Game with God 877
Andrew writes "GamerDad has an article up about how religion is handled in computer gaming, titled 'Game With God'. The article features quotes from Sid Meier, Jane Jensen, Will Wright, Peter Molyneaux, Phil Steinmeyer, and Richard Garriott. Here's a snippet: 'While religion and spirituality add a lot to a game world, they often aren't used effectively. 'I don't think there are any games that treat religion at anything more than a superficial level,'; says Firaxis founder and Civilization creator Sid Meier. PopTop Software's Phil Steinmeyer agrees, noting that 'Religion is ignored in gaming, or if it is portrayed, it's wildly caricatured.'"
uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
In Black and White you ARE god.
The game covers everything from how many ppl warship you to weather they build you a temple...
Plus being god, you get toset the rule or "morals" of your ppl.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
It exists for shock value. (Score:5, Interesting)
Using (or abusing) religion in certain ways manner way adds significant shock value to entertainment. People (in the US at least) are generally taken back by what they perceive as evil religious symbols or inverted ones from the mainstream. A prime example of this is Doom. I think most people feel more freaked out when they walk down a hallway and see certain symbols on the walls. Anime does this a lot too. Evangelion, for example, draws from mythology that is very recognizable to most Christians and it can be very disturbing for some.
Whether any of this is good or bad is not my concern, but I will say that it is getting very annoying. Religious nerves have been plucked far too much by a lot of entertainment and usually it's use just signals a great lack of creativity. If you really want to unsettle or disturb your playing or viewing audience, try to come up with something new.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
oh please (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please. These must be really weird times, when people even _think_ about putting spirituality in games.
Games unite people. Religion separates people.
I think it hasn't been explored enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, Catholic priests are, broadly viewed, the basis for D&D clerics.
Both the Kabala and early Christian mysticism are rich footings from which to explore religious concepts in a game- I think they're mostly ignored by Americans because it's easy to offend people that way- which is fair enough.
However, I think a game based around the book of Revelations would be utterly awesome (perhaps an adaptation of "Left Behind"? I don't think much of apocalyptic stuff but it would sure make a good game.)
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the religious concepts you grew up with aren't very interesting and don't have any real mysteries to explore. But even a cursory review of what's out there (ever hear of the gospel of Thomas?) reveals a great deal.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:1, Interesting)
Nope, you'll still piss people off.
Fundamentalists will think your made-up religion is real and/or is a facade for Satanism, and that you're trying to recruit people.
Case in point: their opinion of magic in Dungeons & Dragons.
Re:Anything but (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, given a religion, the matching game should simulate a world that behaves exactly the way the religion says it should behave. If Christianity can't be made into a game that is believable and enjoyable, um, that says something interesting about Christianity.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:1, Interesting)
Superficiality (Score:5, Interesting)
Many games include an aspect of religion or spirituality - though it is seldom Christian. An underlying theme of good vs. evil is spiritual in nature. Most RPGs have the idea of heroes guided by destiny often based on a prophecy. Many adventure games like Tomb Raider delve into the spiritual beliefs of ancient cultures.
Actually, as I read that article I realized that the author is more interested in seeing games that make Christianity the emphasis. That might appeal to some people, but there would be a fairly good-sized market it would turn away UNLESS the gameplay and story were otherwise engaging. Most people don't listen to Christian music for the lyrics if the music and singing are poor. Likewise, few would play a game just because it involve Christian beliefs and activities if the gameplay and story were so-so.
Is there really a market for it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not that Christianity directly condones that sort of behaviour - but it has historically turned a blind eye to it on those occasions when it was not actively condoning it. For example, its a sin to kill a human being, so for the purposes of the Crusades, the Church declared that non-Christians were not actually Human beings, so there was no sin involved in killing them (similarly Women were not considered entirely human throughout most of the Middle Ages it seems). By historical accounts, the blood ran so deep in the streets of Jerusalem when the Crusaders sacked it, they had to wade through it. I believe they basically massacred the entire city population, Christians, Moslems and Jews.
Estimates of those slaughtered during the Witch persecutions in Europe number from the hundreds of thousands to millions over the course of hundreds of years.
Religious wars between Protestants and Catholics lasted decades and resulted in huge casualties, destruction of entire towns etc.
Periodically throughout most of Europe, they would decide to persecute the Jewish population and massacred them en masse. Hitler's final solution was merely a most efficient modern example of a long European tradition of killing Jews.
Thousands of natives were evidently slaughtered in the New World after they were baptized - so that they could commit no sins before dying (perhaps this is legend I don't know).
In Norway/Sweden, the local population was converted to Christianity from the old Pagan ways at the point of the sword - convert or die - and this was not uncommon elsewhere. Once Christianity gains power in a nation, it uses that power to exterminate any competing religions it seems. It certainly did so in the Roman Empire and in Europe thereafter.
Although Christianity teaches that violence is wrong, it has been perverted into a means to justify violence pretty much over its entire history. It has also served as a major tool to keep the populace subdued and subservient to their masters - and is still being used in this manner today (See the radical Religious Right).
Its no wonder that many intelligent people look at the history of Christianity and reject it. There are few if any bloodier paths through religious history.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey, how about the invention of the printing press, gunpowder, the number zero, relativity, etc that were invented by non-believers.
Remember, when the Christains took over in 346 AD, they closed the Universities in Greece, burned the Great Library at Alexandria (and viciously murder the priestess Hypatia) and actively banned an persecuted all thinking that did not agree with Church dogma for over 1000 years (and they are still trying it). That's why it was called the Dark Ages . Meanwhile civilisations in America, China and Muslim countries were literally flowering with art and science.
Galileo succeed despite living in a Christian theocray, not becasue of it (and who cares about Augustine - just another apologist for a corrupt institution). I wonder how many brilliant minds and discoveries we will never hear about because the Church and its various inquisitions put the people to the torch?
"The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion."
Oh, you mean like the New Testament? (or the rest of the Bible for that matter)..
Re:Religion IS escapism (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who is a practicing Christian (I practice because I'm not perfect at it yet), I will attempt to explain the different views of this I have seen.
Christians hold many views about a spiritual world. Some believe it is almost entirely different, and so what occurs here matters little. (This is a short time before an eternity in the kingdom of heaven.) Some don't really believe in it at all and believe the kingdom of God will be present here, either now or later, through the actions of believers and God.
For those who believe that there is a significantly different spiritual realm (a real life that this is just a foreword to), the view of "it doesn't matter much what happens here" also has several shades of meaning. For some, it means that, since the world will end "soon", there's no point in marrying or fighting against an occupation (see the letters of Paul for this kind of thing, though Paul seemed to believe it would happen any day now). Many see also that, since the end could be after our lifetime, we owe it to ourselves and others after us to ensure that there's an environment where people can be good to their neighbor, where justice and peace reign, where the things that get yuck on our souls are minimized.
In a nutshell, just among Christians there's a wide view on what it all means. When you start looking at other religions (Unitarianism and Paganism come to mind), despite the existence of God or gods, the point of life is to enrich the lives of our fellow humans.
Cheers, Matt
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Games? (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall once seeing the moves expressed in terms of the powers of state (row/column moves) and church (diagonals).
- Foot soldiers/Pawns make progress through the authority of the state, but may only prevail in battle by the grace of God.
Any resemblance this has to why the rules are the way they are is, no doubt, purely coincidental-- but it's a servicable means to explain the moves to new players.Rooks/Castles, as the embodiment of worldly authority, are immensely powerful in matters temporal, but impotent in matters spiritual. Bishops, as the representatives of the Church, are the other way around.
The King and Queen are, British style, empowered with the authority of both church and state, and may elect to act with either as they choose. If you wonder why the queen seems more powerful, look to Elizabeth and Victoria. =)
And Knights, due to their holy vows to defend the right, must always act simultaneously under mandate of both church and state, thereby transcending any obstacles in their path.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
But you haven't, and won't. Only one man ever did.
> What was original sin? Pursuit of knowledge.
Nope, 'twas disobedience.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:1, Interesting)
Meaningless hair-splitting. The command being disobeyed was, "Don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
You missed the last four more words - "of good and evil". That's the difference.
Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. [skepticsan...dbible.com]
Nope, 'twas disobedience.
And what command was disobeyed? Geez, a little critical thinking isn't too much to ask, is it?
Religion is suppresed because writers are ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
C.S. Lewis and (to a point) Tolkien did much to show that religious themes can easily coexist with fiction. The endless "let's try it from scratch" 60s put a bit of a kabosh on that... experimenting in ideas of myth-religion without knowing how much they repeated in old fiction.
Frankly, I see "religion" is actually present in many many spheres... but a new establishment has arrived. It's just the pop-psyche (i.e. Oprah) plus bits-of-new-age psuedoscience that we've had tons of in the 20th century. (practice X does Y for your spiritual Z condition, take two and call me in the morning).
Religion in Babylon 5, for example, was one of the first beginnings of a good treatment in mass media... because believers at least showed some positive though vague devotion as part of a plot (monks at one point, and the Minbari otherwise).
Most scifi religion is incredibly shallow and made for outsiders, with the constant drum of "Hey man, don't get all religious about stuff cuz it all looks the same to us." moral-of-the-story.
Even that only started from the 50s and earlier when tons of minor religious divisions mirrored ethnic/cultural ones (i.e. blacks, whites, immigrants etc..). I knew one old lady who declared the One thing she knew about her Presbyterian church was that she wasn't Baptist. Yikes. That has always scared authors.
Anyway the writing can only occur when religion is handled in a fashion that doesn't get everyone spooked about the loudest minorities involved. Someone's got to stop caring about Pat Robertson and yet still know who Jesus (or Bhudda) was without a minor "survey of religions" class.
Besides, atheism/materialism keeps framing the discussion (e.g. Babylon 5 came down to assuming all "gods" were advanced races) and that forms a rift on how much you're even allowed to describe beliefs. It's tough to write plot about followers of God X or Y when the author makes clear that they're idiots doing something for no purpose or reason except the cuteness of "blind" idealism.
What's gotta happen is that some story writer somewhere has to first avoid the swashbuckling loot-and-horde-and-kill plot. Secondly they need to leave mystery about something Bigger having a role in the story instead of mere science-and-discovery explaining it all by the last 5 minutes.
If it's "universal harmony" that someone deals with (i.e. Ultima V) so be it, but if its God in any fashion it makes the plot and reality of behavior much richer. Yes it makes NPCs *much* more complex... and a score isn't just "gold" or "life" anymore. Deal! I want to see that happen.
We're at the effective top for polygon counts anyway. Someone has to *THINK* that fiction matters someday in a game.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jokes aside, when have you heard any non-fanatic religious person say "believe or die," or something to that effect? Perhaps it is the superficiality of religion in games and popular culture that gives people misconceptions such as these.
Unless of course you're referring to the "true life" offered by Christians, but I think that's supposed to be an offering rather than a threat.
In my experience, most people's opinions of religion are invalid - based on inaccurate/biased sources. Although I'm not religious as most people would understand it (it's complicated) a lot of my Christian experience has been interesting and worthwhile - not boring, irrelevant and "burn the heretics/witches/computers."
Basically, I'd like to say "Don't insult religion until you have hard evidence that that insult is valid." Otherwise you'll unnecessarily piss off a lot of people.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, at least as far as the Japanese experience goes-- this is completely alien to their concept of deity. The gods of Japan's native and almost-native traditions, Shinto and Buddhism, are not invulnerable, just very powerful, and humans have to deal with them in certain ways to get what they want without being destroyed. Buddhism goes so far as to maintain the belief that gods are just sort of irrelevant, because they won't help people become enlightened and aren't perfectly enlightened themselves. So, as far as that goes, deities are often protrayed as being largely inferior to wise monks or incarnate buddhas in Japanese folklore. I think it's hardly a cop-out for Japanese creators to follow the ideas about godhood that are natural to their culture.
The idea of totally invincible godhood is strictly Western, and as far as the Japanese experience goes, strictly Judeo-Christian. While Japanese declares itself to be officially Christian, only maybe 1% of the population would fit the usual definition of a faithful believer. However, that 1% tends to be among Japan's cultural elite, so Christianity remains very much on the Japanese mind despite being a religion that not many people actually practice.
This being said, your idea for a game that involved really absolute, invincible deities could make for some very nice gameplay, especially in a well-designed RPG. I don't think an RPG like that is ever going to come out of Japan, though....
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true). How is that possibly reasonable? We already bear the punishment that we'll die (since before the Fall, Man was immortal on Earth in Eden)
Moreover, what's the point in putting a tree which provides any sort of knowledge right in the path of your creation, if you're not only omnipotent and omniscient, but also don't want that creation to fiddle with the tree? If God is omniscient, He knew irrefutably that Adam and Eve would Fall; if he didn't know, he's not omniscient. Lack of omniscience by definition entails the lack of omnipotence (since omnipotence means having the ability to do anything, including acquire omniscience, and to do so at any time and throughout time). Thus, either God placed that Tree and those two people with the full foreknowledge that they would Fall, or this God is not the omniscient, omnipotent being it claims to be. In the former case, how can Adam and Eve be blamed, since it was God's fault they were there? In the latter case, God is apparently a deceiver and a liar, claiming to be something he most certainly is not. In either event, why should one worship such a being?
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a Christian.
Here's the thing: original sin is a disgusting idea for the simple fact that it blames descendents of a pair of people 2,000 years down the line, for the actions of those two people (assuming the myth is taking as wholly true).
Agreed, and I believe the "myth" is true. The fact is, Original Sin is not in the Bible and is contradicted by the Bible (in many places like, for example, Ezekiel 18). To go back up a few posts, the original assertion that you would go to hell if you lived a perfect life is just plain WRONG.
For the record, true Christianity [bible.ca] does not believe original sin. [bible.ca]
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:3, Interesting)
You need a history lesson. Augustine wasn't even a Christian until later in his life. He lived in Rome for a time, while he wasn't a Christian. He was also married, divorced, and had a couple kids by a mistress. I highly doubt that Augustine became a christian because he was worried about the church going after him.
Galileo was a different story, but he also wasn't forced into faith. He held back on the release of his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system because of the church, but he was actually one of the clergy. If someone isn't enthusiastic about a religion, even if they are forced into it, I'm doubtful that they would choose to become a leader within that religion.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further. (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt that he used these examples as a purposful falacy, probably just an honest rhetorical mistake.
Also, he never told anyone to reject "right and wrong". Why do people think that you need religion to obtain any form of morality, of right and wrong? I'm pretty much an atheist, but I still (in my experience), have a deeper morality than my religious friends, because, unlike them, my morality is well thought out, and deep. While most of their morality was handed to them by their parents/church, and is based on a concept that they really don't understand, or fully beleive.
I do agree with you, that it is a shame that the postmodern view endorses the meaninglessness of morality. Situational ethics are a great evil facing western culture.
Why take religion seriously? (Score:2, Interesting)
Many (most?) individuals are emotionally indoctrinated into religions before they have the power to reason or to make individual choice or, worse, when they are emotionally vulnerable.
But it is reason that separates us from other animals--not emotions.
Ideas must be valued on their explanatory power. Religions have little if any explanatory power. The passion of their defense is inversely proportional to the intrinsic value of their message.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:1, Interesting)
Or, there could have been infinite possible outcomes, all forseen by God, mixed in with a little Freewill to get us the outcome that is actually said to have occured in our particlar space/time.
Or, it could have been any other number of circumstances that are currently unknown to modern man, or simply incomprehensible to us.
If we as a people just dismiss Christian and other Religion as mere folklore, (and just continue to regurgitate popular arguments we were taught in philosophy class), we may miss out on some critcal insight into the nature of the universe...
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I see religion a bit like a car. You're trying to drive somewhere (for example, eternal life, happiness, whatever you view the goal of religion as) - to the top of a hill. It's too steep and tall for you to walk up it, so you need a different type of transport.
The car of your choice could be a jaguar, lexus, ford, bmw, whatever. It will still get you to the top of the hill. What "getting to the top of the hill" is like is how you live your life - as long as you live your life well, you'll be alright.
Religion provides a way of doing that - "Christian Values" for example. Thou shalt not kill is one of these ways of life. Love thy neighbour is another. Do these kinds of things and it matters not whether you're Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jedi...
So as long as the religion gets you your way of life, it doesn't matter. This also means it should be possible to live without the religiousy bits - and of course it is. But don't just reject religion because "it's not true" - apart from the fact it might not be and you can never know that it isn't (so don't be so sure of yourself), as far as I see it, it doesn't matter.
Just be careful that your "religion" isn't like a helicopter - you'll miss the view.
Re:Yeah, I found that particularly cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Presuming you're allowing both anime and games, this is just off the top of my head:
Pretty much all anime/game/pop-culture works I've seen that deal with Christian themes have struck me as heavily derivative of the works of Japanese novelist Endo Shuusaku, who wrote very concretely about the Catholic Church's operations in Japanese history and Jesus himself. Some of his works are available in translation and I would suggest checking them out. A lot of other of his literary contemporaries also dwelled on Christian themes at great length, and the effects that the appearance of Christianity had on Japanese thought. Games like Tactics draw very heavily on this literary tradition... so I tend to think of them as using stock plot. Not necessarily a bad plot, but nothing I (or the intended audience) wouldn't expect.
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
Foreknowledge isn't "prediction", it's foreknowledge. God isn't bound by our linear view of time.
> if God could pick the outcome
We pick the outcome, and we always choose to sin.
> its disingenuous to ignore
> almost an entire argument
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But I felt your argument was based upon foreknowledge implying that free will didn't exist, and I tried to respond to that.
> what does that mean about his
> motivations in Creation
I'm not sure if I can speak to God's motivation.
> why would he make those creations
> dislike worship so much?
What do you mean by "dislike worship"? Do you mean "dislike going to church"? I don't understand...
> your god
Hm. I don't have any claim to God...
> If I die, I honestly hope I don't face him
But you will, and you will. Just like everyone else.
Jihad! - The Holy War (Score:3, Interesting)
So far, Islamic game software has been rather lame. There's Come to Salah [astrolabe.com], but it's a "memorize the Qur'an" edutainment product. Something edgier is needed to sell to the Arab street.
What's needed is Diplomacy with the graphic quality of Tropico. You're a dictator trying to play off the religious fanatics against the moderates while dealing with neighboring warlords, US-backed enemies, and ambitious relatives. Try to suppress the imans, and you get a rebellion; give them power over education, and soon few of your people have any useful skills. Start a war to divert attention from your domestic problems, and run the risk of losing. Fail to follow the precepts of the Prophet and the people turn against you.
It must be playable in Internet cafes. That's your market.
The islamic world does have a sense of humor. [aljazeera.net]
Depends on what you mean by religion (Score:4, Interesting)
One way is as an institution or culture. This is not difficult, as you are treating the religion as a behavioral entity and can easily reproduce it's symbols and customs in a video game.
Another way is to look at religion as philosophy. This is more difficult, as creating a game that encourages different scenarios based on the beliefs of the player (or at least temporary philosophy for the sake of the game).
One last way to look at religion in regards to video games is the most interesting: The video game as an aspect of the religion itself. If you only believe that religion is defined by authorities writing in books, then you won't think this makes sense. If you believe religion to be a highly personal experience that involves defining your place in the universe, then everything is religious. A video game that changes your world view or wakes you up to a more aware thought process, then it become an aspect of religion itself.
I had a friend who cried at the beauty of one of the game scenarios he experience in Alpha Centauri...
LS
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
People pick their morality FIRST, and then try to mesh it with their religion SECOND. Religion doesn't cause morality. It is used by most as their *justification* for it.
The Bahii religion was supposed to expose me to many different religions so I could "learn" that they were all the same at some core level and thus came from the same core god. Instead I learned that they were all the same at some core level and thus were most likely made up by ordinary people. I can't really remember ever having been a believer.
Re:Most violent game... ever! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is interesting how many of modern children's TV stories are based on Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Hebrew/Persian/Norse religion and come to think about it, that is exactly what the Bible is - a huge honkin story book for the entertainment of the masses.
Or as Valadimir Illich said: "Religion is the opium of the masses".
Re:Most violent game... ever! (Score:1, Interesting)
Gays have exactly the same civil liberties as everyone else. Heterosexuals can't marry members of the same sex, so why should gays be able to do it? A marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or vice-versa. If it is so natural, why can't they procreate?
A lot of people can't procreate regardless of which gender they might be interested in. I gather then, you would be in favor of anyone who is sterile should also be barred even from heterosexual marriage. Our past ignorance can enshrine a special status for marriage now only by blatant bigotry and predjudice.
The "traditional" definition of marriage includes a HUGE erroneous assumption at its base. It is inherently prejudicial in that it presumes that every human individual is either a "man" or a "woman." It is now clearly seen to be an erroneous assumption that gender is a binary state. The "definitions" that are sorely in need of reexamination are far more rudimentary than "marriage"-- that of "man" and "woman."
For example, how should the term "marriage" apply to an individual who is completely hermaphroditic, such as in a dyzygotic chimera [mindfully.org]? How about an individual who is only partially intersexed, such as an genetic XXY individual, pseudohermaphrodite or someone with an endocrine or hormonal disorder? What about someone who is transgendered via a medical procedure? And what if such a procedure wasn't voluntary, such as when newborn males with small penises are thought to be females, surgically "corrected" and grow up believing they are females only to find out later (perhaps at puberty, or even later) they are otherwise male? Who gets to decide what gender and consequently, what rights they have to marry (anyone) and on what basis?
Does marriage simply not apply to some of these individuals? What do you do if one of these persons ends up inadvertently married to the "same" gender but who had honestly believed they were "opposite" genders when they got married and found out later that perhaps they are not? How "male" does one have to be to be considered "male" enough to marry as a male? 51%?... 80%?.... 95%?.... What does it mean to have such a fundamental social institution that simply doesn't apply to certain people? How willfully ignorant will you have to continue to be in order to argue for a definition of marriage that ignores these issues?
Can we simply ignore the issue because it's only a minority population of individuals with indeterminate or intermediate gender? How large would such a population have to be to be taken into consideration regarding "marriage?" How do you determine if someone is a member of such a population-- what means are to be used for determining intermediacy and how intermediate do you have to be to be considered one of such a group? What if the only "intermediacy" you have is that you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Apparently, even that is too much intermediacy for "marriage" to apply, at least in some quarters-- suggesting that the required percentages of "maleness" or "femaleness" required for marriage are quite high.
And finally, does love have anything at all to do with marriage given the restrictions some people would apparently apply?
IMHO-- How better could we undermine the institution of marriage then to withhold it from certain classes of persons? How could we make it more irrelevant to society at large than to pass a constitutional amendment proclaiming it an exclusive club? Watch what you wish for...
The ignorant dinosaurs who yearn for a black and white world can try to ignore these difficult issues, but even the passing of a constitutional amendment isn't going to make them disappear, facts don't disappear merely because you prefer to ignore them...
nerhack? (Score:2, Interesting)
I often pray when stuck in a trap, with a cursed weapon (so no spells), sick, hallucinating and hungry at the same time. Yeah, I was pretty unlucky...
Praise Anhur!
Re:Semi-serious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although my parents didn't know any better, I've always felt betrayed for being taught to trust in something that should have been so obviously false to anyone who took the time to study it critically.
You're probably better of for never having wasted the energy on trusting in a god in the first place.