Biblically Inaccurate Religions

I tend to oscillate rapidly between projects I’m interested in, like some kind of misfiring neuron in an RPG-soaked braincell. Right now, I’m working on a science-fantasy megadungeon / ruined city for my home group, but swinging in the other direction means shifting to my modern day setting. I’ve got a lot of plans to run a hodgepodge of games in that setting, except something has been tripping me up about prepping for it.

I don’t want it to be Earth. I want it to be Earth-like.

I’m imagining a neon-soaked cassette-futurism in a 90s that never was. Modern day settings tend to be much easier to grasp, with a lower baseline of understanding. I want to keep similar touchstones for this shiny new setting, but freshen the place up with new nations, continents, and global problems. Frankly, the real world is pretty horrific these days, and I want to play in a world that feels modern but isn’t quite the dumpster fire that we’re currently dealing with.

A lot of stuff goes into building a world. Ask any blogger and they’ll probably head into the backroom and wheel out one of their posts about how they do it. Right now, my need for this setting is so far down the line that I’m building it entirely by vibe. If something strikes my fancy, I jot it down and move on with my life.

One thing I’ve been pondering lately is how to handle religion. Religion in the modern day is quite different from what we typically see in fantasy, which oftentimes ends up just being the bog-standard Greek gods in new dresses (and sometimes hosed down with a coat of creamy white Christian church paint, depending on how gothic you’re taking things.)

Even on my best day, I don’t have much of a clue what I’m doing when I’m messing around with fantastical religions. I could, in my modern day setting, handwave it all away like some cheap magician, but that doesn’t seem right. There’s a lot of interesting things you can do with religion, especially in a modern horror or horror-adjacent type game. But I also don’t want to just say “oh yeah, this place is lousy with sins, so Jesus died here too. And, uh, that’s why that guy over there is a Christian.”

So, I did what anyone like me (clever and lazy) would do. I asked my friend who studied religion in college if he had any advice. He then surprised me by writing a blog post (for my eyes only) which was frustratingly insightful and exactly what I needed. This jerk effortlessly built an entire framework to create something that feels modern, but isn’t just one of the major religions with the VIN number scratched off. It unlocked something in my brain.

I begged, cried, screamed, threatened, made puppy dog eyes, and even asked nicely for him to publish it! But no. He tells me he wants to remain incognito, a modern day mystery man, dropping this bounty of knowledge on me and then vanishing into the night.¹

However, he turned a generous eye to my plight and told me I could post it. So here it is.

Canonites

Canon:

1. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine;
2. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged

High-level

A world religion characterized by a focus on “correct thinking”.

In practical terms, this means their religion shapes itself according to doctrine, that is, analytical thinking laid down in writing. The religions of the Book. Sects within this group base their identity on their adherence to a particular doctrine, that is, they believe that the doctrine they follow is the truest and most perfect interpretation of divine will and that their strict obedience to it is the surest way to attain divine rewards or favor.

Because identity is so closely tied to a doctrine, i.e. a “canon”, it is imperative that adherents be certain that their canon is the Truth, while all other canons have been muddied by human imperfection–or, possibly, by the Enemy–for if there is a chance that their canon is wrong then why adhere to its tenets at all, especially those which cause hardship? The further implications of such ambiguity in doctrine are untenable to this structure of belief, namely, if it is possible that some of their canon is correct, but only some, and that also some of another sect’s canon is correct, but only some, then who is to say which parts are right and which are not? In the early incarnations of this religion such ambiguity would have been commonplace, and even no great cause for alarm, but over time has seen a succession of splits and reinterpretations that have grown increasingly strident about the certainty of their message. Think of the two modes of thinking–one tolerant of ambiguity, the other intolerant of it–as two services on offer in a marketplace of ideas. Those peddling a 100% guarantee for their service increasingly captured more of the market. The suffering have little patience for theological uncertainty. In a competitive market where identity is tied to doctrine (that is, which set of beliefs and practices one adheres to) the less certain interpretations of the divine order–such as local “pagan” traditions that interpret, for example, bird sign–were displaced, and those Canonite sects that were most able to convince lay followers of the Absolute Truth of their doctrine were the ones that flourished and propagated.

When it comes to people’s day to day lives, this adherence to “correct thinking” manifests along a scale. Some adherents adhere only during moments of extreme crisis, when all else has failed them or in the wake of some great personal tragedy, when there’s nothing left but the hope for divine intervention. Many have varying degrees of observance, often convinced that their level of observance is just enough to be allowed in on the divine reward, but often plagued by the nagging sense that they need to do a little more. Some, of course, are moved to more extreme behaviors. Some groups are tolerant of those who do not follow the canon–they’re fools who won’t receive the divine reward, but we will, so who cares–while others are moved to force their correct thinking on others either out of a paternalistic sense that they’re doing what is best for the unfortunate would-be convert, or out of an–often dark–sense of inner doubt that has been displaced onto others and must be silenced.

Practical Pillars

• Two, three, maybe four major sects

  • Could be differentiated by their teacher/prophet, by their primary symbol, by who the head of their church is. Quick identifiers for ease of design
  • Lots of room to have splinter sects/cults

• Could root the canon in anything you want

  • If you don’t want to get too close to Abrahamic religions, the canon could be rooted in philosophers who emphasize “right being”

• Because identity is not tied to geography, this religion can be anywhere

• Clear familiarity, can be brief

  • “The Canonites follow the Divine Canon, a set of principles written down in a holy book that offer precepts and proscriptions on everything from what kind of animals can be eaten to rules for capital punishment”

• Deep Depth

  • A player/GM who wants to embrace it can dive into shaping a sect’s canon, their lineage and history, and their relationship to others

Renunciants

Renounce:

1. reject and stop using or consuming;
2. declare that one will no longer engage in or support

High-level

A world religion characterized by a focus on renouncing “worldly being”.

All religions throughout history have seen spiritual expressions that involve renouncing the world in favor of devoting oneself to a “higher” state, but an organized world religion that focuses on renouncing worldly being is one that devotes itself to the elevation of community rather than to the elevation of the self. That is to say, these sects believe either: a) that as they attain divine rewards/alignment they are morally obligated to guide others in their community towards those rewards, or; b) that they cannot receive the full divine reward on promise unless everyone in their community also receives it. For sects within this religion the foundations of identity are not built on doctrine, but on a sense of (typically cultural) community.

In contrast to a world religion that focuses on its holy canon, these sects would have much greater acceptance of ambiguity, and would place much less emphasis on orthodoxy or “right being”. This does not preclude these sects from participating in any of the horrors or atrocities any other religion might engage in; if anything, those who renounce the world and have built their identity firmly upon cultural lines are as capable of astonishing cruelty as they are of presenting an idyllic harmony.

To become a world religion these sects must embrace a sense of community that encompasses the world, and so their doctrine–which they certainly have even if they don’t place as much emphasis on it–would include precepts about elevating the entirety of the world. Possibly this is limited to the human component, but it need not be. However, because communities are built first and foremost locally, most of these sects would be very tied to geographic or cultural boundaries. Consider Zen Buddhism: one would be hard pressed to practice Zen without taking on the trappings and deeper cultural fascinations of the Japanese, even though at the highest level Zen Buddhism is concerned with the enlightenment of all of humanity.

The role these sects have in people’s day to day lives would differ drastically, mostly rooted in cultural (rather than theological) norms. Sects might disagree on the level of adherence required of its followers and thus have differing impacts on those followers lives, but a sect might also see radically different behaviors in different populations even absent any kind of theological drift. For example, some adherents may participate in daily rituals such as burning incense to ancestors, while others might string prayer flags about their home a couple of times a month, and still others may only participate in large ceremonial gatherings like funerals or only engage in the sect’s paramount holy day in a given year.

Practical Pillars

• Maybe two major sects

  • Divide geographically, e.g. the “west Renunciants” or the “equatorial Renunciants”
  • Or divide by a teacher, e.g. “Ahsoka’s Renunciants” or “Korian Renunciants”

• No need to detail what the doctrine actually is

  • Most adherents themselves, even monks/teacher, would shrug and say “we just do this because”
  • Onus is on the follower to figure out why a thing is done, not on the doctrine to explain it

• Community based identity means it provides contrast

  • Breakup monolithic societies by giving them a “Renunciant quarter”

• Good for lower-level engagement

  • Player/GM can embrace this and mostly ignore it, but it provides the “this is how funerals are” or adds background for a holiday kind of thing

Testifiers

Testify:

1. to speak seriously about something;
2. to show something or prove that something is true

High-level

A world religion characterized by a focus on “ecstatic traditions”.

Those who experience religious ecstasy tend to speak of it in terms of an altered state of consciousness or being, often characterized by a reduction in the external senses and an expansion of one’s interiority. It is not uncommon for these events to be accompanied by visions or auditory experiences. This sort of religious expression might be deeply personal to the individual and may even be so far removed from other religious experiences (e.g. the doldrums of a Sunday morning service) that one may not even consider it religious at all. On the other hand, this is another form of religious experience that would find expression in many other sects, including Canonites or Renunciants. Think of Baptists “speaking in tongues” while holding on high their sacred canon (the Bible), or of Buddhist monks achieving bliss through meditation.

As a world religion it’s possible that Testifiers are a branch of the Canonites or the Renunciants, but they could also have their own unique lineage. As their own lineage, Testifiers would not be concerned with orthodoxy–“right thinking” would hold little importance to them–and similarly they would not build community along cultural or geographic lines–ecstatic expression recognizes no borders–but if they were lineages of the other branches then they would value those concepts experientially rather than through an analytical or moral lens. Right thinking feels good; renouncing the world is blissful. Regardless of their lineage, Testifiers would not build their identity around cultural or doctrinal lines, but around an act, namely, the act of proselytizing.

Testifiers are not passive. They experience religion, and they seek to bring that experience to others.

These communities would neither recognize borders nor worldly authorities, though many will find practical methods for obeying the laws of the land (e.g. follow the law as long as it doesn’t endanger your immortal soul), and they would be communities that struggled to maintain any kind of coherent organizational structure. Most would be formed around a charismatic leader. These adherents would have no patience at all for theological debate; to them, religion is experiential, and the service that makes them feel-or even see or hear–the most is the one preaching the Truth. People’s day to day lives would be devoted to this practice. Once humans find the button to press that releases the drip of serotonin, they don’t let up. However, community identity would always be porous: all are welcome, and even cultural taboos would be discarded in the throes of ecstatic fellowship, but the death (or disgrace) of a charismatic leader or the not-uncommon burnout among adherents would see followers drifting apart and away.

Practical Pillars

• Define only one loose sort of overarching belief, e.g. kingdom of heaven, personal savior, Wiccan-esque rule of three, karma, etc

  • Very hands off in terms of detail work

• Can focus on influential characters

  • Some readers/designers respond more to colorful characters

• Easily recognizable

  • Good ol’ time religion
  • Great Awakening is hard coded into North America’s conception of religion, to the point many of us don’t realize it

• Porous community allows unbalancing static design

  • Anywhere that needs some ecstatics, be they whirling dervishes or psychonauts
  • Idea of a world religion is these ecstatics are a force outside of just the local area though, giving them gravity that can’t be dismissed

Animists

Animism:

1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena;
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe

High-level

This would be a local religion characterized by a focus on the “living world”.

Animism is a broad catch-all term and there are no large/world religions that it could properly be applied to, but when considering earth-like religions it warrants some attention. Animism might be used as an alternative word for “pagan” in many cases, or is often used as a collective term for the beliefs of the American indigenous (both North and South) peoples. There is, without a doubt, an immense difference between what Animism looks like in the American Great Plains versus what it looks like in the Andes Mountains, and to further dilute the term, it has also used to describe Sub-Sahara African and South Pacific religious practices.

The identity of these sects would be built upon intensely local lines. Practice would be taught by community or family elders, and might be confined to the family unit or accepted by the wider community. Like voodoo or witchcraft, many of these practices would be prominent in popular culture, leading to a very diverse spectrum of practitioners as well as a large scale of belief (from those who view it as good fun to those who view themselves as stewards of their people’s ancient traditions).

These sects might not place much value in ancient traditions. The American hippie movement in the 70s might be described as Animism with a set of beliefs that was unconcerned with tracing any kind of lineage or path of transmission of knowledge, but rather was in dialogue primarily with itself as it formulated a belief structure (Mother Earth, Gaia, etc). Alternatively, some sects might place great value on tracing the transmission of knowledge, as is common among many “New Age” sects where it is standard practice to list a lineage of one’s teachers (or, perhaps, corroborating scientists/celebrities).

These sects could be organized into a world religion with a unifying doctrine or principle, but would likely remain primarily local or even familial when it comes to constructing their identity. Consider the discourse around cultural appropriation, and discussions of who, for example, voodoo is for, and the typically rural nature of these sorts of beliefs.

Practical Pillars

• From a design viewpoint these can add spice to an interesting location

  • The local belief can serve as a vehicle to describe the place’s history
  • Or give it a unique tradition seen nowhere else

• Allows someone to be unique

  • A GM/Player can make themselves something that stands out

• Opens up less religious more spiritual design

  • I don’t think there’s a difference between spiritual and religious but it’s a common touchstone for people to want to avoid religion but embrace spirituality

• While each sect would need a lot of detail work, it’s an area that can be left untouched unless someone wanted to dive in

  • A few quick lines about how local areas have their own traditions, ranging from deeply held community beliefs about the living spirits of the land, to pop-culture superstitions, might be all that are needed to do the design lift

Final Considerations

These four ideas are probably better conceptualized as components of religion, rather than definitions of kinds of religion, by which I mean that you could find the broad strokes of any of these four ideas in almost any religion. Sufism is a world renouncing religious tradition that seeks out and embraces religious ecstasy while remaining guided by a strong sense of local traditions and a very defined orthodox canon.

In modeling an earth-like religion, depending of course on the level of design attention you want to give them, it may be beneficial to think of these as sliders or levels. Religion X goes up to 11 on Renunciants, but is only a 3 on Canonites, etc. That said, going with three or four big religions and perhaps noting a few of the prominent divisions within those religions (Catholics/Protestants) would probably be more than enough.

Hopefully these can help serve as a way to do a bit of paint mixing so the religions you come up with can be filled with clear familiar parallels but avoid being real world religion X by a different name.

Did you enjoy this post? Consider signing up to the mindstorm, my semi-regular newsletter!