Things are heating up in There this summer, with hot topics like politics and religion becoming major points of debate both in-world and in the member forums.
As the U.S. election season kicks into high gear, in-world political campaigning and even voter registration booths for RL presidential candidates are being offered.
Meanwhile, a born-again Christian is ruffling feathers by using There as an advertising vehicle for his particular denomination. Specifically, he's set up a large structure just outside of Karuna Plaza, There’s main entry point for newbies with glowing crosses and billboards proclaiming “Jesus is Lord.” You really can’t miss this place.
We’ve discussed politics and religion’s entree into virtual worlds before on TN but this case has a new twist. It’s not so much about the mere presence of political or religious groups in a virtual world (nothing new about that), but rather about the specific ways political and religious groups are now using vw’s as forums for recruiting new members for RL interest groups. There is no role play in this scenario. This is not part of a game. This is an extension of real life.
The main source of community conflict centers around the over-zealous advertising/spamming practices of these groups. Apparently things have gotten so bad that There's customer service made the following announcement in response:
Religion, other controversial issues, and the role of customer service
We have been seeing a great deal of debate regarding issues of religion, both in world and in the forums. The in-world activity in particular has resulted in a number of calls to customer service and has also taken up a lot of the community team's time. As a result, we want to clarify our position and set some guidelines to assist you as we move forward.
We recognize that we have a diverse community, filled with people of differing ideas and opinions. We value this diversity and view it as one of the community's greatest strengths. We encourage you to engage in civilized debate about issues that are meaningful to you. However, you should also be mindful of the fact that not everyone will be swayed to your particular point of view, no matter how much debate is involved. At some point, you might simply have to agree to disagree and move on.
Further, there is a difference between expressing an opinion and purposely attempting to impede someone else's experience in There. We, the company, will not take sides in a debate about social or political issues, so do not ask us to. However, if you are experiencing a legitimate case of griefing or abuse, that is different.
What warrants a call to customer service and what does not?
1. If a person places a portazone/sign/etc. in front of his or her own house, to express a particular opinion, this is acceptable. Expressing an opinion in a way that does not violate the TOS is acceptable.
2. If you purposely place a sign in front of another person's house, and you know that this person does not support your opinion/agenda, this enters the realm of griefing. The intent here is *clearly* to harrass the person of the opposing viewpoint. If the parties cannot resolve the issue among themselves, it would be appropriate to contact customer service for assistance.
3. Placing a portazone/sign/etc. in a public area, let's say just outside Karuna Plaza, to express a particular opinion, is acceptable. Again, expressing an opinion in a way that does not violate the TOS is okay.
4. Placing a portazone/sign/etc. in a public area, near the portazone in #3, to express an alternative viewpoint, is also acceptable.
5. Placing a portazone/sign/etc. in an attempt to block or obscure another portazone from view is not acceptable. If the parties cannot resolve the issue among themselves, it would be appropriate to contact customer service for assistance.
Hopefully, this has been useful in helping you to distinguish between what does and does not warrant a call to customer service. Again, we will not take sides in personal debates about social and political issues, but we will intercede in cases where there is a clear intent to interfere with another person's enjoyment of There.
There Community Team
Many thanks to Adam Messinger for bringing this one to our attention.
Ren, Richard, and I were having a little discussion about this backstage at TN, which Betsy correctly suggested really belongs out here. The question Ren raised was whether the entry of religion into a VW is a kind of sequential stage in the development of VW communities. Richard said that VW communities tend to turn to sex and religion when there is nothing better to do (essentially, I guess, he was saying it's a response to lack of purpose).
I tried to qualify this by pointing out that sex and religion are part of the fabric of all communities, and it would probably be better not to discuss them as simply on/off present/non-present social conditions, but instead to discuss them as constantly present and refer to instances of particular formations (e.g., the formation of a religious "space'" or marked community such as denominated "churches" in SL, Habitat, and MUDs).
Ren disagreed (I think) and replied: "Surely the recognition that the VW is a space where explicitly religious symbols and practices have meaning, is a phase that a community can accept or reject, or both."
And I generally disagree with that -- I think that explicitly religious symbols and practices always have meaning, and that the meaning of the symbols and practices is always socially contested, in VWs or outside of VWs.
I would venture that Ian Bogost of Water Cooler Games is our TN-friend resident expert/practitioner in this area. (And he was just featured in an NYT article -- congrats again, Ian!). Anyway, that article was mainpage Slashdotted and some of the discussion is kind of in sync with my point: all games/texts betray and form ideologies. There isn't so much a difference in phase, but a difference in degree.
Posted by: greglas | Jul 01, 2004 at 10:15
Good summary Greg, thx.
I think that what I’m trying to say is that there may be a development curve that VWs go through that is very like the curve that people that talk about communities and on-line communities in particular go through, but might have characteristics that are specific to virtual worlds or, at a more granular level, types of virtual worlds, and that this curve is changing over time.
Very grossly we could say that there are three phases:
1) me
2) us
3) us and them
So when the very first people colonise a new virtual world for the first time, they are working out stuff like mechanics and metaphor. I don’t think that from day one people tend to put up a church or start to say that putting up churches is a bad thing. It seems to me that that the system has to become a ‘place’ and the people a ‘community’ for acts like that to have effective meaning in a given space. I think that this row in There did not occur (at least on this scale) on day 1 – why not?
But of course now we have history (as Richard talked about in his Copenhagen presentation) so things may be changing over time. In the past these spaces were really new to a lot of people, so I think that the religion argument acted as a marker of a developmental stage, but now lots of people know what VWs are and are about. So, assume I create RenWorld a social world that was way way cooler than There or Second Life and people started flocking to it. What I think would happen is that actually communities would flock to it, they would bring assumptions about the space, its meaning and utility with them, and a church would appear on day one. But I think this is different from how things were in the past, and this is a mark of the general maturity of VWs now and the cross-world communities that have sprung up. That is, day 1 we start at either (2) us, or (3) use and them.
The fact that people are targeting VWs seems to me to be one of the biggest signs that VWs have changed and are being taken seriously.
Posted by: ren | Jul 01, 2004 at 11:16
For many years in the small town of Norman, OK -- about 25 miles south of where I live -- there was a guy on the edge of town who lived in a barn/garage-like structure on the main road and always had a yard full of hand-painted signs denouncing sin and hailing the coming Rapture. Since large signs have long been part of the griefing problem in There, I immediately thought of Crazy Sign Guy when I first read about these developments.
I have to take some exception to Richard's assertion (in the earlier e-mail exchange) that socially-oriented VWs are VWs with "nothing to do." In my opinion, the endless entertainment to be had through social interactions and the opportunity to build your own environments and toys beats the standard-issue "kill monsters/level-up/repeat" paradigm hands-down. He's spot-on about social VWs being fertile ground for sex and religion, however. It's precisely because these worlds encourage people to invest themselves in the game and imbue their character and environment with their own personality that such developments are inevitable. Spirituality is very important to some people, after all.
As for Ren's question of why this didn't happen sooner in There, it probably has a lot to do with the long period the product spent in limited beta and the fact that it was publicly launched before it was really ready. During the beta cycle, the world was populated by geeks and early adopters (myself included). In my experience such people tend to be agnostic or open-minded in maters of religion and spirituality, and are not prone to fundamentalism or evangelism. Now that the world is out of beta and many of the initial bugs have been fixed, it's drawing a more representative sample of the online population. It was only a matter of time before someone decided it was their mission to save some souls.
What I'll be really interested to see is the development of unique in-world religions. In There, There_Monitor and G0D have developed large followings and fueled much speculation on whether their sporadically-appearing avatars are bots or There employees. A club called First Church of There_Monitor has even been formed! Such "religions" are mainly jokes at this point, but I imagine it won't be long before actual worship of in-world phenomena / personae / programs starts cropping up. It would be interesting to see what might happen if a VW developer tied some kind of benefits to such "devotion" on the part of players.
Incidentally, a couple of weeks after Crazy Sign Guy died all of his signs mysteriously disappeared from his yard during the night. A day later, his son replaced them with one sign: "Godless thieves stole my father's signs!" Griefer vs. griefer, right here in the Real World.
I'm thrilled to see such an interesting discussion occurring over the links I passed along!
Posted by: Adam M. | Jul 01, 2004 at 13:32
P.S. The "You really can't miss this place" link is broken.
Posted by: Adam M. | Jul 01, 2004 at 13:34
The bringing of churches as buildings into virtual worlds brings up some interesting theological points, although I'm not sure any of these will necessarily have occurred to many people constructing these places of worship. The one I find most interesting (as an atheist) is whether virtual worlds are sacrament or blasphemy.
Here's how the argument goes. I'll use Christianity as the example, because I assume that's a religion familiar to many TN readers, but it works for some other religions too. Don't worry, it's not going to question anyone's faith.
OK, so God created the world, and created Adam in his (God's) own image. Adam has free will and creativity, just like God. Adam (the first human) can't create his own world, because although he's in the image of God he isn't, actually, God: he has now powers over reality.
Scoot forward to the present. We have virtual worlds. Adam (ie. mankind) still doesn't have powers over reality, but he had finally realised powers over new realities of his own making. Should he take that final step?
Some people would say no: God created the universe, virtual worlds are "playing God", and creating virtual worlds is a mocking act of arrogance and false pride. In other words, it's blasphemy.
Some people would say yes: God created Adam in God's own image, so of course Adam is eventually going to be able to create worlds - it's the final step of God's genesis, making us the true copies of him we were always intended to be. In other words, it's sacrament.
The interesting point here is that from a religious point of view, it has to be one or the other - it can't be both or neither. Either virtual worlds mock God's creation, or they fulfil it.
If people are building churches in virtual worlds, do they think they are blaspheming? Well no, otherwise they wouldn't do it (assuming they're sincere). In that case, they must be fulfilling God's wishes, and becoming gods themselves. That being the case, though, why do they need God? Perhaps it's that this has happened too soon, but if so, shouldn't they stay out until they're ready? Why try to save people who, as creators, have already saved themselves?
Although I outlined this argument in my book, I didn't originate it: I first saw it in Out of Control, by Kevin Kelly.
So, blasphemy, sacrament, or people who don't give a damn?
Richard
PS: By coincidence, I was talking to (emailing) Beth Noveck about religion and virtual worlds only this morning: she once wrote some software that was blessed by priests (!).
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 01, 2004 at 13:55
Two words: Zoning ordinances.
If the clown across the street from me (in SL) can build that infernal smokestack, as an agnostic with athiest leanings, I find the church much less offensive. I haven't actually SEEN the church... but if it's really a problem, you can make them move it without making them tear it down. You maintain peace and freedom at the same time.
SL has implemented zoning ordiances to some degree, but I would like to see this concept taken a lot further.
Posted by: MM | Jul 01, 2004 at 14:03
Adam M>I have to take some exception to Richard's assertion (in the earlier e-mail exchange) that socially-oriented VWs are VWs with "nothing to do."
What I said was: "Basically, if the VW doesn't give you anything to do, you have to make your own entertainment", which seems entirely compatible with your view of what playing in such worlds involves. I guess you could quibble that a virtual world such as There does give you something to do, but that this something is to make your own entertainment; however, the end result would be the same in either case - you make your own entertainment. For some people, this is the best form of entertainment there is; I'm not attempting to disparage it here.
>What I'll be really interested to see is the development of unique in-world religions.
What I'll be interested (albeit dispirited) to see is what they worship, and why. Of course, we've been here before in text.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 01, 2004 at 14:29
Richard> Either virtual worlds mock God's creation, or they fulfil it.
Ah, now I understand what they mean when they say you devs have "god complexes" :-)
Seriously, I think it's an interesting conceit to play with, Richard, but I don't see that virtual worlds are anything more than standard fare represention/communication which is amped by a new technology. You could make the same blasphemy/sacrament observation about the Venus of Willendorf or the logos itself -- do our symbols mock creation or fulfill it?
(And let's note that Genesis itself is a text.)
Posted by: greglas | Jul 01, 2004 at 14:45
The bringing of churches as buildings into virtual worlds brings up some interesting theological points, although I'm not sure any of these will necessarily have occurred to many people constructing these places of worship. The one I find most interesting (as an atheist) is whether virtual worlds are sacrament or blasphemy.
Hrm, as an atheist I see a lot of problems opening up with this argument. (Or to put it another way, the only answer to this question is "it depends".) To often, I think that atheists have a naive view of atheism as equating to 20th epistemological atheism ala Bertrand Russel and then in return try to discuss theism using some naive simplistic formulation about what theists believe. Even within Chistianity there have been multiple notorious scisms within major denominations over the last 25 years, and more scisms probable in the next 10 years. As a result, "it depends" is really the only valid answer one can give.
Scoot forward to the present. We have virtual worlds. Adam (ie. mankind) still doesn't have powers over reality, but he had finally realised powers over new realities of his own making.
Well, there is probably the core of the issue here. Are virtual worlds really a "reality" or are they simply some alternate mode of human interaction? So much of the argument that virtual worlds could be blasphemy centers on a lot of hype. Can it really be called a "reality" if it is fairly trivial to log out, and log into a reality of your own choosing?
That is not to say that virtual environments are not valuable, important, rich, engaging, or significant settings for human interaction. (They have been for at least 30 years now.) But your argument depends on a statement that somehow what we have now is so qualitatively different from the multitudes of media that religion has adapted to in the past that it raises new questions.
Questions about blasphemy in online spaces will probably hinge less on the notion of a Virtual Environment, and more on issues of iconic representation. I don't see these issues as fundamentally different from the issues raised by prior media however.
Posted by: Kirk Job-Sluder | Jul 01, 2004 at 14:54
Based on my (extensive) background in christianity, I'd say it would only be questionable if you assert that avatars are alive, have rights, i.e. a soul. Otherwise you haven't created anything different from building a house.
Posted by: Staarkhand | Jul 01, 2004 at 18:25
We squash the problem of griefers who chose promotion of religions from outside our worlds by having our Gods smite them. You want to insist that some out-of-game God is relevant? That's fine. See if he comes to save you after one of our Gods has reduced you to dust.
We've had a couple problems over the years with physical world atheists insisting on playing atheists in-game. Doesn't tend to get them very far, but they generally just insist that our Gods (whose existence in-game cannot rationally be denied) are merely people with powerful magic.
Anyway, just a random comment.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jul 02, 2004 at 02:52
> In my opinion, the endless entertainment to be had through social interactions and the opportunity to build your own environments and toys beats the standard-issue "kill monsters/level-up/repeat" paradigm hands-down.
I don't think the issue is which of the two types of virtual worlds is better, as that is very subjective. Many people like either the one type or the other, but rarely both.
The big difference is that EQ-type MMORPG are very self-centered. Communication exists, community exists, problems exist, but all these are usually about strictly in-game issues. People heatedly discuss the advantages of one weapon over the other, or issues like kill-stealing. People keep their brain occupied with in-game issues, allowing them some escape from real world issues.
The social virtual worlds draw much more upon real world issues. That has the advantage that the real world obviously has a lot more "content" than any MMORPG, so you never run out of things to discuss. But on the negative side there is less opportunity of escapism. Real world problems like religion, sex, or politics invade the virtual world, making the vw at the same time more realistic, and less of a "game".
I see strong parallels to this issue of religion in There, and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. The question is not if that film is true or not, the question is if real world problems like politics should be mixed with entertainment media like movies. Or virtual worlds.
Posted by: Tobold | Jul 02, 2004 at 04:12
Kirk Job-Sluder>Are virtual worlds really a "reality" or are they simply some alternate mode of human interaction?
Well, at the moment I have to say that they're the latter. They'd only really become the former if they had NPCs in them with enough AI that they were sentient.
Nevertheless, these are issues that are going to have to be looked at eventually.
>Can it really be called a "reality" if it is fairly trivial to log out, and log into a reality of your own choosing?
Presumably, God can log out of our reality any time he chooses, to return to wherever he was when he created it. We, however, can't. NPCs in our virtual worlds can't, either. It's they who are ones to whom we are gods.
Scoot forward into the future and we may find that our NPCs have developed their own systems for simulation. They may create their own virtual worlds, and populate those worlds with their own AIs. After all, if we created the NPCs in our image and did a good enough job of it, then they can create realities of their own and put in intelligent entities in their own image. Creation is recursive.
So yes, I agree: at the moment, people who put churches into virtual worlds can do so self-consistently because virtual worlds don't yet have enough substance to qualify as (in this sense) realities. Reading the Muse of Fire thread, though, we can see that although they don't have the AI yet, that doesn't mean they'll never have them.
In terms of Biblical creation, we're what, half-way through day 5? Kelly's argument doesn't kick in until day 6.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 02, 2004 at 04:53
So I take it you're not to impressed by Dr. Searle's ideas, Richard?
I'd guess you think free will is an illusion -- that's your choice :-) -- but do you really think we can have conscious software?
Posted by: greglas | Jul 02, 2004 at 06:20
greglas>So I take it you're not to impressed by Dr. Searle's ideas, Richard?
I have a PhD in AI. Why would I want to study AI if I didn't think we'd get an AI at the end of it?
I'm not saying we'll get one in my lifetime. It may take a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years, take as long as you like. Take a couple of hundred million years of human existence if you feel we really need to nail it down good and proper. I don't, however, think there is anything intrinsic to intelligence that suggests it can't possibly be created in digital organisms.
>I'd guess you think free will is an illusion
It could be, it depends whether the universe is deterministic or not. Currently, the quantum physics doesn't really come down on one side or the other.
Nevertheless, my own free will feels to me like it's free, so that's the rule of thumb by which I operate.
>but do you really think we can have conscious software?
I believe we can have consciousness in software-maintained entities, but that doesn't mean the software itself is conscious.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 02, 2004 at 06:40
The link to "You really can't miss this place" works now. Save yourself a scroll and click here to view it.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jul 02, 2004 at 07:19
Thinking that Searle has a point isn't inconsistent with a PhD in AI... Searle's famous point goes to the definition of consciousness -- you can surely create a system that performs advanced feats of information processing, but that doesn't mean you've created sentient life, right?
Even if Gepettos create Pinocchios that pass the Turing test, the definition of God in all major religions is considerably more comlpex that simply "the thing that creates intelligent life." Strong AI researchers may aspire to be Blue Fairies, but it's rather bad sci-fi to aspire to be god.
Posted by: greglas | Jul 02, 2004 at 07:37
MM wrote: I haven't actually SEEN the church... but if it's really a problem, you can make them move it without making them tear it down.
Click the link above if you want to see a screen shot. One of the main complaints about this "Sacred Place" in There is that it is very strategically placed just outside of Karuna Plaza, which means it will be immediately and strikingly visible to every newbie who logs in. Other organizations (usually businesses) have used this tactic before - this is prime advertising real estate. (In fact, notice the red "SALE" sign at the left edge of the image) But this "Jesus is Lord" pavilion has a greater visual impact than any of the previous billboard clusters I've seen. The complaints and arguments about billboards and advertising are nothing new in There - we *have* seen those from the very beginning. But adding religion into the mix has heaped a lot of fuel on to that fire.
I don't know of any truly serious in-world religions in There. That would indeed be an interesting "next phase" of social development. But that's not what's happening here. This is about one guy using a virtual world to "witness." Anyone who's spent any time in the American South will recognize the tactics.
For what it's worth, I think There customer service is handling this in the best possible way. One of the greatest challenges of online community moderation is trying to negotiate the boundary between free speech and griefing and figuring out when the line has been crossed. Once you've figured that out you then have to figure out how it applies in each specific case. It's a fascinating but frustrating process. The announcement posted shows that they are taking this issue seriously and are making every best effort to be fair to all sides.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jul 02, 2004 at 07:56
greglas>you can surely create a system that performs advanced feats of information processing, but that doesn't mean you've created sentient life, right?
It doesn't mean you haven't, right?
>Strong AI researchers may aspire to be Blue Fairies, but it's rather bad sci-fi to aspire to be god.
Yet if we're created in God's image, isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 02, 2004 at 09:10
Richard Bartle sez: Yet if we're created in God's image, isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Predominantly I see "in God's image" interpreted as being about free will and spirituality rather than about the ability to create new realities. Many religions are quite explicit about the dangers of pride and hubris.
Within Chistian theology, large chunks of Genesis can be read as a parable about what happens when humanity forgets to give proper respect to God. The Tower of Babel appears to be most relevant here. The reason for God's actions with the Tower of Babel is usually interpreted as punishing humanity for excessive pride in trying to set themselves equal to God. The notion of humanity being punished for its collective pride reappears in the Flood story, Sodom, and Exodous. (As well as Jonah, and the fall of David.) These myths have become idomatic in our culture phrased as "pride comes before the fall."
This seems to be a fairly common theme in mythology. Greek mythology has multiple parables in which humans are punished for thinking they are equal or better than one or more gods (Ulyses, Icarus, Arachne, and Narsissus come to mind).
But going back, I think the answer is "it depends." Some religious groups already object to contemporary biotechnology as "playing god" arguing that we do not have the wisdom to engage in such endeavors. I think the view that humanity would be setting its self up for a divine smackdown if it gets too big for its britches is dominant in contemporary American religious thought.
In regards to AI religions. I'll admit I'm a skeptic who is willing to cross that philosphical bridge when it is something other than vaporware. Until then I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Kirk Job-Sluder | Jul 02, 2004 at 10:02
I agree with Adam M. above when he states: What I'll be really interested to see is the development of unique in-world religions.
The expansion of preexisting religions into new media is hardly novel or new. With the advent and popularity of radio and televisions, religious groups moved in to establish new outposts. Nowadays, should I be awake and conscious on a Sunday morning, I can firmly count on passing by at least one (if not more) religious services in my TV surfing. I see religious groups in VWs as merely an expansion into another new media. Granted this one may be a bit more interactive and involving, but what it offers, the opportunity to reach out to a new, larger audience, is not necessarily novel in and of itself.
Now new relgions born from within a VW - that's a whole new ballgame. I am very curious about such enterprises and await their arrival. However, I doubt that they will proliferate in the absence of some new defining characteristic, e.g. the birth of AI. Without something "new" to worship or use as a foundation, any VW-born religion will be short-lived and transient. Then again, perhaps that isn't a valid theory when considered against internet-based religions. (I can't help but throw in a reference for The Church of the Subgenious.)
Posted by: Alan Stern | Jul 02, 2004 at 10:40
(declares pro-God leanings in RL)
The instinct to be creative is, IMHO, part of the way in which we are in the image of God. In constructing and and then reflecting on VWs, perhaps we begin to see inside the mind of God.
Do the designs/rules we might propose for a sustainable functioning VW approximate to the teachings of any religion?
Posted by: Estariel | Jul 02, 2004 at 11:00
Hi Betsy,
One quick clarification on 'Sacred Places' in There.
Sacred Place is actually the name we gave the new 'staff use only' portazones. We are using them to restrict PortaZones from a few special places in-world. In the process, we put a number of them down in Karuna plaza to push back a number of the portazones in that area to help alleviate the lag.
It seems that the "Jesus is Lord" portazone was placed next to one of our "Sacred Place" portazones and so members may be getting the "You have entered a Sacred Place" message and thinking it's related to the "Jesus is Lord" portazone.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Jul 02, 2004 at 17:32
Those who've expressed an interest in the notion of new religions being born from within a virtual world may want to reference Matt Mihalay's comment above.
Following the link to his company's web site, I found a page describing the gods of their game worlds and their relationship to players. It looks like they long ago established my notion of tying in-world benefits to the worship of an in-world deity, which is something I didn't think anyone had done yet. My one doubt about the relevance of this invention to the present discussion is that it has taken place in what Tobold referred to as an "EQ-type" game. As such, practical quest-oriented concerns may trump any real spiritual factors involved in "worship."
Can anyone with experience of Iron Realms' games tell us more about how this system works and how it affects play?
Richard Bartle » I believe we can have consciousness in software-maintained entities, but that doesn't mean the software itself is conscious.
Is that analogous to saying that humans are conscious neurologically-maintained entities, but that doesn't mean that the neurochemicals and electrical impulses of the brain are themselves conscious?
Posted by: Adam M. | Jul 02, 2004 at 17:36
MM > We squash the problem of griefers who chose promotion of religions from outside our worlds by having our Gods smite them.
Interesting cultural clash, from one perspective these people are trying their hardest / doing a duty to save / show path of salvation / etc others. From the MMO perspective (if there is one) they are ‘griefing’.
Foo & Koivisto Defining Grief Play in MMORPGs: Player and Developer (pdf) they characterise (inspired by Mulligan & Patrovsky) griefing as:
1. The griefer’s act is intentional;
2. It causes other players to enjoy the game less;
3. The griefer enjoys the act.
The acts we are talking about here certainly fit into (1) & (2), but could we say that enjoyment is an intent or outcome. Well I guess that depends on what stance you take on the function of religious practice. But this as just another type of griefing, mm, I’m not sure.
Posted by: ren | Jul 02, 2004 at 18:27
Adam M>Following the link to his company's web site, I found a page describing the gods of their game worlds and their relationship to players. It looks like they long ago established my notion of tying in-world benefits to the worship of an in-world deity, which is something I didn't think anyone had done yet. My one doubt about the relevance of this invention to the present discussion is that it has taken place in what Tobold referred to as an "EQ-type" game. As such, practical quest-oriented concerns may trump any real spiritual factors involved in "worship."
Oi. EQ-type game? Our games are focused largely on group vs. group interaction, not monster bashing. The monster bashing in our games is fairly rudimentary, in fact, as we spend our resources on other things.
I should also mention that we are -not- the first virtual world to implement in-game religion. We did it in 1997, but I know it's existed in virtual worlds since at LEAST 1990. I know Avalon had an in-game virtual religion system before we did, for instance.
>Can anyone with experience of Iron Realms' games tell us more about how this system works and how it affects play?
Sure. We have Greek-style Gods. God of War, Goddess of Love, God of the Seas, etc. These are actual characters roleplayed by heavily screened volunteers (who have to have at least a thousand hours of playing time, and then spend 500-800 hours in training). These Gods have religious Orders that the Gods set up with various ranks, sub-sections, etc. They may permit players entry, promote them, etc. Think of them as guilds lead by a God, but with more power. The Orders can set up shrines to the God/ess around the land, from which various offensive and defensive powers can be launched, and, of course, others may defile those shrines to try to destroy them. Some Gods (depends on the preferences of that God) are fairly remote, some interact closely with their followers. Many have constructed elaborate philosophies around themselves, complete with various rituals and so on.
The Gods are also major political forces in the game. Each organization (city-state, guild, clan, etc) can choose a patron God, and that God tends to heavily influence the character of the city, though that depends on the culture of the players in that city. For instance, in Mhaldor, the last few patrons have been the God of Death, the Demon Queen, and the God of Evil. It's a highly martial city that's lead by the God, with an iron hand. Other cities have been known to cast out a patron God that no longer pleases the city's leadership.
Gods are probably the most useful to the game in the sense that they help direct story behind the scenes. For instance, if conflict has been a bit low, the Gods can nudge the organizations they patron and mortals they influence to act in certain ways that will lead to more conflict. If you imagine that the virtual world has a certain amount of 'story energy' flowing around in it, you can imagine that the 'story energy' drains off. (The problem, in my opinion, with a fully sandbox design approach, in my opinion, is that nothing is injecting enough 'story energy' into the world.) Gods act as faucets for that energy by ensuring that the conflicts between them will spill over into the mortal world.
Probably the most interesting thing though, from my perspective as the sort of "supreme god" in one of the games (who rarely interacts with mortals, only Gods themeselves) is that the Gods are also playing the game. While I, or we as a group, will sometimes direct them to behave in certain ways, for the most part they are actually playing the game in their own way. They have immense freedom to do as they please in-role, as long as it doesn't degenerate into just harrassing players.
If you want to know more, feel free to ask. Also, a disclaimer: I don't see this system scaling well. Our biggest game, Achaea, has yet to break 1000 simultaneous players.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jul 02, 2004 at 21:06
Kirk Job-Sluder>Predominantly I see "in God's image" interpreted as being about free will and spirituality rather than about the ability to create new realities.
Fair enough. That would make attempting to create a virtual world populated with intelligent entities a blasphemy, then?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 03, 2004 at 07:25
Adam M>Is that analogous to saying that humans are conscious neurologically-maintained entities, but that doesn't mean that the neurochemicals and electrical impulses of the brain are themselves conscious?
Kinda. I'd call the neurology hardware rather than software, but for a virtual world the "hardware" of the AI mind would be implemented in software.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 03, 2004 at 07:28
Matt Mihaly>I should also mention that we are -not- the first virtual world to implement in-game religion. We did it in 1997, but I know it's existed in virtual worlds since at LEAST 1990. I know Avalon had an in-game virtual religion system before we did, for instance.
One of the first virtual worlds to be written, called Gods, had this notion of some-players-as-deities as its very premiss. Players went out and collected treasure, MUD1-style, but scored points for it by dropping it in a god's temple. The more people who dropped treasure in the god's temple, themore powerful the god was (I'm not sure, but I think it may also have been that the less powerful the god was, the more points the players got for the treasure).
Gods had commercial success, especially in continental Europe (it was translated into German).
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 03, 2004 at 07:41
Bruce: "It seems that the "Jesus is Lord" portazone was placed next to one of our "Sacred Place" portazones and so members may be getting the "You have entered a Sacred Place" message and thinking it's related to the "Jesus is Lord" portazone."
That is exactly what happened of course. Thanks for the clarification, Bruce. I've edited the starter post to say "large structure" instead of "Sacred Place." How funny that There staff portazones are called "Sacred Places" though. That's a nice little reminder of the staff's god-like powers every time you enter one ;) Interesting that this term when others like "Nature Preserve" or "Building-Free Zone" would have worked to serve the same purpose.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jul 03, 2004 at 16:02
Richard>One of the first virtual worlds to be written, called Gods, had this notion of some-players-as-deities as its very premiss. Players went out and collected treasure, MUD1-style, but scored points for it by dropping it in a god's temple. The more people who dropped treasure in the god's temple, themore powerful the god was (I'm not sure, but I think it may also have been that the less powerful the god was, the more points the players got for the treasure).
What did the player Gods do in terms of their role as Gods, as opposed to building or admining or whatnot?
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jul 03, 2004 at 17:06
Kind of OT, but since we're talking about There, I wanted to point out that Bruce just started a collective (unofficial) There blog. (Source of the trackback above.)
link
Posted by: greglas | Jul 03, 2004 at 19:15
Betsy> How funny that There staff portazones are called "Sacred Places" though. That's a nice little reminder of the staff's god-like powers every time you enter one ;) Interesting that this term when others like "Nature Preserve" or "Building-Free Zone" would have worked to serve the same purpose.
The 'Sacred Place' portazaones were created in response to member demands to try and keep some things (places) 'sacred'.
The term goes back to January of this year, and actually I think it was authored by a member. In any case, it was certainly adopted and promoted by the member's themselves, in an effort to slow the urbanization/trashing of many of the key sites on the islands.
Personally, I don't think they wanted these 'sacred' places to pay homage to the dev gods, but rather to show respect for the role that these virtual geographies play in the culture of There. Many of the spots seem to have been chosen (by members) due to emotional attachments to those areas for what seems like a variety of reasons.
See:
http://forums.prod.there.com/forums/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=discuss_mab&Number=134793&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1#Post134793
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Jul 03, 2004 at 21:48
Matt Mihaly>What did the player Gods do in terms of their role as Gods, as opposed to building or admining or whatnot?
They dispensed favours to their worshippers, ie. used their in-context admin powers to help out the players who sacrificed objects in their temples (or people they wanted to persuade to do so). I don't know quite how their powers were limited by worshipper numbers, because I was never a god - it was something to do with a number of "points" they could spend on creating things.
Actually, I was never really a player either, I just spoke to the players and the developer (Ben Laurie, who now runs a very successful UK Genealogy site). I did a small review of it as part of a paper I wrote for BT about 15 years ago.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 04, 2004 at 05:27
Bruce wrote: The 'Sacred Place' portazaones were created in response to member demands to try and keep some things (places) 'sacred'.
So a Sacred Place portazone is laid down on a piece of land that the citizens collectively feel is worthy of preservation as a public commons, safe from not only from commercialization but from any further development whatsoever. The use of religious terminology only serves to underscore the emotional value of There's virtual commons to its community. Cory, how does this relate to the assignment of value to various pieces of virtual property discussed in A Piece of Place? Or does it?
In my Tourism and Photography in Virtual Worlds paper I noted that despite virtual landscapes being completely fabricated entities, community members may think of certain areas as "natural resources" that require official protection. While at the time I was mostly thinking of these spaces as tourist attractions (keep in mind this was written in early summer 2003 in There's beta period) the residents have become significantly more attached since then. Which makes sense.
I love the irony of a "Jesus is Lord" pavilion being kept from encroaching upon the public commons by a "Sacred Place" portazone.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jul 04, 2004 at 20:18
I haven't noticed anyone mention this yet, but the name of the place that he posted his signs near, Karuna Plaza, itself has religious connotations.
Karuna is the Sanskrit word for 'compassion', and is a term frequently used in Buddhism. I'm not sure how deliberate the There developer's were in using this term, but religious overtones to that area have been there all along. (Although the majority of There's players were probably unaware of the meaning of the term.)
Posted by: Eddie Yasi | Jul 10, 2004 at 09:45
Interesting, Eddie. And here I thought nothing could top "Second Life" for religious overtones in names of virtual spaces.
Posted by: Betsy Book | Jul 10, 2004 at 15:56
WHY WASTE YOR TIME PRAYING
RESULTS ARE ALWAY NEGATIVE
I WAS TAUGHT TO BELIEVE IN GOD AND ALWAYS DO THE RIGHT THING
IM NOW 50 YEARS OLD AND I HOPE FOR THE WORLDS ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION
THE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD SUCK
WHY SHOULD I HAVE FAITH IN SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER SHOWN ME ANYTHING POSITIVE
Posted by: MIKE | Sep 09, 2004 at 21:40
i am charles micheal my name conveys the meaning ...he who is like unto god
iwanna change ny name and sue the heavenly father for nonsupport ..... where the hell is he why doesent he do something..
i feel like achild of a lesser god....
one thing i know is he takes care of his rich white people and his jews they own everything ..so why ask god for anything
Posted by: mike | Sep 09, 2004 at 21:53
i put my soul up for sale.....
the devil didnt show
i put my soul up for sale ..
dont like praising no mo
iput my soul up for sale
tell him and the devil where to go...
now thats the blues boy!!!!
Posted by: mike | Sep 09, 2004 at 22:18
Nice article.
You might be interested to learn about another internet-based religion call Matrixism: The Path of the One (see: http://www.geocities.com/matrixism2069 ). This religion is based on the movie The Matrix, the Baha'i Faith and some writings by an author named Aldous Huxley.
Posted by: Casper | May 25, 2005 at 06:19