It is likely to be the same with any cultural group which you create in ARIA, unless one specifically exempts religion from their character. Even then, such a culture would likely find other ways to express their thoughts about the universe, in some form of philosophy. A society without culture or thought into cosmological concerns in some form or other is without precedent in Earth culture. In any other world, a society without them would be viewed as wholly alien. Such a group would be hated and feared passionately by any other culture which knew of them.
Civilized societies especially are affected by the structures and patterns of religious life. Agriculture is predominantly a function of civilized societies; it operates on a calendar of planting, growing and harvesting, which lends itself well to a cycle of religious festivals. Religion, in turn, often provides the calendar to monitor the crops, the scribes to tally the harvest, and the organization of manpower to irrigate and store the food efficiently.
Religions often evolve and change with the society in which they exist. Modern synagogue worship would likely be a surprising experience to an pre-Exile Hebrew transported to the twentieth century. A Christian of the first century A.D. would be appalled by the denominational divisions of the modern Church. On the other hand, some things remain the same. Religions tend to adopt traditions and modes of life which become deeply grounded in the essence of the faith. Often, these traditions are seen as being instituted by the gods rather than mortals. Thus, Islam remains rooted in Arabic as the language of the Quran, and Shintoism relies on the practices of centuries-old rituals performed by the Emperor of Japan to secure the blessings of Heaven upon the workings of Earth.
In ancient and even more recent times, there was rather a lot of interaction between society and religion, to the point where the lines between them blur. This is less true today, however, especially in Western countries where this book is likely to be read. Yet it is still appropriate to talk of most people of European descent today as being culturally Christian, just as some traditionally Islamic nations once behind the Iron Curtain as part of the Soviet Union are rediscovering that heritage two and three generations later.
In anthropological and sociological circles, the decline of religion is attributed to religion's intrinsic tradtionalism. Most religions practiced today developed under what has been called the 'classical' world-view. In Western terms, this would mean a Ptolemaic, Earth-centered universe based on Aristotle's physical and metaphysical understanding of the world. It means a world ordered by divine powers and manipulated and twisted by powers of divinity or demonism, depending on whom one listens to. By contrast, most improvements in the world are part of the 'modern' world-view, based in the West on the Scientific Method, the triumph of reason, and the supremacy of human ingenuity over the universe.
However, most Westerners live in a 'post-modern' world-view, in which the supremacy of human ingenuity has been demonstrated as fundamentally dangerous through the creation of toxic waste, and superweapons. For many, the triumph of reason has left a spiritual or imaginative gap in their lives, and the Scientific Method is a much-publicized, often-abused credo which often fails to account for ethical considerations. Most religions for such people are seen as at best deluded and at worst some form of spiritual terrorism for fun and profit.
Perhaps the problem really lies in the particular approach which we often take with religion. When we are in Church, for example, in order to believe and understand, we must put ourselves at times into the 'classical' world-view. When we are in school in the chemistry lab, the 'modern' worldview is the preferred mental picture. When we are having deep philosophical conversations over a beer, the nihilistic forms of the 'post modern' cognative map are encouraged. So we switch back and forth between the three (for some people, more) basic mental pictures of the universe, and it's no wonder we are so frequently confused. Since most of the classical writings on any given religion belong to the 'classic' world-view, to destroy that classic world-view is to appear to damage the basic underpinnings of the religion.
In most average fantasy literature, the world is 'classical' and the characters are 'modern' or 'post-modern'. This does not necessarily mean the characters are from a modern or post-modern world; more often than not, they are intended to be integrated with their setting. Switching from one world-view to another requires some effort, and many authors are not even aware of the discrepancy.
Switching world-views is not terribly difficult, however. We do it all the time in our lives and work. It is very hard to do good work at a gas station or a store or a law firm in the 'post-modern' viewpoint- the universe is so vast in the post-modern world that the actions of individual humans are essentially meaningless. No one wants to be reminded in a tender moment that their attraction is just a complex interaction of organic chemicals. In the classical model, however, at least in the West, individuals and societies are very important, and individual actions matter enormously in the overall pattern of life.
Not surprisingly, heroes generally belong to the classical model of the universe. Where individuals are important, heroes become crucial- the movers of the world. Yet we, and many authors, often give them sight through our eyes. The heroes we create with paper and pencil and imagination fall flat, because they see the worlds of imagination as we would, through modern or postmodern eyes, rather than the classical eyes which they deserve. No classical hero would think about trying to kill a god, unless it had already been proven to her that the god was a disguised demon. Solemn oracles are severe warnings to be considered carefully, and not laughed off. It is no accident that one of the most interesting characters in English literature, Shakespeare's Hamlet, cannot decide what to do about his possibly-murderous uncle. His indecision is a direct result of straddling world-views: is the ghost of his father real, or a psychosomatic figment of his imagination, pressing him to terrible crimes because of jealousy?
This book is about designing Classical world-views. It is about cosmology- an overall picture of the universe which helps define how we think, act, and interact. It is a continuation of ARIA's basic intentions, to create the best and most complete worlds possible. In the Classical world-view, cosmology is basically about three things- gods, the mortal world, and the interactions between them: in other words, religion. Religion is about more than just rituals, however. Especially in the classical worldview, it is about taboos and spiritual injunctions. It is about what is forbidden and what is encouraged. It is about how one sees the universe: is it stars at uncountable distances, or lanterns in the dome of the sky? Does every tree have a spirit, or are they so many board-feet of timber and nothing else?
Hard questions. We're not always comfortable with the answers a classical world-view gives us. We tend to poke fun at people who hold them, and ridicule their beliefs. They, in turn, express fear and doubt at the size of our universe, and our own individual insignificance within it. People who have had electricity at their command, and have used it to tell us stories through television and light their homes and workplaces well past dark, find it hard sometimes to enter the world of old gods and dangerous spirits.
Go into an dark place outdoors sometime, and lie down beneath the dome of the sky. As the stars come out, ask yourself: are they balls of burning plasma and fire? Or are the angels of the Most High Gods lighting the golden lamps while the chariot of the moon rides by, as all the company of the heavens bow down low?
When we look to the stars with the unaided eye, certain things about the universe are almost automatically apparent. The moon is larger than the stars and covers them; therefore it must be closer. Most stars are fixed in relation to one another. A very small number of them wander, and these appear larger than the fixed stars in most cases. Since these wanderers sometimes block the view of the fixed stars and don't keep to the same position with regard to the same stars, they are probably closer. Finally, over the course of an evening, the stars move vast distances at a noticeable rate- in fact, an amazingly swift rate.
Without instruments and without years of patient and careful observation, a few things become apparent to the intelligent but uninformed observer. The moon is the obviously the closest object to Earth, excepting only the clouds and the birds. It grows brighter and darker according to a particular pattern caused by the light of the sun against the shadow of Earth on the moon. This pattern is occasionally interrupted by the shadow of Earth as the sun is directly opposite the moon with the Earth between them.
Second, the stars are either very far away and large, or very small and close by. The wandering stars- named for the Greek word for 'wanderers', planets- are somehow between the moon and the stars. Finally, the sun appears moves according to a set and predictable pattern. In fact, the line which the sun is observed to trace (called the ecliptic) can be precisely determined according to a regular, predictable schedule. Since an observer cannot feel the motion of the Earth, the only non-moving body in the universe must be the Earth. The sun is a wanderer like the planets, which are all in orbit around Earth. Even the stars move around the Earth.
Chances are, you agree with all of this chapter so far except the last few sentences. Scientific examination in the last 400 years or so have proven the Earth moves despite our unawareness of that motion. For the modern human, it is an established fact that the sun is the center of the solar system, and the solar system is just one place in a vast galaxy which is but a tiny fraction of the whole universe. The chain of logic which led to preposterous conclusions must have a flaw in it somewhere.
Strangely enough, the chain of reason has only one real flaw: the failure to observe the motion of the Earth itself. Moreover, this particular observation is a matter of empirical data, not logic. Stunningly, our skyward-looking ancestors got it more or less right based on the information they had. Which is not to say they didn't see their model as perfect. Planetary motion was extremely difficult to work out, and extremely complex systems of cosmological 'cogs and gears' were required to fix the problems.
Basically, however, the model worked. The three most important objects in this closed-system universe, the sun, the moon and the sphere of stars, perfectly supported the Earth-centered model. Since the chief test cases worked, there was no reason to suppose the movement of the other celestial bodies would not be discoverd eventually.
Instead, it took centuries, even millenia, to accumulate enough data to correct the Earth-centered model of the universe to a sun-centered one. By that time, religions and states had enormous amounts of cultural significance invested in the Earth-centered model. The new paradigm was received badly, which should come as no surprise. It chanced, however, that Europe discovered the sun-centered model at precisely the right time, when its chief religion was in upheaval. The traditionalists had an interest in holding to the old model. The reformers didn't. Perhaps, just perhaps, we might be reading Ptolemy's earth-centered cosmology theories today.
All of which is intended to show just how powerful cosmology can be.
If time is infinite, with neither beginning nor ending, the cosmos is a closed system which is perfectly balanced. All things will eventually occur, because there is an unlimited amount of time in which they can happen. By contrast, time may be finite. This places a boundary upon the potentials, but an exciting one. If time comes to an end, then so does the cosmos. A judgment by a supreme deity may follow, or a new world might be created by the survivors. Apocalypse is only one option for the end of the Cosmos, and we will consider other options elswhere in this book. Finally, the nature of time may be undetermined. Knowledge of the final disposition of the cosmos is as yet unknown, though it may be revealed at a later date by divine or mortal action. When Time's nature is undetermined, it usually exhibits many of the characteristics of infinite time.
Time is also usually described as cyclical, linear, or helical. Where Time's length determines length of a cosmological existence, these three options describe the nature of that existence. Cyclical time is seen as continuing round of life: the same patterns of life are repeated again and again, the same sorts of things happen. Linear time, on the other hand, is not repetitive, except in coincidental cirmumstances. It moves towards some future point, which is seen as different from what is now in the past. Helical time combines features of both: Time moves in a circular fashion, but each cycle actually ends at some point above or below where the cycle began. A new age or epoch begins at each new start of the cycle, either progressing towards the future, or slowly regressing backwards.
A number of combinations are obviously possible. In a world with a finite cycle of time, a certain number of passes on the wheel of the cosmos are expected, at which time there will be a major change; until then, no great changes will occur. An infinite linear concept of time is founded upon an understanding of progress: the future will almost always be better than the present. Infinite helical time, oriented downwards, presumes that the world is gradually getting worse with each new cycle. This can be reflected in the Roman belief in a Golden Age, followed by a Silver Age, followed by Ages of Bronze and Iron as the world becomes bleaker and bleaker.
The Narrative Boundary is a useful tool for the Mythguide, to close out parts of the universe that she has chosen either not to develop at this time, or to close options which she does not wish explored at this time. For example, a Narrative Boundary may be placed around the Kingdom of the Gods, or around the Land of the Dead. Someone may go to the Land of the Dead- but they will not be coming back. A hero may go to battle the gods; such a hero, win or lose, has done a mythic act. It was also his final act in this life in this particular Canticle.
Crossing a Narrative Boundary is an irrevocable act. When a persona is about to cross one, the Mythguide should allow a soliloquy or other appropriate moment, just as though the character was about to die. The departing character then leaves the Canticle. The current Canticle should be played out, regardless of how much time remains in it. Then, the Ensemble may decide whether to follow across the Boundary or not.
(Possible Addition: Note that the Ensemble is not told about the other side of the Narrative Boundary. Depending on the Rating of the Boundary (see chart: a scale from 10 to 1, with 10 representing very hard barriers and 1 representing relatively soft ones), there may be no information at all about the other side. Narrative boundaries generally exist between widely separated locales, or between one state of being and another. In the case of death, this may be a permanent boundary. If the Mythguide has determined that death is a state of non-existence, crossing over is nothing other than mass suicide, and all the characters are gone.
Boundaries are established by Origins, in the sense that boundaries serve a purpose in the cosmos. An Origin is always assumed to have unlimited Omnessence to control its boundaries.)
We suggest you construct two or more cosmologies: one which is the true nature of the universe, and one or more for each belief system which needs a cosmology of its own. Thus, you can from time to time make revelations about the nature of the universe. These can be traumatizing events not only for individuals but even whole societies. An example of this can be found in the philosophical school founded by the Greek mathematician and mystic, Pythagoras, who decreed that all numbers were rational. Long after his death, his students began to experiment with numbers, and discovered a quantity of numbers which were in fact not rational, but decidedly irrational, among them the famous pi. The Pythagorean system of mathematics rapidly collapsed under the weight of this problem, leaving nothing but the Pythagorean Theorem and some of their teacher's more enigmatic sayings, such as "Justice is 4."
Take a moment to consider the kinds of effects cosmological choices have likely played on the society which accepts this world-picture as its own. These are principally a function of Space. As a general rule, the more partitioned and closed a cosmological system, the more gods there are likely to be within it. The more open and undivided the cosmos is, the fewer gods will inhabit it. In addition, the more partitioned the universe is, the smaller it is (or at least appears to be). As it approaches total unity without divisions, the larger it is.
This can be hard to follow. yet it is clearer than one might think. Imagine this: all possible cosmologies have precisely the same outer dimensions. The more divisions a cosmos has, the smaller each individual section becomes. Even dividing infinity in half with a single boundary leaves two smaller infinities.
The other reason why individual portions of the cosmos become smaller has a lot to do with the abhorrence of a vacuum. It could be that some cultures in some worlds don't have a problem with emptiness. But most have, and most should, especially in more primitive cultures. To them, voids in nature are as unnatural as voids in political systems. And we know how fast political vacuums get filled.
In fact, it wasn't until the 17th and 18th century that Earth began to conceive that the space between planets and stars was empty space, and we were unhappy about it for a very long time. Isaac Newton, for example, believed the motion of the planets produced a horrendous amount of noise, which filled the void completely. Only humans and all living creatures didn't know about the sound, because having lived with it all our lives, we could't imagine the profound silence which would exist afterwards.
The action of Time, on the other hand, will help to determine how involved the gods are, and what their function is. For example, in a helical infinte model, the gods can be involved in one of three possible tasks: pulling the cosmos up, towards better things; pulling it down, towards an even worse future; or removing personas from the cycle forever. These questions will be considered more fully in Part II - Divinity.
What kind of components exist? The vision of the cosmos is not even close to complete with only space and time considered. Chances are you have only a few Narrative Boundaries, as well. It is hard to know where to put them until some issues about content get resolved. Thus, you should feel to add or subtract them at any time in the process of Cosmos creation, or even afterwards.
In order to determine the content of the cosmos, two options exist. One is to simply start assigning space to ideas, setting aside space for first one pantheon of gods and then another, then elemental powers, then local spirits and so on. Such a cosmos eventually begins to feel cluttered. While it may be cosy and fun, one begins to wonder just what the Creator was thinking of. When the creator might be identified as a member of the Ensemble, a certain amount of forethought in placing cosmological regions can be very helpful.
Establishing some cosmological priorities is another way to go about putting together the universe. Such priorities are the realm of Metaphysics.
Metaphysics, the study of the fundamental nature of reality and being, has gotten a bad rap. Named after a book which Aristotle wrote (and Aristotle's students placed after his book on physics, hence the name) on the subject, it is sometimes treated with contempt in modern philsophical circles because its subject is the study of things outside of objective experience. Only one modern metaphysician is usually considered worthy of study: the founder of the school of process philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead, which is seen by some as a major reworking of Aristotle for the 'modern' world-view. Prior to the modern age, however, metaphysics was an important area of philosophy, with major contributions made in Western philosophy by Plato and Aristotle as well as other Greeks, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In Eastern philosophy, Buddhism and Taoism introduced a number of concepts into metaphysical study. The Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu, and its focus on the Way which cannot be truly known, represents an ideal of metaphysical beauty- motions of utter harmony between the creative force and humanity.
Metaphysics has always been one of the most fascinating and abstract fields of study. It is the study of first principles and the examination of the underlying assumptions behind a given set of premises regarding the universe. As such, it can be very complex and more than a little convoluted. At least one medieval metaphysician was locked up, described as hopelessly insane. Others trod the same fine line with varying degrees of success. Some philosophers have gone so far as to decree it useless.
Metaphysics can be simplified, fortunately. Here, we will establish certain metaphysical constants, based on a series of scales rated from 1 to 10. Each scale deals with one major area of metaphysical inquiry within a 'classical' world-view. By choosing a rating for at least some of the scales, one will be better prepared to answer further questions about the nature of the cosmos.
Once at least some of these scales are fixed, certain cosmological patterns come into play, and new questions emerge. But these new questions are concerned with a radically different set of problems. You will no longer be concerned with what fits into a given cosmology, but how and where desired elements will fit into a particular world-view. The metaphysical structures listed here will help determine what is and is not possible.
If we chose, we could pick out certain archetypes of the questions and answers. Copernicus said that the world was a ball of rock in space, orbiting a ball of hot gas. Some Native American myths say a giant turtle carries the world on its back. Plato thought the world was fixed with regard to certain constants. Aristotle saw change everywhere. Isaiah prophesied the great mercy of the God of Israel, while Zoroaster saw a coming Judgment which would consume the world. Ancient religions quivered in a world filled with spirits. We ourselves walk proud and unafraid, people of flesh, bones, hormones and DNA. Christians proclaim the total triumph of Jesus over the forces of evil, while some atheists see in the depravity of humanity the total defeat of good will. The Delphic Oracle claimed a predetermined fate for all, while the Romantic poets proudly proclaim themselves captains of their souls.
All these viewpoints reflect basic questions. Is the world physical, in the sense of a sun and planets; or is it poetic, carried on the backs of a giant sea turtle? Is the universe unchanging, or are we free to change the things we don't like? Is the world more idea or spirit, or is it just matter or substance? Does good triumph over evil, or is life more complicated than that? Do I have free will, or did someone know I'd ask that beforehand?
Real religions often have complex answers; books the size of encyclopedias could be written on any one question, and in fact many have. The most important of these works became Scripture. Others are derided as heretical or blasphemous. Sometimes, they were or are both, to different groups. The most accessible sources and commentaries are listed in the bibliography at the end of this book.
In the interests of playable realism and space, the system for answering these questions has been simplified, so that a Mythguide will not be writing until his hair is gray. The questions have been codified on the following pages into a set of five scales, called the Cosmological Constants. Each has a value beween one and ten, indicating a spectrum of possibilities.
The five Metaphysical Scales are designed to provide a quick answer to the basic questions and their variants. For example, in Narrative play, the Mythguide may remind a persona who becomes too concerned about controlling her destiny that her faith believes in predestination, and trying to avoid the course set for her will affect her place in the afterlife. The Mythguide should be careful to use this option sparingly as a plot device to keep the Ensemble in line, however.
In additon, the Metaphysical Scales are intended to help a society or culture answer questions about the world it lives in. As in the case of the earth-centered universe, their opinions might be wrong- but they will interpret it in a particular manner. A tree which nearly falls on top of an over-eager woodcutter is a warning from the spirits of the forest to someone with a particular worldview. To another, it is merely a sign of rotted wood and some mis-strokes during the actual chopping.
The question is, which viewpoint is superstition? To modern eyes, the one claiming a natural, scientific cause for the mishap is being reasonable and rational. In truth, in designing your own cosmos, the difference between perception and reality is important. In a classical vision of the cosmos, what is observed is what is true. Tradition has a lot of authority in such a society, because Truth is an absolute concept. What is true for one generation is true for future generations. We have to constantly remind ourselves that this classical vision is part of what we have lost. Personas and personalities in a fantasy environment should possess it. Perception drives truth.
The scales are arranged on a 10-point sliding scale, with an extreme position at 1 and 10. However, although there are extremes, there is never perfect balance. Thus, a purely neutral position does not exist; instead, 5 is weighted towards one experience while 6 is slightly weighted to the other.
A more Poetic society, in general, may have more classicist leanings. It will adopt a high regard for Spirit and Order, and have a powerful swing towards either Good or Evil depending on other environmental factors. It will probably adopt any position on Fate or Will. It will tend to be a very religious society, with frequent (possibly casual, like drink libations) offerings to gods and demi-gods and spirits.
A more Physical society, in general, may have more modernist tendencies. It will tend to swing towards Chaos, Mortal, and Will, and adopt a moderate position on good and evil. The society will tend towards monotheism or secularism, and will rarely make casual offerings to gods other than prayer.
The Poetic-Physical scale defines the how the universe is constituted with regard to physical structure and appearance. In a poetic world, the universe is described in accordance with mythic understanding. Angels hang stars in the sky every night, and dryads dance in forest glades. In a physical environment, scientific explanations are the norm. Gravity is caused by the rotation of the earth, and the stars are flaming balls of gas.
A more Mortal-oriented society will tend towards a modernist worldview. It will probably be oriented to the Physical, the Chaotic and the Will. It will probably adopt a more-or-less neutral position on Good and Evil, and ethical systems will tend towards relativism.
The Spirit-Mortal scale defines the priorities of the cosmos with regard to the relative value of mortals and spiritual beings. In a very Spiritual cosmos, gods, demons and other spiritual beings would hold most of the power and call most of the shots. In a very Mortal cosmos, mortal actions would have a greater effect upon the future fate of the cosmos. The actions of gods would be of minor importance.
{I haven't finished the chart for this section, but Spirit is 10 and Mortal, 1}
An Ordered society, on the other hand, will tend to be classical in its outlook. It will probably turn towards Spirit, Poetic, Fate, and have a strong position on Good.
The Chaos-Order scale defines how the universe is constituted with regard organization and anarchy, creation and entropy. In a very Chaotic cosmos, disorder will generally increase: instructions will be misunderstood and change is rapid. In a very Ordered cosmos, everything operates according to particular patterns, and all things have their place. Chaos and Order also represent principles of individuality and community.
This scale describes the current moral state of the universe. In a very Good setting, the archetypal power of Good is almost sentient and definitely active in the extermination/limitation of Evil. The opposite would be true in a very Evil cosmos. It is advised, however, that the range between 4 and 7 is appropriate for a cosmos as a whole, and extremes be assigned only to distinct regions within a cosmos. A universe which is metaphysically committed to evil can be a very hard place to live.
The Fate-Will scale describes the current state of the cosmos with regard to the foreordination of events. In a highly Fated setting, the actions of personas and institutions are known beforehand to the cosmos or to the personification of Fate. In a very Willful cosmos, no prior knowledge is available, and each action opens up new possibilities which can only be guessed at.