past the fact that the day-to-day interpretation of religion is favoured by virtually no interpretation of these cultures. Even if you go to the Abrahamic religions, followers will be offended if you view their religion in any other way than their gods being real and granting their Clerics spell levels. Go ahead, try telling a Christian or Muslim that they're being a political ideology given that they are using their religion as a guideline for national law. So in that context it's not particularly weird that people take this top-down approach.

>>49564087
>I'm going to be GMing a game of Only War inspired by Valkyria Chronicles and with a party made entirely of cute girls
Best taste.

Which I was part of that group. Loved that game to death, and only war would be perfect for that. Give the psyker a force weapon.

>>49576916
People don't show particularly extreme interest in antibiotics, combustion engines or hand guns either. And the bigger question is why the players/audience should be particularly interested.

The main problem is that if a guy gives me a "god" that just a really powerful spiritual being in a world where spiritual beings are about as common as taxes, then that thing is going to be as interesting to me as a the secretary of the treasury would be. He is just another part of the routine of the world.

Take the way divine magic and clerics are done in many table-top systems: gods are basically reduced to more powerful call girls that you give a ring when you need them. It's just... Not exactly inspiring awe or curiosity.

>>49576956
>it's a fairly simplistic point
I disagree, seeing how many people seem to have problem understanding it. Even you ask for details for:
>about applying this logic in a setting where the gods are also real.
Original point was, if I understood it right, is that worlds where Gods are real are boring and dull, mostly because if the Gods are real, there is ironically very little reason for religion to exit, and if it exists, it's not particularly fun.

>Even if you go to the Abrahamic religions
The question is WHY do they insist on that, when it's such an obvious (seemingly) counter-intuitive thought. Also:

>they're being a political ideology given that they are using their religion as a guideline for national law
I would be pissed if somebody told me that too because that is stupid, borderline Marxist interpretation of religion. There is considerably more to the religion than just being a guideline for national law: it's a guideline to how to live your whole damn life and explanation of why things happen to you the way they happen. That is a bit of a taller order.

The bottom line really is that religion is most fun when it TELLS STORIES ABOUT THE WORLD AND IT'S INHABITANTS, not BE the story of the world and it's inhabitants.

>>49577050
>I disagree, seeing how many people seem to have problem understanding it. Even you ask for details for

This is a logical fallacy. The fact that I demand that he expound his point does not mean I can not do it myself. However, it's not my point, and it's not my job to make his point for him. To dismiss anyone who refuses to that as not understanding it is intellectually lazy. And that's pretty much my entire problem with him.

>worlds where Gods are real are boring and dull, mostly because if the Gods are real, there is ironically very little reason for religion to exit

See, that's not what I read. The gods being real did not factor in his point. His point was that people tend to follow a top-down design process: They create the gods first, and the religion second. And the emphasise the gods rather than the religion. Versus the natural approach, which is bottom-up: The people come first, they develop beliefs and customs, which coalesce in religious practice and a concept of god(s).

>The question is WHY do they insist on that, when it's such an obvious (seemingly) counter-intuitive thought

Not really, not in this context. In this context it's important that they do so, because it explains why there is an emphasis on top-down design of Fantasy religion. And that's because the believers themselves consider their religions to be top-down systems, and represent them as such. The top-down system is overrepresented in our view of religion.

>I would be pissed if somebody told me that too because that is stupid, borderline Marxist interpretation of religion

Yeah, there you go, being offended. That's exactly the problem. And now you get into the same problem he did: Being needlessly insulting because someone doesn't agree with you.

I have more to say, so cont.

>>49577128
Jumping in the argument here, but personally I go the bottom-up route. It's led to a problem where the gods being real makes it difficult to make them consistent with the beliefs of the people who worship them. I've had to make them more and more vague to the point where I feel like I should just erase any confirmation of their actual existence.

Any anons find a good balance between the two?

>>49577128
Cont.

>There is considerably more to the religion than just being a guideline for national law: it's a guideline to how to live your whole damn life and explanation of why things happen to you the way they happen. That is a bit of a taller order.

You're letting your butthurt get ahead of you, because that's not at all what I said. You're putting words in my mouth, and I don't like it. Especially not when you're using this strawman to call me "stupid". Which is stupid in its own right. Religious people DO use their religion as guidelines for national law. Nothing about that statement implies it's the ONLY thing they do with their religion. But laws about religious holidays, gay marriage, or insulting holy concepts very much put me in the right. Objectively.

And the entire point was me explaining that the top-down system is overrepresented because people get offended when you apply reality to their religious fantasy. Which is what you just did. So thanks, I guess.

>The bottom line really is that religion is most fun when it TELLS STORIES ABOUT THE WORLD AND IT'S INHABITANTS, not BE the story of the world and it's inhabitants.

No, the bottom line is YOU CAN'T PROPOSE A SYSTEM WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW IT WORKS AND THEN GET OFFENDED LIKE A LITTLE BITCH WHEN PEOPLE SAY ANYTHING THAT RUBS YOU THE WRONG WAY. This is also an empty statement. It all comes down to some condescending stoner interpretation of "just do it, man".

>>49577050
You're asking why gods would be interesting to players? That's a very broad question.

Even if there are lots of powerful spirit creatures around, one will interest the players if it's a cool character, or has abilities that can help them (or hurt them).

Do you specifically want to make gods awe-inspiring? Like the sort of things people would realistically want to worship.

>>49577128
>And that's pretty much my entire problem with him.
>The gods being real did not factor in his point.
Maybe I misunderstood his point and projected too much of mine (though he claimed I got it and formulated it better than he did), but I think the problem is that if you are creating a world where Gods are real, you are ALREADY committing the "sin" of "top-down" construction of religion to begin with: the Gods existence pre-dates and conditions the existence of religion. Which is what he seemed to take such an issue with.
So as far as I can tell, the Gods being real does factor into his point, in fact it's the biggest point of contention.

>In this context it's important that they do so
Again, that might be exactly the notion that he (and I'm not going to lie, myself too) kinda take an issue with. First of all, it's not actually true that believers necessary think of their models as top-down (some do, but it's not nearly as universal point of view as people may think, it's more of a common misconception about religion). Second of all, it does not matter how the believers see themselves, because in fantasy fiction, you are not a believer or challenge the perspective of the believer: you are interested in the perspective of the audience. And the top-down system can get boring for the audience, which should be a concern for the author, should it not?
Even if the notion that religion is top-down is common, that does not actually mean that it should not be challenged: frankly that means it should be challenged MORE, no?

>Yeah, there you go, being offended.
Except I'm as atheistic as it gets, so the offense here is not with the claim conflicting religious belief: simply offending my delicate intelectual sensibilities. I don't like when people make dangerously misinformed judgements about subjects as important as religion because it leads to them generally making poor judgement calls and stuff.

>>49577188
The bottom-up route will lead to a more believable world.

If you want to have active gods, I think it's important to remember that they are inhuman. They might have a different concept of time, they might do things for shits and giggles, and they might be cosmic forces personified. There is a great gulf between them and the mortals, and in the end the mortals are essentially playing a big game of telephone with their gods.

I've previously used Terry Pratchett as an example, and he might be a good starting point: In the Discworld setting, Gods are created by their believers. There's even an explanation about hermits in the desert: That's where the "gods" without followers hang out, mostly nothing more than capracious spirits with minor powers. His system has the interesting feature that small gods will by their nature be more involved with their followers.

>>49577235
>the Gods existence pre-dates and conditions the existence of religion
It doesn't have to

>>49577194
>You're letting your butthurt get ahead of you
Not really butthurt, calling something (not even someone) "stupid" does not seem as such an expressive act of hostility, but that is besides the point.
I was reacting to your implication that religion is essentially a political instrument, which is a common and very dangerous misconception. It's not particularly related to the subject matter of the previous discussion, but I will admit it's a notion that is common and misleading enough to make me not ignore it most of the time...

>Religious people DO use their religion as guidelines for national law.
Actually only a very few religions tended to do that, minority in the grand scheme of things, but more importantly, I simply took issue with you saying "that is what religion is". Which is not. It being also used as a normative model for national law is one of the side-effect of existence of religion, but not even remotely close to its primary and most important functions.
And just to make things clear, I called the specific statement stupid, not you. Simply because it implied a drastically reductionalistic understanding of the full extend of function of religion as a cultural system. No need to get so offended, really.

>>49577188
An actual god could could be worshiped, but the worshipers might not know much about Him, so you could end up with a religion fairly unrelated to reality.

>>49577235
>but I think the problem is that if you are creating a world where Gods are real, you are ALREADY committing the "sin" of "top-down" construction of religion to begin with

But this statement relies on the assumption that people are doing it in the way you think they are doing it. If they follow the Pratchett example, the gods form through the religion. Yet they are very real in that world, and he often jokes about atheists only being able to make their statements under leadlined roofs (the gods can't see through lead, like Superman). And if the gods being real is his biggest point, he ought to have mentioned it. He didn't. I can't respond to points I have to decipher first.

>First of all, it's not actually true that believers necessary think of their models as top-down

I'm simply speaking from experience. Religion is quite the popular topic. And I've yet to see a religious person who argue that their god only follows from their own community, rather than that he was always around and they were enlightened by him.

>Second of all, it does not matter how the believers see themselves

Yes it does. I think you're not getting my point. I'm arguing that the top-down way of looking at religion, where the gods were there first and the culture of the religious community second, is a popular way of worldbuilding because it is the common representation of religion in general culture. Anyone who went to a Christian school knows they don't start with Jesus spreading the word in the New Testament, but with God creating the world in Genesis. I'm trying to explain this guy's frustration with people using this method so often. They use the method because it comes natural, because of cultural influence. This is not an argument about superiority.

>Except I'm as atheistic as it gets

Yes, and? I didn't say "you're religious", I said "you are offended (on behalf of the religious)". Which you are.

Cont.

>>49577257
>It doesn't have to
The potentionality itself still matters, I think.

So let's assume the very specific model where gods did not exist, but your world still seems to be governed by metaphysical and magical principles, because the existence of religion can bring them into being, or they can spontaneously come into being independently on already existing religions.

The second scenario presumes that some form of divine and metaphysical powers are still in the world, even if there aren't (yet) specific characters called gods and is generally a bit messy, and the main concern there would be: how would the religion change if their non-existent gods suddenly came into existence.

Hmmm. The last scenario actually does sound like a pretty fun one, I have to admit that. But in both cases, you have religions and gods being pretty much unrelated to each other still: which again basically leads to the scenario that fellow advocated in the first place, no?

>>49577284
>Actually only a very few religions tended to do that

If by that you mean every single religion ever. The only reason it is less prevalent today is because it is superceded by a new sort of religion; in the secular state. Which the French revolutionaries actually worshiped as a literal religion, too, in the "cult of reason".

>>49577235
>(though he claimed I got it and formulated it better than he did)
If this was referring to >>49576502 , then sorry man.
I'm just another anon who agrees and can't say it better.

>>49577364
>>I don't like when people make dangerously misinformed judgements about subjects as important as religion because it leads to them generally making poor judgement calls and stuff.

Oh, please. "dangerously misinformed"? That's the wording you're going for?

See, this is my problem with arguing from offense: You immediately give yourself license to become a cunt in return, and to argue from emotion rather than reason. You're no longer arguing the point, you are arguing the man. Me. Your argument is now that I'm a stupid poopy face.

>>49577284
>I was reacting to your implication that religion is essentially a political instrument, which is a common and very dangerous misconception.

Religion is a political instrument when it wants to be. When some cunt argues that faggots can't get married because "it's an abomination in the eyes of the Lord", that's him using religion as a political instrument. When some cunt argues for making scribbles of bearded men in turbans illegal because "muh Muhammed", same thing.

I think it's a very dangerous misconception that it's OFFENSIVE to even fucking talk about this shit. I never even made a value judgement about religion itself. I simply said that sometimes, religious people try to leverage their religion into real life power. And you call me dangerous for that. Not the people who want to ban shit because it offends them, but me, who doesn't want to ban anything.

Yeah, I consider that insulting.

>but not even remotely close to its primary and most important functions.

This caveat is important because, again, you'll notice I implied nowhere that it's religion's primary function. I said it's a thing that religion does, and that the religious get offended when you want to talk about it. And then you got offended for me talking about it.

>No need to get so offended, really.

Bitch, you don't get to turn that around on someone after arguing from pointless ad hominems and putting words in my mouth.

>>49577364
>and he often jokes about atheists only being able to make their statements under leadlined roofs
You also have to take into consideration that Pratchett was a comedy author who wrote his fiction as a light-hearted genre and society satire. I love the guy's work but it's a terrible world-building. It's like providing Adams as an example of good Sci-fi writing, really. One of the reason why his theory work is exactly because it assumes meta-understanding of religion in real world, and pokes fun at that.

>that their god only follows from their own community,
And once again, that is the same mistake you made before. They won't agree because that is not true. Their God stems from profound and fundamental understanding of life, which also forces emergence of communities. You are again reducing religion to a political tool, but religion is actually a product of survival necessities. Which is by the way why people should be more careful about disregarding religious points, as they really are just products of a very efficient evolutionary tool...
But yeah, most religious people don't have the perspective to realize context of their own beliefs in modern, scientific perspective.
That said, I don't think that was ever a matter to argue about. I understand where that guy comes from and I understand why it is the way it is: I'm just humbly suggesting that his insistence that these notions should be challenged is not unwarranted. He points out people look at religion from a certain perspective and that they should challenge that perspective: and I have to say I agree with him on that.
Then starts being a dick about it and that is obviously wrong, but that is a matter of timing and common courtesy, rather than of fundamental stance or philosophy of world-building.

>Which you are.
Actually, I'm offended on behalf of religionists, anthropologists and psychologists that study religion from an atheistic point of view, actually. Bit of a difference.

Is there any reason you can't do both top-down and bottom-up?
I started with a few intentional gods and then worked my way down to people.
Then I looked at the various peoples of the world, and asked myself what gods they would concern themselves with.
I find the idea of people or religions creating Gods to be silly.
However, if Gods gain power, strength, or what-have-you from their worshippers, then the most powerful Gods will be the ones who are worth following and worshipping.
I used that to flesh out additional gods that people would have use for.
Then I started back at the lowest people and worked my way up towards the goal of these gods, building on their beliefs about them which may in fact not remotely resemble the reality.

>>49577545
I have no idea what you said and have no clue how gods work in your setting

>>49577475
>That's the wording you're going for?
That is precisely the wording I'm going for, because it's a theory based on pretty poorly informed assumptions and leads to dangerous conclusions.

>You immediately give yourself license to become a cunt in return
A little off topic, but so far I've called a theory "stupid", and have been called "butthurt cunt". Now I'm trying my best to ignore it, but when you waste so much time on implying how I'm the one offended, the hypocrisy becomes increasingly annoying. I questioned your belief, you are the one throwing tantrum, insulting me and saying how you can't even communicate with me here. If you can't actually bear the notion that somebody may call your theory stupid, you might not want to debate on places like this one.

With that said, could we please drop the whole "wah wah so butthurt" aspect of it and return to the actual subject matter at hand: that is actually understanding religion, in real world or in fiction now?

>Religion is a political instrument when it wants to be.
Religion does not "want to be" anything any more than hunger wants to be somebody. Religion can be used as a political tool. So can be cult of body, biology, science, and advertising. You would not say "science is just a political tool" though now, would you? Because the roots of science lie somewhere, even if it's used politically at times? That is simple the problem I have with this understanding of religion.

>that's him using religion as a political instrument.
No, it actually is him just reflecting an ancient and not unjustified fear of dissolution of traditional marriage, which has been one of the most important survival tools we have at our disposal. Only when you say:
"You should vote for me and give me power and allow me to kill people so that I can stop faggots from marrying since that is against god", it's actually being used as a political tool. Plenty of religions don't do that, by the way.

>>49577576
>I have no idea what you said
Thog edit:
Why not both?
First gods.
Then people.
People only worship best gods.
Other gods fade.
People develop religion like normal, bottom up.
But God real.
People not know God.
People guess, then pretend to know.
God does God things.

>and have no clue how gods work in your setting
Gods are real, get power from follwers, & give subjective "blessings" if they want to.
Religions are naturally developed belief structures generally formed around making assumptions about interactions with gods.

>>49577475
>I think it's a very dangerous misconception that it's OFFENSIVE to even fucking talk about this shit.
Now we are talking about something ENTIRELY different than we were up to now. First of all, there is a difference between taking an offense with something somebody said (that is: disagreeing with him), and defining that thing as offensive (that is something that should be censored and the person persecuted for saying it). The first thing is understandable, arguably at times even beneficial, the other has not been proposed even remotely by anyone in this discussion.

>I simply said that sometimes, religious people try to leverage their religion into real life power.
That is not what you said. It's perhaps what you meant, but not what you actually said. Nobody is disputing that religion gets politicized, and nobody disputes that might be dangerous. Any belief system can potentially become devastating when being fueled by significant political capital, religion or other.

>Yeah, I consider that insulting.
So you realize it's you who feels personally offended here, not me? At least we cleared that out...

But now we are really far away from the original subject matter.

>Bitch, you don't get to turn that around on someone after arguing from pointless ad hominems and putting words in my mouth.
Ups, spoke too soon.
Dude, calm down, take a few deep breaths, come back to the discussion once you actually become rational again. You just called me "Cunt" because I once said "that would be stupid way of looking at religion". Think about that, please.

Also, just to clear things out, if you say:
>Go ahead, try telling a Christian or Muslim that they're being a political ideology given that they are using their religion as a guideline for national law.
Without any clarificiation, that literally says "Christianity and Islam are a political ideology". That is what you said. Next time, clarify yourself so we can avoid these misunderstandings.

>>49577530
>it assumes meta-understanding of religion in real world

Yeah, no shit. That's what got this ball rolling in the first place.

>You are again reducing religion to a political tool

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. This is just your interpretation of what I said about a bottom-up worldbuilding model of religion that you are taking and running with.

>but religion is actually a product of survival necessities

This is literally the first time I've ever heard someone refer to religion in that. You judge me (wrongly I might add) for stating that religion is only "a political tool", but I think you're projecting, because here you're applying such a blanket statement yourself. Certainly, there are elements of survival in religious codes. Sometimes. Other times, there are not. But it's simply not a "very efficient evolutionary tool". That's both giving religion credit for no reason, and a sci-fi view of evolution as always producing the best results.

The rest, I agree with. He does make an interesting point. But, like I said, it's minimal.

>I'm offended on behalf of religionists, anthropologists and psychologists that study religion from an atheistic point of view, actually.

You're still offended. You don't buy anything for being offended. And you argued from offense, as if you being offended suddenly meant you could say that my ideas are "dangerous" after fluffing them up to be something I didn't even say.

But hey, I used to study archeology and psychology, so I guess you're now actually being offended at me on my behalf, which is hilarious.

>>49577646
If people don't know the gods, how did they come to worship the best gods in the beginning? How are they developing their religions bottom-up if they've already acknowledged and begun worshipping gods? Would their culture/religion not account for whatever their chosen patron does in this developing religion, defeating the whole bottom-up/people centric idea? Is their worship of these gods entirely separate from their worship of whatever exists in their religion? Did they just forget the gods they used to worship?

File: ascension.png (1MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x768px

>>49577646
>People not know God.
>People guess, then pretend to know.
Pic related

>>49577604
>That is precisely the wording I'm going for, because it's a theory based on pretty poorly informed assumptions and leads to dangerous conclusions.

Yeah, without explaining that shit, those are just empty wafflewords you think carry meaning because you feel strongly about them. From my perspective, you're just cursing at me.

>A little off topic, but so far I've called a theory "stupid", and have been called "butthurt cunt".

Don't come to me with this false modesty. If you call something I say, in this conversation, "stupid", you are calling me "stupid". That's just how language works. But if that's how you want to argue, you should extend the same courtesy to me and accept that I did not call you a "cunt", but said you are arguing like a cunt. Subtle difference, you'll agree.

> the hypocrisy becomes increasingly annoying

Oh, really, does it now? You mean like the hypocrisy of calling people "dangerous" and "stupid" while getting upset at someone simply arguing about the nature of religion?

>I questioned your belief

That's the problem: You questioned nothing. You stated. You said "this is stupid and it offends me" without going into the matter further. And any attempt at doing so ends up with you strawmanning the hell out of my argument. I've already pointed out, what, three times that what you represent as me having said about religion as a political instrument is wrong? Yet you insist on keeping with what you think I said, instead of what I actually said.

>you might not want to debate on places like this one.

It takes two to tango, buddy.

>You would not say "science is just a political tool" though now, would you?

For the fourth time: I did not say "religion is a political tool". I said "if you talk to religious people and say that they use religion as a political tool, they get offended". You're now explaining a distinction to me that I've already explained to you multiple times.

>>49576038
As far as I can tell, there are two types of furry.

There's the actually decent "yes, I'm a furry but I understand that not everyone wants to know and also that sticking my being a furry into everything gets very old very quickly" type. These are alright, as long as they don't turn into the other type.

There's also the "I'M A FURRY AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW HOW AWESOME BEING A FURRY IS AND EVERYONE WHO HATES ME IS PERSECUTING ME AND DID I MENTION THAT I'M A FURRY ALREADY BECAUSE I'M A FURRY YIFF YIFF YIFF YIFF YIFF" type, and these are the ones that need a rapid application of flamethrower to the fursuit, particularly if it's made of acrylic.

The problem is that, irrespective of how many of the former type there are, the latter type are always the most visible, because they just won't shut the fuck up about being a furry. This in turn leads people to dislike them because they have this urge to shoehorn their furriness into literally everything they can, including things where it makes no sense. e.g. Only War. There is literally no room for a furry in the Imperium if it's a member of supposedly baseline Homo Sapiens, and if it's a Xenos species, then why the fuck hasn't the regiment shot it on sight? e.g. JJBA: it's established that humans exist, and Stands exist. There's no catgirl or lizardman race. You could possibly justify an anthropomorphic lizard as a Stand, but it would NOT be the prettified version most furries are interested in, in the same way the Killer Queen is a rather stylized human.

>>49578002
But if I want to take a guardsman who wears a fake tail and sticks cat ears on his helmet because he feels it helps him get in touch with his iner self, the only one who can stop me is the commissar.

>>49577925
>From my perspective, you're just cursing at me.
First off all, that just means you are so insecure that somebody questioning your theory ACTUALLY INSULTS YOU. This is actually something you should really work on: it's going to make communication with other people hard and it's going to make you very unhappy in your life. Learn to deal with criticisms leveled at your beliefs and don't conflate them with criticisms leveled at you personally.
The assumption that religion is merely a political instrument is Marxist, by the way. It's based on the assumption that most cultural principles are just political weapons in a socio-economical conflict of power. It's a theory that pits people against each other and implies antagony where there often isn't any. We have some pretty bad experiences with where this mindset goes, from the good old communism to modern left-wing ideologies such as critical theory.

>If you call something I say, in this conversation, "stupid", you are calling me "stupid".
No, I'm calling that specific claim stupid. Hell, I did not even assume that you actually hold that belief: you made a pretty vague statement "if somebody told them", I actually assumed that we are talking hypothetical scenario and did not even assume that you necessarily hold that belief strongly, or at all.
And really, you NEED to learn the bloody difference. How old are you? You are going to get absolutely insane if you ever enter an informal debate between academics. Saying that a theory is stupid is just stronger way of saying of "I believe you are wrong". And that is something you really need to learn to live with without taking it personally.
You have NO idea how many times I was wrong, by the way. The only reason why I know what I know is because I've been told my theories were stupid thousand times, and I reflected on that and improved them when the need arose instead of being offended and taking it personally: that is how you grow and learn.
Cont...

>>49577776
>If people don't know the gods, how did they come to worship the best gods in the beginning?
"Best" being defined here as most helpful for continued survival.

>How are they developing their religions bottom-up if they've already acknowledged and begun worshipping gods?
Because they didn't start by picking their God from a menu.
They acknowledged power and interactions and began responding. When certain responses increased positive or negative interactions, meaning was applied.

>Would their culture/religion not account for whatever their chosen patron does in this developing religion, defeating the whole bottom-up/people centric idea?
Why would it? How is worshipping a real God different than an animal or a chemical reaction?

>Is their worship of these gods entirely separate from their worship of whatever exists in their religion?
Gods are part of their religion.
This question confuses me.

>Did they just forget the gods they used to worship?
Mostly.
Maybe the God of the Dry Cave got forgotten when people went nomadic.
Maybe the God of the grasses got muddled up with the Goddess of the forests and her worship was more pleasant, so his was left undone and his boons attributed to her.
Maybe all the worshipers of the Bonecraft God were killed in tribal war.
Plus, dem ancient cults mang.

>>49576000
lol thank you, Didnt read or even know that manga before

>>49577925
>No, it actually is him just reflecting an ancient and not unjustified fear of dissolution of traditional marriage

Now you're putting words in that guy's mouth. They also say that, don't get me wrong, but when someone uses scripture to justify those ideas, they are invoking the power of their religion. Pure and simple.

>which has been one of the most important survival tools we have at our disposal

This is the second time you've said this with nothing to back it up. This doesn't mean anything without argumentation, and it's not a commonly held belief. And in the setting where you would expect to find the most survival-oriented religions, you find the exact opposite: Strange, arbitrary systems such as headhunting or kanaima priests. I strongly suspect you base this mostly on the originally Jewish laws about washing and preparing foodstuffs.

>>49577667
>offensive (that is something that should be censored and the person persecuted for saying it

That's a rather specific interpretation of "offensive", and not one I posited. At its base, "offensive" means it affronts one's sensibilities. Any possible actions people want to take as a result of that are something else entirely.

>That is not what you said

I said it four fucking times now, in different wording, what more do you want? Am I just that retarded that I can not say the things I mean to say with four different attempts?

>So you realize it's you who feels personally offended here, not me?

No, you threw a bunch of ad hominems at me based on you feeling offended, and I considered that offensive in return. Not exactly rocket surgery, is it? This isn't some zero sum game where only one of us can be offended at the other. Except what I consider offensive is terms like "stupid" being used as if they're self-contained arguments, and what you are getting offended at is a statement about religion leveraging political power.

>>49578002
>Only War. There is literally no room for a furry in the Imperium if it's a member of supposedly baseline
I don't even like 40k and I know what a fuckin' Abhuman is.

>>49577925
>and accept that I did not call you a "cunt", but said you are arguing like a cunt
I think given the circumstances, I've been taking your verbal abuse pretty well so far. Also, you specifically stated "that allows you to be a cunt", I double checked that statement just because I was expecting you try to pull this argument.

Also, I've already proposed that we could drop the entire "who is offended the most" thing entirely several times. You keep bringing it up. I'm not really all that interested, I'm just giving you some friendly advice for your own sake here. And I'm 100% sincere here, this is not about me being patronizing: I genuinely mean and wish you the best here.

>You mean like the hypocrisy of calling people "dangerous" and "stupid"
Calling BELIEFS dangerous and stupid. Really: LEARN the difference, it can save you your sanity.

>You questioned nothing.
To question someone's statement means to disagree with it and offer a counter argument. I'm not a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure that is how it goes.

>without going into the matter further.
How are the extensive parts in
>>49577530
>(Their God stems from profound...)
>>49577604
>(Religion does not "want to be" anything...)
and others not expanding on that. If you want the ENTIRE theory, I suggest tacking all the way back to the authors I've mentioned somewhere at the start of the discussion (Jung, Piaget, Peterson etc...) and reading on those. It's a very complicated matter and I don't have any chance of explaining it in full detail here. I'll gladly give you a pointers for further studies if you want.

>It takes two to tango, buddy.
So far I have been polite and pretty accomodating in face of slew of insults and pretty much complete derailment of this debate because YOU were offended by me simply pointing out that your understanding of religion might not be sufficient. What more do you actually want?

I've replaced all the ugly races in games with their monstergirl equivalents.

If you want to play a dragonborn but don't want to use one of the three existing pieces of accurate art of them for your token, or if you just want to look like a cropped eroge character you stole from a booru, that's fine.

>>49578170
Sure. But if some guy wants to play an abhuman, he shouldn't get pissy when the rest of the regiment reacts with suspicion/condescension at best and outright hostility at worst.

>>49578108
> You just called me "Cunt"

If you want to get technical about it, I said you were behaving like a cunt. You know, like how you didn't call me "stupid" and "dangerous" directly. Don't get offended about me doing the exact same thing.

>Next time, clarify yourself so we can avoid these misunderstandings.

Four times. I did that four fucking times. Probably five, by now. And the original statement is by no means an absolute statement. At best, it's ambiguous. Well, too bad. No reason to get all pissy about it.

>>49578060
>questioning your theory

Bro, if you think calling something "stupid" is the same thing as "questioning it", you are soft in the head. And, yup, here we go again:

>you are so insecure

Another personal insult. Could you PLEASE try to argue your point without resorting to ad hominem bullshit just. Fucking. Once?

>This is actually something you should really work on

Guess not. Veiled insult. Very nice. The civilized way of insulting someone. And then following it up by concern gaslighting. You're a natural at this.

>The assumption that religion is merely a political instrument is Marxist, by the way.

Again with this strawman. It's a good view of Marxism, sure, but it's completely besides the point. I've already explained five times. Not doing it again.

>blahblahblah called your theory stupid

You seem to not get this: My problem is not only with you calling it "stupid". Partly, yes. But more so that you read this once sentence, and then got so bloody offended that you keep insisting on misrepresenting what I said in strawman arguments, and basically be a condescending douche who pretends he's giving life advice while you're getting all up in a tizzy about one fucking sentence. It's all compounded by the fact that you flatout REFUSE to take my amendments into consideration and keep insisting I said this very insulting thing.

>>49578108
>Now you're putting words in that guy's mouth.
No, I'm actually looking into the source hidden behind his beliefs: Although frankly, this is also one of the rare cases where most of the people actually make that point directly.
I'm not invoking the power of the religion as much as I'm invoking it's function and origin. "Power" is a different concept I would be extremely careful about using, because it has been again used in the context of neo-marxist philosophy: I'm not sure that is what you wanted to invoke here (probably not), but God knows I would personally avoid using that term.

>This is the second time you've said this with nothing to back it up.
Again, this is the second time you expect two hundred years of academic endeavor and several hundreds of hours of lecture and reading being expressed in a 100 words. That said, I don't think it's such a problem to figure out how religion plays role in our evolution and why (considering it being a HUMAN UNIVERSAL) we might assume it's evolutionary relevance.

>and it's not a commonly held belief.
It's a belief among the elites of those who study human mind in relation to psychology. Authors have been provided.

>I said it four fucking times now, in different wording,
Actually, you have been very contradictory on this matter. On one hand, you claimed you never said that thing, on the other hand you claim that I insulted you because I insulted that particular belief. If you never said that that religion is political ideology, how could me saying "thinking religion is a political ideology is a stupid way of looking at it" EVER OFFEND YOU?
If that is not what you believe, what the hell are you offended about? How did I ever insult you if I insulted a theory you don't even claim?
What the hell is going on here, really?

>ad hominems
That is one thing I've actually NEVER did. You might want to double check on the meaning of the word. I never even insulted you, much less made an ad hominem.

It made me realize I will never understand men. Ever.

>>49578433
All men want a big titty waifu with elf ears.

>>49578331
>I said you were behaving like a cunt.
Uh...
>You immediately give yourself license to become a cunt in return,
Being a cunt and behaving like a cunt were two different things like time I checked but why the hell do we need to do this? I was never fucking offended in the first place, I'm just trying to give you some honest feedback on how you argue here, and this is getting tiresome.
Remember, this whole tirade started with you insulting me because I called a theory I did not actually assume you hold (simply one you proposed), and that you claim you never said, "stupid". It's insane how much creepy negative sentiments that triggered in you.

>Four times. I did that four fucking times.
First of all, basic communication. Second of all: >>49578339 read the last but one paragraph and explain that to me, please.

>Bro, if you think calling something "stupid" is the same thing as "questioning it",
Actually, that is precisely what it means. In a colloquial manner, on a board where calling each other "faggot" is considered a norm, I would never expect this would lead to such a damn hissyfit. But yeah, I said that I believe your theory wasn't right. That is what "questioning it" means.

>Another personal insult.
Actually, no. Observation at this point. Your behavior is completely inadequate to what I've said, hell you are attacking me but contradicting yourself at this point: how does this not warrant questioning your self-esteem.
You LITERALLY just stated that calling your theory stupid and calling you stupid is the SAME for fuck sake. How is this NOT the definition of insecurity?

>Guess not. Veiled insult.
You know what, I'm getting sick and bored of this. Are you capable of talking about religion, or is the only thing you are capable of talking is your own fucking feelings? Because frankly, I tried to be welcoming, but I'm losing interest. I don't care you are offended, really.

Are we going to get this discussion back on track or not?

>>49578339
>You might want to double check on the meaning of the word.
This confirms it for me.
I suspected you've been arguing with that anon who loves to use terms and concepts he doesn't understand.
The one from earlier in the thread.
He has no interest in making sense, just in wasting your time arguing.
Party on.

>>49578177
Look bro, if you want to argue semantics, "that allows you to be a cunt" implies that being a cunt is not your natural state, and thus I did not, in fact, call you a cunt, but merely state you have taken your own state of offense to act in the manner of a cunt for the time being. Probably going back to not being a cunt when you're not offended anymore.

Furthermore: There has been no verbal abuse, because we are not speaking. We are typing.

>I was expecting you try to pull this argument.

As well you should have, given that I simply turned your own argument back on you.

>Also, I've already proposed that we could drop the entire "who is offended the most" thing entirely several times.

Only to pick it up again in the same post. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I simply respond to what you say in any one given post.

>this is not about me being patronizing

No, that's exactly what it is. You presume to know my state of mind. But you do not. Maybe I'm not angry at all. Maybe I'm just a dog. But you respond to what you THINK I say, instead of what I actually say.

>Really: LEARN the difference

I don't understand how you can argue this difference, but insist on arguing that me saying religion can be used as a political tool is offensive. In essence it's the same distinction: I never called religion itself a political tool. I said the religious often use it as such, as evidenced by religious laws being applies to entire nations. Sixth time, BTW.

>offer a counter argument

There lies my problem. There was no counterargument. Yes, I've read those other posts, and responded to them. And I certainly don't need to read a slew of authors based on a misconception of my point on your part.

>slew of insults

But really, if that's what you consider insulting in light of how you've been arguing, you need to grow thicker skin. You've been quite condescending, as I pointed out earlier, with the concern trolling and similar "soft" styles of being insulting.

File: 1351454910773.jpg (703KB, 1800x900px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 1800x900px

>>49578496
>Unless they want an immortal loli elf
I'm not complaining, I just don't get it.

>>49578534
>Furthermore: There has been no verbal abuse, because we are not speaking.
Uh... Again this are mostly pointless distraction, but you do realize that "verbal abuse" means "abuse by words" (as opposed to physical abuse), which does not actually differenciate between spoken and written words?
Anyway...

>Only to pick it up again in the same post.
Uh, no. Actually, you just continued along the same line, and I was trying to explain to you why your reaction is unwarranted and disproportional...

>No, that's exactly what it is.
And you are surprised that I consider you insecure? You honestly CAN'T interpret this in any other way than me trying to assault you?
This is the problem, kid! (NOW I'm being patronizing, for the record)
If this was anyone else on this board, they'd call you a fucking faggot and an idiot in the second post. I've really been trying to be as helpful and rational as possible, though I admit I'm starting to slip as this is being more and more absurd.

If you don't believe me I was honest with that, that is your problem, your paranoia, your insecurity. I can't really help you with that. You are actually just lashing out against people who mean well because you so damn insecure. And even me telling you this means I'm still not giving up on you, even though I honestly don't know why anymore.

Man, if you had any idea how many times I've bit my tongue and hold off the asshole remakes and wiping your face in the stuff you've been saying here...

>I don't understand how you can argue this difference
That. Is. The problem.
Great people, smart people, morally upstanding people can hold REALLY STUPID BELIEFS. Everybody holds stupid beliefs from time to time. That does not make THEM stupid, it makes their belief stupid.
You and the beliefs you hold or just say are not the same thing. If somebody calls your belief stupid, that means your belief does not hold up to scrutiny, not that YOU a moron. It just means you are wrong on this one thing.

>>49578339
>hidden

Yeah, that's my problem. Telepathic reasoning. You do not KNOW this stuff, and you can not. It's speculation. In short, it's not what he said.

>That said, I don't think it's such a problem to figure out how religion plays role in our evolution and why (considering it being a HUMAN UNIVERSAL) we might assume it's evolutionary relevance.

You'd be surprised. I already told you I studied archeology and psychology. Care to guess how often religion came up? Frightfully little. Close to zero times, in fact. Cultural anthropology provided the most insight, and I'm very convinced that's because tribal headhunters generally do little in the way of formal protest after being offended.

Evolutionary psychology is interesting, but one must not make the mistake of thinking that everything that evolves has a purpose, or that the expression we have of it is its original evolutionary purpose. Case in point: Furries. We know anthropomorphism is universal, and furries are an expression of that. But fapping to foxcocks in itself has no evolutionary use.

>Authors have been provided.

All of them are outdated. Everything I learned years ago is outdated. Without access to Web of Science, this is a moot point.

>what the hell are you offended about?

I explained this in my previous post.

>I never even insulted you

Yeah, sure. Whatever you say. A few posts back I detailed a bunch of your insults, actually. like I said, soft insults, but insults nonetheless.

>>49578502
>I'm just trying to give you some honest feedback on how you argue here

This actually made me smile. No, you're not. You don't give two fucks about me, and it'd be worrying if you did. You're doing this for you. This is just your arousal addiction in action, Anon. Gotta get that sweet dopamine. At least, I think it's dopamine. It's been a while.

>I would never expect this would lead to such a damn hissyfit

You are part of this hissyfit, compadre. 50%, even.

>Observation at this point

Weaselwords. See, this is what got this entire thing started: You give yourself a reason for not adhering to your own morality. Because from MY perspective saying "you act like a cunt" is just as valid an observation. You are not a telepath. You can't tell if I'm insecure, angry, or a dog. You can only respond to what I say. And applying some pseudo-scientific reasoning to call me insecure doesn't become less insulting for it's faux air of validity.

>Are you capable of talking about religion, or is the only thing you are capable of talking is your own fucking feelings?

This shit got started because YOUR feelings got offended by me talking about religion.

>I tried to be welcoming

Well, try harder, because you've been the very picture of passive-aggressive.

>>49578671
>Yeah, that's my problem. Telepathic reasoning.
That is what people with academic interests do. Most of my education is in psychology and anthropology, making educated guesses about human mind, reasoning and motivations is my job. I've studied religion for over a decade now and under some pretty damn good teachers, I think I can afford to make speculations and theories about it: I'm being paid for that shit. It's literally my job description.

>Frightfully little. Close to zero times, in fact.
That means somebody screwed up their job. We don't have a single documented culture that would not have a sings of religious cult of some sorts, and there is basically no psychological theory that would not study extensively on the role of religion in human psychology. If you studied psychology, then you probably should know that religion was more than half of what Freud, Jung, Piaget, Adler, Ericson, Otto studied and worked on. Hell, constructivism is a footnote in Piaget's work which was dedicated almost entirely to religion.
In anthropology, it's the second most prominent subject matter after kinship. In cognitive psychology, the currently most influential author, Sperber, titles himself anthropologist of religion for fuck sake.
I'm sorry but somebody left some big holes in your education if this did not come up damn frequently.

>everything that evolves has a purpose
Sure, but then again something so INCREDIBLY universal and that consumes so massive part of our existence and resources problably has a functional role. Not to mention that religion is primarily a moral and behavioral code: like what the fuck would be more important to our survival as a community based species?

>Case in point: Furries.
Are you ACTUALLY comparing religion to furries? A 20 years old oddity of a fetish that effects less than 1% of population to provably one of the oldest existing institutions in world, relevant still to between 80 - 93% of worlds population?

>>49578496
>big titty waifu with elf ears
>cowtits elves
This is a horrible meme that needs to die an even more horrible death.

>>49578666
>Again this are mostly pointless distraction

That's the joke, Satan. The point being that I'm accusing you of doing the same.

>I was trying to explain to you why your reaction is unwarranted and disproportional

That's what I've been doing with you, too.

>And you are surprised that I consider you insecure?

No, not really. All your posts have been full of subtly condescending language. I really don't give two fucks if you think I'm insecure.

>You honestly CAN'T interpret this in any other way than me trying to assault you?

Well, maybe that's not what you're trying, but that's how it's coming off. Like I said, there has been some real gaslighting stuff in here, and that's never for the benefit for the person being gaslighted.

>If this was anyone else on this board, they'd call you a fucking faggot and an idiot in the second post.

That's still essentially what you did.

>I've really been trying to be as helpful and rational as possible

I admit, you've had your moments. Some of your points were quite interesting.

>If you don't believe me I was honest with that, that is your problem, your paranoia, your insecurity. I can't really help you with that. You are actually just lashing out against people who mean well because you so damn insecure. And even me telling you this means I'm still not giving up on you, even though I honestly don't know why anymore.

See, this? This is gaslighting. I'd rather you call me a faggot.

>some more stuff that's actually quite reasonable

Yeah, that's true. With one caveat: The person calling something stupid can be wrong, too.

>>49578671
>All of them are outdated.
Peterson? Sperber? Outdated? Are you fucking kidding me? They are the absolute top of the field right now.

>Everything I learned years ago is outdated.
Then you did not study very carefully.

>You don't give two fucks about me, and it'd be worrying if you did.
That further supports my theory there is something wrong with you. That is a pretty pathological way of looking at other people.

>You are part of this hissyfit, compadre.
I'm getting tired and less careful about my words, but no. I've been reasonable up till now.

>Weaselwords.
So far we have heard that you don't understand how one can separate his own self esteem from people judging a particular academic theory they have stated, and that you'd find people trying to be nice to you sick and worrisome.
Nah, I'm afraid that I was very much right from the begging.

>Because from MY perspective saying "you act like a cunt" is just as valid an observation.
And I did not take it personally. Merely pointed out at one point that you might not call others cunts if your main complaint is that they have not been nice enough to you.

>You can't tell if I'm insecure, angry, or a dog.
A slightly observant 12 years old can do that. A person with psychological education can do that for sure. You don't have to be a telepath, all you need to be is observant and pay attention to what people say.

>This shit got started because YOUR feelings got offended by me talking about religion.
No. I found that notion wrong, not offensive. Calling something stupid does not mean you are offended: it means that you think that is stupid.
YOU were offended by calling the theory stupid. Even continued to explain how because of that, I can't be reasoned with. I don't recall ever doing anything like that until we really got deep and I pointed out the insecurity, ONLY after I've tried two times to actually get the discussion back away from hurt feelings and towards the actual original subject matter.

>>49578960
>That is what people with academic interests do.

No. People with academic interests don't just reason wildly. They test hypothesis.

>I'm sorry but somebody left some big holes in your education if this did not come up damn frequently.

Again. You do not seem to realize when you are being condescending. Perhaps I enjoyed a different style of education, maybe? We certainly did not delve into the likes of Freud or Jung, on the basis that they are outdated. It'd be like studying physics and having to read up about ether.

>Sure, but then again something so INCREDIBLY universal and that consumes so massive part of our existence and resources problably has a functional role. Not to mention that religion is primarily a moral and behavioral code: like what the fuck would be more important to our survival as a community based species?

As an example, some species of insect has eyes on stalks. They serve no practical purpose, except that they're a selection for breeding. Females select males with bigger eyestalks. That's it. Simply the fact that it's there is no argument for it being useful.

>Are you ACTUALLY comparing religion to furries?

Again, condescending behaviour and misrepresenting the point. Anthropomorphism is known in all human cultures, and they have all produced anthropomorphic art. In short, what compels the furry community is as universal as what compels the religious, according to your own metrics. There's even some crossover: The Egyptian gods are famously anthropomorphic, and there have been, of course, more like that.

Clearly anthropomorphism as a mental "thing" in the human mind evolved at some point, for some purpose. It's basically a form of empathy. I think it was useful for the hunt. But the CURRENT most well known expression of that has no bearing on the evolutionary purpose. Like I said, fapping to furry porn has no evolutionary point, but it does flow forward of something that does.

And again, I'm explaining the same thing twice.

>>49562942
>little girls
Can someone explain this obsession? I mean, I already know the answer, I just want to know how the mentally ill rationalize it

>>49579046
>The point being that I'm accusing you of doing the same.
Uh... what?
I mean, sure. I indulge your distractions, after all why not, but... seriously, what?

>That's what I've been doing with you, too.
Except it hasn't been. Actually you assumed that I'm offended (based purely on the use of the word "stupid"). Everything else has been your emotional problem so far, and you lashing out at me.

>All your posts have been full of subtly condescending language.
Of course they are. First of all, I'm probably about six or seven years older than you, and a lot more experienced than you. I do speak from a position of mild authority, it comes with age and experience. Second of all: you are extremely carefully looking for anything that you could interpret as being condescending and hanging on to it because, well... yeah. Why would that be, I wonder?

>but that's how it's coming off.
To you? Sure. I don't doubt that is how you feel. I just urge you to sometimes, just sometimes distrust your own emotions on this subject matter. Insecurity means bias, a shift in perspective. That is the real danger of it.

>That's still essentially what you did.
Could we stop with the NO U? please?

>Some of your points were quite interesting.
I'm GENUINELY glad to hear that. Not sure if you'll believe me, but I am.

>I'd rather you call me a faggot.
Why would I do that?! I DON'T THINK YOU ARE A FAGGOT. I don't think you are stupid, I don't think you are and dumber than I am. I think you may have a self esteem issue, but who does not have that, and the only reason why I actually care and point that out is because that is something you could do something about and fucking improve your own life. Insecurity hurts YOU more than anybody else.
Again, feel free to distrust me on this.

>The person calling something stupid can be wrong, too.
Yeah, but as arrogant as this might sound, it's quite literally my area of expertise. I may be wrong on most other things in life though.

>>49579224
>They test hypothesis.
Science tests hypothesis. Social studies, psychology, anthropology etc... have VERY limited testing capacities. That is why they are not sciences, just studies.

>You do not seem to realize when you are being condescending.
At this point I actually do, I kinda stopped caring a while ago, to be honest. You are a big boy (now I'm REALLY condescending), you should actually be able to handle that.

Also, that line was a criticism exclusively and specifically towards your teachers. You can't be blamed for what your teacher did not tell you. That is not your fault.

>We certainly did not delve into the likes of Freud or Jung, on the basis that they are outdated.
Well, that just speaks terribly of your teachers. Or to be honest, you said you studied archeology, right? It's more like the case of your teachers treating those fields like outliners, only telling you what they thought was directly relevant to your main field, that is reasonable.
But to be fair here, you brought this up. Not wanting insult you further, you might not use your education in psychology as an argument if that education was either very superficial, or focused only on very specific fields.

Not your fault that they haven't taught you the history of psychology of religion, but kinda your fault for saying "I've studied this" as an argument when... you hadn't. Not much at least.

>As an example, some species of insect has eyes on stalks.
Actually, most eye-stalks have clear evolutionary advantages in nature. Also, ever heard of peacock theory? Peacocks tails serve no immediate purpose - in fact they are a hindrance. Yet the do actually serve an evolutionary advantage in the long run...

And we are talking about social models, and they work very differently than eyestalks.

>Anthropomorphism is known in all human cultures
I would not equate all antropomorphism to one being a furry. Or that the two are driven by the same thing.

>>49579224
>Clearly anthropomorphism as a mental "thing" in the human mind evolved at some point, for some purpose. It's basically a form of empathy.
This is all correct and I can only agree, but...
>But the CURRENT most well known expression of that has no bearing on the evolutionary purpose.
First of all, furries are not the world most well known expression of anthropomorphism. They are dispropotionately well known due to internet culture and only among those heavily participating on it, but they are an obscure niche of no relevance.
It's like judging the phenomenon of fairtytels based on existence of the pony phenomenon. Or judging human sexuality on scat fetishists. Antropomorphisation is far more than furries, sexuality is far more than scat fetish and religion is far more than a bunch of crazy westboro lunatics: each and every one of those things has some extremely deep, and useful roots, but produces some really fucked-up side products...
But you can't dismiss the importance of anthropomorphyzation, or sexual drive, or religion based on that.

>>49560593
Nothing big, just was part of few game creation and world building things here. Also found my friends from here, so it's been pretty good.

>>49579670
>First of all, furries are not the world most well known expression of anthropomorphism.
Not him, but I have hard time coming up with any other form of expression this day and age.

>>49579366
Is one of the few ways that women are non-threatening to the men here.

>>49562502
what is "colonel southern comfort"?

File: 1471032550838.jpg (39KB, 367x458px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 367x458px

>>49579366
>mentally ill
Let me guess, you also think every man that enjoys the company of children is a pedophile?

>>49560593
It made me realize how lucky I am to have such a great friendly group of cool people that don't generate massive drama.

I also care a lot less about what thematics I'm including in my game or my setting.

>>49563016
It doesn't have any place in any campaign. Nothing good will ever come of it.

>>49560593
Probably, but I can't think of anything specifically at the top of my head.

Subconsciously it should have though.

>>49579809
We had a sweet prince saved the doomed kingdom and got himself a princess story.

Game was Burning Wheel.

>>49579366
It's a meme, an actual meme, not a pretend meme.

>>49563848
>not realizing that comic is about a little girl who beats pedos to death
It's a perfectly appropriate post.

>>49579596
It really is amazing that we studied the same thing, but came away with such different takes on it. No, my time studying psychology was very concerned with getting down to the nitty gritty details of the scientific theory, which is why we did not focus on Freud, Jung et al. The testing capabilities I experience were quite advanced. I'd say the problem would be that they could be misused to achieve a desirable result, but not that the methods themselves are unsound. What I studied was very much a science, not a study.

>Well, that just speaks terribly of your teachers

I would say the same thing for yours for teaching you that you were not engaged in science. And in terms of science Freud is bloody useless. Only interesting from a historical standpoint. Hell, my lecturer only mentioned him because, as he said, "everyone you know will expect you to know about him".

>And we are talking about social models, and they work very differently than eyestalks.

I am merely giving an example that evolution is not a magical force that always does what's best. It's a process of selection, and sometimes that selection is arbitrary. As such, the argument that something that evolved is automatically good is invalid.

>I would not equate all antropomorphism to one being a furry.

And I never said it did. But anthro depictions are INCREDIBLY common, and they damn near all cleave to the stuff we would call "furry".

>Or that the two are driven by the same thing.

Given the above, I'd wager that they are. But this applies just as well to religion: There's no reason to assume that morality and religion come from the same mental construct in the human mind. Though there's a good case to be made that they do.

But I'm merely using it as an example. The point is, to say that religious morals are automatically valid based on its supposed evolutionary use as a survival aid is the same argument as saying the same for furry morals. And our evidence for furries is older.

>>49575952
You did? Yikes, you should probably see a doctor.

>>49579670
>But you can't dismiss the importance of anthropomorphyzation, or sexual drive, or religion based on that.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm dismissing your argument for the importance of religion as based on religion being an evolutionary survival aid.

>>49576227
Nope, religions are gods and gods only, stay mad :^)

I've learned more or less everything I know about tabletop games thanks to /tg/. I came here 8 years ago with a shitty how to play 3.5 for Dummies Book and some knowledge of MtG, and now I know and can run a wide variety of rpg and miniature games on top of pitfalls to avoid in both.

That being said there's a good chunk of learning that came from doing the opposite of what /tg/ suggests, usually when it comes to being competitive in any way or about boners.

>>49579736
>Not him, but I have hard time coming up with any other form of expression this day and age.
Well, first of all like 50% of the world still worships religions that are in one way or another a form of anthropomorphization. Second of all, despite what you may have gotten used to, antropomorphy in fairytales and fantastic stories (think of Redwall) is still the most common association that people have with that notion. We also do it constantly and almost unconsciously in like billion little superstitions, sayings, intuitions towards objects like stars (astronomy), luck, charms, plush toys, but also weather etc...

Third of all, and here we would be getting into some pretty damn complicated theories that are mostly mine and you can entirely feel free to call me bullshit on this, but the biggest amount of anthropomorphization that we are doing is towards our own pets and our own infants. We actually CONSTANTLY ascribe both human-like features that they simply don't possess.

You can argue and this is entirely valid line of argumentation that it's nonsense to call our projections of human rationality towards infants "anthropomorphization" since infants are HUMAN, but I think I could hold my own making an argument how "human" is actually a concept not nearly as straight-up biological as people tend to think.

>>49578098
>Why would it? How is worshipping a real God different than an animal or a chemical reaction?
People worship things with weird and complicated associations. One people might worship fire and associate it with life and agriculture, another might see fire as tied to death and war. Which god gets worship for that? The god of fire, death, crops, life or war? Do they all get worship for it separately despite the people believing it to be one unified concept? Are there just a thousand gods of fire and each has their own spin on what fire means? Are they all even separate gods or just one with extra shit their worshippers tagged onto them? Can a single god be powered by two contradictory concepts? Or are there only gods of physical things and none of concepts? Do the gods have any influence at all on how their worshippers worship them, or are they just weird psychic parasites piggybacking on naturally developing human belief systems, handing out blessing for no consistent reason at all?

>>49576660
There's no reason blue can't be pink in a fictional world.

>>49576698
nah jung's trash

>>49579895
>No, my time studying psychology was very concerned with getting down to the nitty gritty details of the scientific theory, which is why we did not focus on Freud
Which is really interesting because A) psychology is not science and most of it isn't really related to scientific theory in any way, and B) Freud is literally THE person that pushed the notion that psychology should be treated as science in the first place - while it may seem odd to us today, but his main goal was to remodel psychology on the basis of biology and turn it into natural science.
I mean the attempt was futile from the start, but he is the grandfather of that attitude and seems like mentioning that would be... relevant.

>I'd say the problem would be that they could be misused to achieve a desirable result, but not that the methods themselves are unsound.
If that is the problem (and you are entirely right, it is), then the method is pretty unsound. Experimental psychology exists and is way cool, don't get me wrong, but produces an extremely narrow class of results compared to the full spectrum of psychology. It's actually that most of the data produced isn't really useful to theoretical psychologists and vice versa, most of theoretical psychology can't be reliably tested. At least not with the pesky limitations of those annoying ethical committees telling us we can't do all the real fun stuff.
Stupid ethics. Anyway...

>that you were not engaged in science.
We were. I worked at experimental psychology lab until very recently myself. But science is not end all be all of academic endeavor. And in terms of psychology, it really has it's limitations. Psychology is heavily speculative, model-based, it's a heuristic theory for the most part - clinical psychology is also EXTREMELY normative.
Science is an INCREDIBLE tool, don't get me wrong. But over-scientification of psychology was the biggest mistake we had done in ages. (cont.)

>>49579895
>And in terms of science Freud is bloody useless.
Yet he was the one who first proposed human soul should be studied scientifically, ironically enough.

Unlike Jung, Freud is bloody useless in general except for understanding the history (which however can be and is very important) ironically enough PRECISELY because of his insistence on scientific rigor.
And you see, this is why I blame your teachers: They taught you the importance of scientific inquiry but left out one of THE most important examples of scientific inquiry in psychology and consequently, the great cautionary tale about the problems of scientific inquiry in psychology.
This is what I dislike about so much modern psychology... But I'm ranting at this point, ain't I?

By the way, I'm not saying that psychology should be left without rigor or extremely cautious validation process. It's just that it's good to understand what science is and what it isn't and where it can be useful.

>is not a magical force that always does what's best.
Well, I'm not saying that religion knows what's best either. I'm however saying that it's not just a random spandrel or a cultural accident. It's incredibly integral to our existence: only evolutionary processes can form things this integral. So we better understand it WELL before dismissing it.
Randomness (annoying semantics here, but arbitrarity is something quite different) exists in evolution, but evolution is also efficient. It does not waste excess energy: it literally can't.

>and they damn near all cleave to the stuff we would call "furry".
I disagree, see >>49579970 and tell me what you think...

Cont... I'm having fun, by the way.

>>49579895
>There's no reason to assume that morality and religion come from the same mental construct in the human mind.
Actually, there is, plenty, considering that all known religious systems in the world focus primarily on moral concerns, and that it is the single most powerful moral regulator in human history. It still is: don't forget - at least 80% of the world is religious, and all of the oldest moral stories that we know about, some estimated to be at least 60 thousand years old are mythological in nature.

It's the easiest and most efficent way to "store" and propagate moral models in the world, that is hardly debatable. Of course, we can debate whenever religion-based moral judgements are the best possible ones (well, we can't, I think we'll both immediately know the answer is: NO) and of course there is a distinction to be made between saying "morality comes from religion" and "morality and religion are historically incredibly closely tied".
I'd say that morality necessiated the birth of religion, but definitely NOT vice versa. I'm stressing this out because I've seen plenty of people getting angry at me for misunderstanding this point.

>The point is, to say that religious morals are automatically valid based on its supposed evolutionary use
That fun point about what constitutes "valid" here. I mean: they are valid, apparently. They did not die out, in fact they propagated.
They perhaps not optimal. They are DEFINITELY not ALWAYS optimal. But I'd argue they are mostly "valid" in the sense of "it's not going to get you or your group killed most of the time."

>>49578433
>pretending to be a girl on the internet
wow it's like i walked into 2002

>>49579022
Nope, it's objectively correct.

File: 16ccfc03d4032dd3c85cc173599ecc75.jpg (55KB, 564x746px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 564x746px

>>49560593

I fap /before/ the game now

>>49580445
/tg/ has always had a high population of girls compared to the rest of 4chan.

Of course, they're all either dykes or facinated by orks and nids, but otherwise they're pretty cool.

>>49580464
No, your taste is shit, try again in 24 hours.

>>49580488
>orks
Really? Nids yes, but orkz?

>>49580048
>There's no reason blue can't be pink in a fictional world.
Except for it being nonsense and completely meaningless idea. And it's not going to make your worldbuilding better. It's just a violation of the communication code we use.

>>49580071
Nah, Jung is fantastic.

>>49580510
Surprisingly, yes. They're a 'fun' group to play and paint.

File: laughing_orc.jpg (19KB, 200x286px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x286px

>>49580510
>He doesn't like orks

>>49579753
>this is what landwhales actually believe

>>49580553
What's your theory then

>>49579794
In the same way that we think objects fall towards the earth's surface when dropped. Because it's fact.

>>49579836
lmao trash plot for a trash game

>>49580488
>this is what virgin nerds actually believe

>>49580585
Well, that wasn't nice.

>>49580553
Actually I think it's pretty plausible that there are genuine gynophobes who may find little girls less threatening.
There's everything wrong with it, phobias are mental diseases, but that doesn't equate to the person being a pedophile.

>>49580519
nah he's trash

>>49580598
>>49580553
Samefag

>>49580565
uh that the board is full of pedo trash, 'cause it is? try reading any thread lmao

>>49580598
If you weren't so new, you'd have seen the pictures. But, whatever.

>>49580621
what are you gonna about it fag?

>>49580635
>he thinks photos constitute proof
and i thought i was new lmao

>>49580639
You're missing some words, and nothing, just pointing out your innate retardness, incapable of a single original though or joke.

Keep greentexting and repeating those memes son, is doing wonders.

>>49580092
>>49580218
>>49580279
I think you're kind of easily rejecting the interpretation of psychology that... well, a lot of people in the field adhere to. You can blame my lecturers all you want, but in the end they are also held up by the academia around them. Fundamentally, I disagree with too much of what you're saying to respond properly in the time that I have, and I'm frankly pretty tapped out at this point.

Either way, I need to go.

>>49560593
I like dawrves now and I'm not scared of skeletons. Dwarves always seemed weird to me, unattractive, stubborn, xenophobic miners. Ihave more appreciation for them and the things they build.

Skellies seemed to me as a kid an unholy abomination that should not be able walk in this parody of movement to living things. Now they they're just silly to me.

>>49580669
i will, get fucked nigger lmao

File: eh.jpg (13KB, 222x243px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 222x243px

>>49580477
Objectively a bad idea. Post-orgasm kills your drive, motivation, and creativity.

>>49580671
>I think you're kind of easily rejecting the interpretation of psychology that... well, a lot of people in the field adhere to.
Which is one of the reasons why the field is stuck in a rot and has been for quite some while... Anyway, thanks for humoring me.

>>49576227
>Gods are created BY religions, by religious people.

Except in settings where it's the other way around, or in settings in which characters believe in God because He actually exists there?

I mean, how hard is to think this through?

A Religion is a set of practices taken part in by individuals who believe in a supernatural entity, for their own benefit or as an appeal to said entity, whether or not it exists based on the lore.

>>49582791
A religion is not defined by a belief in a supernatural entity. It could be any metaphysical set of beliefs

Anon is clearly speaking of what religion actually is anyway

>>49582791
>I mean, how hard is to think this through?
I wonder how hard it is to actually comprehend the original argument, or at least read the follow-up discussion.

The argument is not that it's impossible. The argument is that it makes religion in fiction boring as fuck, because it actually completely divorces it from what religion is and what makes it interesting in reality.

>>49582931
>/tg/ - metaphysics and theology

>>49582964
>/t/heolo/g/y
Well duh

>>49580032
Yes.

>>49583469
Well that was enlightening

>>49560593
I was lucky enough to find 1d4chan a few months after I started roleplaying. Taught me how to start playing actual characters instead of Gary "Edgelord" Stu III.

>>49584197
Useful things on 1d4chan? For real?
Or did you just figure out what to do from all the examples of what not to do on there?

>>49560593
I based my paladins off of one of the threads here.

>>49584197
I'm honestly amazed how many players start with edgelords. I started roleplaying in a group of total beginners and the edgiest character we had was a viking/pirate who once slapped a kid for talking shit to him. And this was in a group of 17 year old teenagers except for me, I was 12

>>49583828
>>49580032
>One people might worship fire and associate it with life and agriculture, another might see fire as tied to death and war. Which god gets worship for that?
Well, wouldn't the type of worship vary for what the fire symbolizes?
You can also have people confusing both Gods as different aspects of the same God, like your god of fire, death, crops, life and war.

>Do they all get worship for it separately despite the people believing it to be one unified concept?
The act of worship is intentional, like writing a check. You might missspell the name, but the money goes to you intended to send it to and can't be used by someone else.
Worship is a form of sacrifice that transfers a small portion of the worshippers personal to the god, which, "combined with a form of cold fusion", creates additional Devine power for that God.

>Are there just a thousand gods of fire and each has their own spin on what fire means?
Not thousands; becoming a God it's not easy and there is a secret to gaining power through worship so not everyone can just do it. Banjo would not be a God in my setting. But yeah, each can have their own take ons symbol.

While we're on the topic of religion, what would a religion that is cultivated by gods look like? I'm trying to iron something out, but it seems weird. In my setting, the gods are weird metaphysical beings that wandered around for a while before finding a planet with the infrastructure to allow them to fully manifest inside of an associated pocket dimension but that requires them to constantly shuttle in magic, which can be done through shepharding souls into the dimension which resulted in them making the world some sort of soul farm in which they're trying to herd all of their created races into a sort of stasis (don't worry, it doesn't work down the line).
tldr; what would a religion built by gods to keep their subjects complacent look like? It would probably be templated across the world with regional variations that differ to due the primary worship of one god over another or that culture valuing some things over other things, but what would it be like in general?

>>49560593
>roleplay
Maybe a little

>worldbuilding
Indescribably so

>>49575819
>not following this piece of advise isn't bad all the time
>therefore this advice is bad
Obviously any advice someone gives you isn't going to be 100% right 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that advice from a certain source should be taken with particularly any more grains of salt than any other advice.

As long as you aren't a turbo-autist and can distinguish between sincere advice, hyperbolic advice, and flat out sarcasm/jokes, there's no reason you should trust /tg/ advice any less than anything else.

>>49576227
Shit. He is still digging the same fucking hole with a shovel built from assumptions. I chastised you about this before. Stop it. You are smart, but not so much as you think you are. Trust me on that one.

>>49576227
A couple things to say:

Firstly, as someone who finds religion extremely interesting, I agree with literally everything you said 1000% percent. If I have to hear another person conflate various ancient "pantheons" with one another I may blow a gasket. People have so little understanding of these traditions that they ostensibly think are "really cool" its pathetic.

Now a qualification: this is how religion works IRL (with obvious increasing specific complexities for individual faiths/traditions), but it's possible that religions could work in another way in someone's setting, so the anon you're replying to (all I know of his arguments are what you tangentially mention in this post) COULD be SOMEWHAT correct IN CONTEXT.

But as a qualification to that qualification: I have only seen exactly three settings where religion works far outside the bounds of what you've described that are actually interesting enough to even bother fleshing out the religion in the first place, so in all likelihood the anon you're talking to is still wrong/has shit taste in religious worldbuilding.

This reminds me, I still need to track down a two-part post I made a while back explaining how exactly so-called "pantheons" form and screencap it for times like these. So many people seem to think a culture just went "so like there's a bunch of gods lol XD and they all do different stuff cuz reasons and they have different cool powers and a strict powerlevel relative to eachother because the celestial realm is a video game XD". I don't blame them for thinking that, that image of European and Mideastern pantheons has been hammered in pretty hard by pop culture, but I feel like if more people understood it their worldbuilding could be deeper and cooler.

File: 1472984628815.jpg (149KB, 1000x995px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x995px

>>49560593
God fucking forbid, no.
Bringing any form of 4chan into real life is a major fucking mistake. It's shit as it is in the virtual form.

>>49588453
(You)

It's made me astoundingly good at bully. It's also convinced me that ERP isn't a terrible thing that should be feared, and that I can run a really good game when I feel like it.

I also have a tendency to try and give /tg/ ideas I have to get their reaction, see what I can expect at the table.

As a final note, it's also where I encountered the idea of, "steering," versus railroading, and where I came up with figuring up a list of things and assigning each to one from a deck of cards and using that when I need random encounters, and where I first learned that, "encounter," doesn't need to mean, "combat."

>>49560593
I have singlehandedly ruined my group for myself by forwarding Sir Bearington stories to them, not knowing the damage I would cause. I have quit them thrice now, thinking maybe I can stomach the memery and antics a little better this time, but ultimately I just want to take a large bowl of nails and drive them into my temples one by one until the seething cringe goes away.

Apart from that, no. I stole an idea or two, like Elves wearing masks, because the relating thread came up with some genuinely creative details and reasonings.

I only lurk and shitpost here to kill time and quiet the crippling loneliness.

>>49589850
Sir Bearington is one of my least favorite stories because it's complete bullshit. It's people bending the rules so far as to make them meaningless, and it's entirely "rule of cool" crap. If people think that's how they're supposed to play the game, they will turn into horrible players. Nothing that happens in that story can actually happen when you play the game according to its rules.

I have sympathy for you, but you should have seen it coming. For some reason some players are very ready to make giant leaps of logic like "I just use Bluff to pretend I'm speaking another language". Giving them unofficial DM fiat just seals the deal.

>>49560593
a gamefinder thread found me a group with which I ran a year-long campaign where we collaboratively built a world together, when at first just a few genre themes and some of their towns of origin had been defined.

>>49588463
What are the good examples you are talking about?

>>49590687
Just custom settings I've seen posted here.

One, the guy wanted to have the gods objectively exist and play an active role in world affairs. But he realized this was so different from how gods were understood to act and behave in IRL religious traditions, it wouldn't make sense to have familiar religions at all. That was the starting point for his entire setting. The result was a really cool world that ended up being very unique in the way it worked on many levels. Honestly, it was a while ago that I read all of his posts on it so I don't remember a whole lot of specifics, the best analogy I can give for how the world was like was a mix of Alice in Wonderland, Disney Junglebook, LoTR, 40K, and The Odyssey, but all in a possibly post-apocalyptic not!Mesopotamia.

The second one isn't so much an entire setting as just one religion, and admittedly it was meant to be sort of a joke at first, but I love the results of the idea so much I include it anyway. Basically the entire "faith" consists of a book with a series of rules, many hundreds and hundreds of rules. Plenty of them are vague ("Don't open a banana the wrong way" is one of my favorites), some are contradictory of others, the rules regarding how to resolves contradictions and when other rules can be broken lead you into a logic loop if you follow them perfectly long enough. And the best part: rule #2 is "Breaking all* rules after this one is punishable by death*", typically an asterisk means the rule is modified specifically by other rules, but on that one it's unclear which rules modify it. I think the creator said it was originally meant to be a super-parody of a Witch Trial type situation, with followers constantly trying to be the best rules lawyer about their Book that they could be to get people they didn't like executed or robbed of property and such. Again, it's obviously not serious, but I love it all the same.

>>49590591
Those stories are fine honestly.

The real issue is having a player that can't separate the jokes from actually playing the damn game. Sir Bearington is funny to me *because of how ridiculous it is, I'd probably try to not associate with anyone in a /tg/ context who legitimately thought it was an "epic win" or some shit like that.

But really, any player that would try and imitate something like that would just derail the game with some other crap meme or dumb joke. Stuff like bearington, henderson, or the shark of the land doesn't turn normal, decent players into That Guy, they were That Guy anyway.

>"rule of cool" crap
Now that's a different matter entirely. I'm not going to say how or why you play is wrong or that you "hate fun". But I play primarily to have fun, fun stuff COMES OUT OF the games. If the rules need to be bent just a little for something fun to happen I'd be okay with it. I'm not saying fudge every bad roll to make a cool skateboard mountain dew explosion happen, more like letting players roll for things and accepting a success on a high roll where really no success "should" be possible, that kind of thing.

>>49567723
seems the beginning of berserk
>>49560593
people in my roleplay games are way more mature than /tg/ stories, so no