I don't want to see religions given numbers. What I do want to see are the magical traditions -- past, present, and future -- of popular religions included with the other standard traditions. We get a hint of it every now and then in the current rules, but it's always a tacked-on and often poorly done (in that it's not original, but a convulsion of another tradition) set of rules.

That, or just a universal set of rules for all magic traditions where your individual tradition is reflected in the tools you use (fetishes, foci, etc.), the methods you personally choose to employ (X number of spirit types of your choosing at creation, etc.), and so on. Couple that with a descriptions of how to create your own tradition by creating examples of "traditional" traditions with it, and you're pretty much set.

I´m understanding more and more why I´ve been so happy with the recent books. I have noticed a more educated, complex worldview maybe. The way these issues have been handled recently pleases me. I´m repeating myself here, so I guess nobody can give me any reassurance, but I´m only concerned that the developers might choose to have new versions of the same old content in the main book. Thereby missing out on a chance to ground the new, more mature tone found in recent books in the core of the system.

I give up. How can this thread have made 6 or so pages with out correct "Monotesim"? Could somebody please edit the subject to reflect the proper spelling of the word. They're a bunch of nuts, I get that, but jeesh does that mean we have to butcher the language too?

[Edit] See it's spreading!

huh?

It´s impossible to edit the subject. It should be "monotheism", correct? Please forgive a poor foreigner the missing h.

Keep cool, mintcar wasn't targeting you Penta, although he was falling prey to the increasing misconception in Europe that most Americans (and especifically those that rile about rpgs and religion) are falling under the influence of the Righteous Right.

There's no denying Europeans are more liberal (some would say more blasé and skeptical) when it comes to a lot of stuff regarding politics, religion and sexuality BUT that doesn't mean all Americans are hicks or anal about talking religion AND that a lot of Europeans aren't equally righteous idiots about their faiths (believe me, I know what I was talking about when I wrote that Italy and Portugal are Catholic strongholds)...

And as Americans, we are still quite...um...conservative about a lot of things that are commonplace in mainstream Europe.

But that said, stereotypes abound on just about all sides.

-Siege

i view it as the result of our country being founded by strongly religious people who believed that even post-marital sex should be partaken in only as duty. it's become our pet neurosis, the way japan has weird porn, or the way canada has those weird heads that disconnect completely from their jaws when they talk.

And to be sure, there are still Americans who feel quite strongly that way.

They do not, however, hold dominion over the rest of the country.

Unlike, say, Rome.

-Siege

N/c

probably exactly what he said: that fundamentalist christians hold sway in Rome. or, more accurately, the Vatican, but Rome is often used to indicate the Vatican.

<reads> There are a bunch of people above I could aim my replies at, but that would take too much work. So, no.

What I think the non-Americans don't get: We come at various debates from a distinctly different viewpoint.

I heard it said once that Europeans fought for freedom from belief. (See Voltaire, Descartes, etc.)

Meanwhile, Americans fought for freedom to believe.

For Americans, religion was (shortly after the Revolution, anyway) something you didn't have (much) pressure on from the government. Anti-religiosity/anti-clericalism wasn't much of a rebellion, and isn't. Because, in America, religion and the state nod at each other, acknowledge each other's existence, but tend to not get into each other's details.

At the same time, religion is more important to a lot of Americans. A useful point to remember is that most Americans, particularly on the coasts, are only a few generations away from immigrants. 3 out of my 4 grandparents were immigrants, as in they were the ones getting off the boat.

When you're away from home, you'll look for anything to tie you to what you know.

And so it was that for most Americans, that was religion.

It's still the case. For most Americans, we can't trace our family back much farther (in the US) than a century ago, if that. Our identities, even if we won't admit it, are linked to heritage (I'm Irish/Italian. He's English/Norwegian/Italian/Irish/German/Spanish...) and religion. Quite often the two are linked.

So, when Europeans attack us for being (in your view, overly-)religious, you're attacking us for having a heritage and, in a lot of ways, an identity. At the very least, you're knocking at our past.

If you think about it, you might see how that is insulting.

Gunner: The quote was meant to be a quick shorthand.

And besides, my way sounded better.

Hahahah. Nice (accidental?) parting shot. "Your President is Hitler, but that was off-topic of me. Quick, change the subject before anyone can respond!"

Thanks Doc.

That said, my views on religion and SR:

1. It's not going to die. Not even close. One thing we're seeing these days, which sociologists have commented on quite a bit, is the revival of religion/spirituality in the young, particularly teens and college students. Why is hotly debated.

BUT, with that in mind, consider SR. By the time the "millennial generation" (1981 and onward) begins hitting 30, we're seeing magic hit.

Yes, that's going to make lots of people return to religion. Religion is something people turn to in times of crisis, without fail. They may not do it for very long, but they do it.

With the Weird Shit which hits in the SR world basically from 2001 onward, religion will experience a deep revival.

You may not see the same religions; New faiths will spring up, guaranteed. But the traditional faiths, because they are the "faith of our fathers" (to steal a book title), won't lose much. Keep in mind that religion is often intertwined with identity. It is how parents pass on heritage to children; One of the few things they manage to pass on, actually. It is how families teach morality and values. It is often how nations, consciously or not, define themselves. If Identity is growing back in the NAN and elsewhere, why would it die elsewhere?

2. Scandals don't do much. Yes, I mean that. You get scandals in religion basically every generation. The televangelists in the 80s. The clergy sex abuse scandal now (which has spread, with far less press, to looks at other denominations beyond Catholics). But, most people don't turn away from religion.

Why? Because of the truth and truism that for every bad priest, there are lots who aren't. The faithful are affected infinitely less by the hierarchy than by their parish priest.

3. All that power is overrated. Yeah. The Catholic Church is singled out for having power and conspiracies. Something, knowing clergy, I find deeply ironic. Even the bad ones, like the one that got arrested for child molestation, would be totally out of their depth.

Additionally, religion stays away from temporal power. Has for decades. (Paul VI's rather theatrically giving up the triregnum, the Papal crown that symbolized the Church's temporal power, at the end of Vatican II only capped (pardon the pun) a trend.) It's just not healthy for either.

Finally, most clergy-types just aren't the sorts with the personality for that. (Can anybody really see John Paul II, in either his younger or older selves, running a government like the President of the United States? I think not. Same goes for most.)

4. Don't expect too much change A truth is that religion changes slowly. Very slowly.

Here, I've disagreed with Synner (for example) on many issues. I don't see things like female priests in the RCC. I don't see an end to the vow of chastity, or even a relaxation of it. Why?

Because it's been too soon. Both issues have only been around since the 60s. The reforms implemented in the past have been kicked around for far, far longer before they became real.

This goes for all faiths, by the way. Religion that survives is not stylish. It is not trendy. It is, and makes no apologies for that.

That isn't the point of religion, anyway. Most people turn to religion because it is a rock of certainty in very uncertain times, not because it's trendy.

SoNA puts it best that religious fervor did increase in the CAS/UCAS.

Yes, people got duped by UB. So people got duped by Jonestown.

That changes little.

5. Every prayer is a tiny revolution. Corps dislike religion. They can't say it, but they don't. Y'see, for over one hundred years, even the not-exactly-revolutionary Catholic Church has had what's come to be expressed as a "preferential option for the poor". In short, social justice doctrine.

That goes against the corps. But, why don't the corps destroy religion?

They can't. Y'see, that's the wonder of religion. It's survived all sorts of people, even Communism.

Doesn't mean they've tried. The first few corp towns had no churches, like model cities in Communist countries.

That died after they found houses of worship springing up in residential areas. It continued for a while, and the Japanese corps still dislike religion, but nobody actually enforces the corporate strictures against it.

6. The corps' hold isn't as tight as you'd think. One of the things SR posits, always, is that the world is bad, but it has a bit of hope. Not quite cyberpunk, no. Frankly, cyberpunk couldn't happen. Before things got that bad, popular pressure would squish the corps. We've only not seen riots because things haven't gotten so bad yet.

The way I see it, governments still have power. Less, but they're regaining it after it nearly being extinguished before the 2050s and 2060s.

Religion has power, but of a different kind. The corps are on a steady rollback after firm dominance immediately after the Shiawase decision; that kind of power wasn't really sustainable.

One of the things happening is a new Great Awakening, like what's happened before. We're about due, anyhow.

UB was a sign of its coming, not of its peak.

Conclusion

The Millenial Generation would be just at its prime; this is the generation that grew up with 9/11, Instant Messaging, elementary school with Nirvana (I was 10 when Kurt Cobain shot himself), Columbine. (I'm going to assume, for sake of argument, that these all happened in SR's time.)

Things like religion are being rapidly grabbed in a very shifting, unstable world, at least in the US. Often traditional religion, too; "Smells and Bells" is apparently a lot more popular, oddly.

So, what does that mean? Let's think about that.

What does it mean? It means things are changing and people are scared.

Thanos

And what does that mean?

C'mon, think deeper.

It means just what it says. No need to think deeper. People in general don't like change. Especially when it's fast. When that happens they get scared. People like patterns. When the pattern is disrupted they don't like it and the become afraid.

Thanos

One thing that I may point out is that Khabbalistic magic (Yes, it's technically spelled wrong, but this webboard does not support Hebrew chararacters) is, in many ways, similar to hermetic traditions. It's about patterns and methodology to the spiritual universe, and makes remarkably little sense to most of us, including most Jews like myself. In other words, it's confusing stuff that, in theory, makes things happen.
Also, Judaisim is, in many ways, about tradition and rituals. Even though it's not even technically part of the Torah (Rabbis came up with it later), Kashrut is a major part of Judaisim for millions of people.
So, in other words, Kabbalah=hermetic magic centered around a Supreme Being.
Christianity is a bit different. For some of the more recent varieties of christianity, religion is not so much worship as a relationship with God/Jesus/Whatever. This is in many ways similar to the granting of magical ability by other spirit totems. All one needs to do is fiddle with the definition a bit and adjust abilities, and you have a Priest with the ability to throw something other than Latin from the pulpit.
PhysAds for both faiths are a breeze. Christianity has a long tradition of holy warriors, and two great examples of Jewish fighters aided by their deity are Judah "The Hammer" Maccabee, who managed to drive off the Assyrians despite a 10-to-1 disadvantage in numbers, and David, who managed to kill Goliath with a dinky little sling. (Of course, a weapon that does 3L is pretty powerful if you've got 22 dice, once you've included your combat pool).

Penta:

Apology accepted.

In truth...No, people wouldn't get very cranky about it. Though it does depend on what you do.

If you went all-out negative against religion, you'd hear something long and loud.

If you included demons a la the first D&D Monster Manual? No, you wouldn't, not really. Maybe some mutterings at a local level, but those types hate RPGs already.

I think the rule of thumb for SR would be: Respect it. Don't trash it unnecessarily. Kid gloves, no. There are limits, perhaps unspoken, that you don't cross. (You may poke fun at organized religion's foibles a la Reverend Lovejoy; You may not poke at actual denominations.) It mostly requires walking a bit in others' shoes.

My beef with SR's portrayal of religion is that the Western faiths have been bashed to hell. Protestants come out looking like the stereotypical hicks; Catholics are made to look like there's conspiracies everywhere to take over the world.

The latter makes me wonder, just because it makes no sense. Do conspiracies happen? Yes, but not that commonly.

Now, that said...I could see something like, for example, the New Jesuits. But they wouldn't use combat, period. They'd go in, for example, and set up underground churches and an underground hierarchy. It would probably just be the Jesuits, too.

The New Templars, on the other hand, make no sense, in any way. For one thing, the Church has proclaimed for over a century that forced conversions are null and void. You expand the church by rhetoric, without even a possible recourse to force.

(That said, I could see a secret force to combat things like bugs, vampires, and similar sorts of magical threats. But no involvement in human affairs.)

I honestly feel that it could very well be done respectfully, without anyone being upset about it. But I´m rather ignorant about how sensetive the public opinions in other countries are, really. That´s what I originaly ment with my remark. When I think about how christianity has been portraid in Shadowrun, the first thing that comes to mind is the orphan exploiting, pathetic characters in a few of the novels. That was until recently one of the only major apperances Western faiths had in Shadowrun, that I can think of. I think conspiracies and templars are to be prefered to that. But I basicly agree with you, Penta.

As long as there is no strange void where Islam, Christianity etc. should be. And as long as the writers are knowledgable and unbiased. I don´t think there is anything wrong to have things like catholic conspiracies and muslim invations in there. But it is a hot subject, so anything that is said about it is going to be subject to criticism and discussion.