/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22650918]

How do you write a theocracy without making it the obvious cliché villain?
The supreme leader is either a crazy fanatic who wants their deity to destroy the world in order to free it from sin, or an asshole who uses religion to secure absolute obedience.

[Anonymous No.22650938]

Make them an isolationist nation which centrs about worshipng certain gods and upholding their will. They have non intervention policies. Are mostly hostile to agressor nations which invade them and to nations whose practices are diamerically opposed to their beliefs (like use of dark magic's, rising the dead, etc.).

[Anonymous No.22650954]

The issue is that God isn't real, or isn't present, or is evil. It's very hard to have a powerful religious government that isn't inherently corrupt because if there was actually a god that was so powerful and so good that it was clear he existed, then there'd be no need for a human-lead system of government in the first place because surely all the bad people would be eliminated by God himself and terrible things wouldn't happen to innocent people, due to the intervention of God. It would seem odd to require laws, order, and politicians, and kings, if God was so present that it was proven he was good and powerful. If he was present and did not help anyone or do anything good, but just went around demonstrating his power in wasteful, stupid, vain ways, and the world was still rotten enough to require a government to maintain order, then it would be odd for the government to serve such a terrible God. There would have to be an implicit sense of blackmail and threat, as if the god would do nothing good or useful, but still threaten the world if his laws weren't made into civil law and obeyed and punished by the government itself.

If God does not show himself in any way, yet there is still a theocracy, then it just looks like the theocracy is lying and claiming to speak for God when there is still no clear concrete proof.
The problem with having a theocracy with an active god then, is that no mundane Earth problem can ever be so troublesome that God himself could not intervene and stop it.

And when a problem occurs that's bigger, such as a counter-god or some sort of truly powerful demon, then the story shifts from being about a theocracy to being about a "war in heaven" or something.
And if you make the gods smaller and weaker, so that they can't just "vanish" each other instantly, then you just get Greek mythology or something, and again, the aspect of the theocracy is eliminated because the gods themselves probably don't serve as politicians.

On the other hand, there is that Vivec City place in Morrowind, where Vivec serves as a "Living God," whom anyone can meet. But there, he's only like a weak Jesus type figure, so even with his kingdom, obviously he cannot just "solve all the problems in the world all at once." That would be boring.

So basically, all theocracies, both in fiction, and in practice, are essentially either going to be evil and serve a god who has either died and thus is silent, or serves a god that is weak and impotent, they serve an evil god, which makes them evil, or they serve themselves, and they are actually evil and lying to everyone.

[Anonymous No.22651023]

>>22650918
Do a mix of the two, think of Mohamed Bin Salman, who is always carefully balancing his decisions to keep the islamist and progressive factions in check

[Anonymous No.22651054]

>>22650918
By not having a personal vendetta against religion. It’s very possible to write a theocracy and have it be a force of good in the world while also not making it a cut and dry, black and white YA mess

[Anonymous No.22651062]

>>22650954
If you want to critique Abrahamic religions you should familiarize yourself with some of the basic tenets first. No one wants to discuss theodicy for the millionth time. That's just childish.

[Anonymous No.22651779]

>>22651023
He hardly balances his decisions, all the islamists are in jail
>>22651054
Exactly, OP has a cartoonish view of religion and politics. One need not even like the Iranian regime to have a nuanced view of it

[Anonymous No.22651783]

>>22651062
Kek
>w-why is he m-making sense
>n-no, y-youre s-stupid I won't t-talk to you..

[Anonymous No.22651787]

>>22651054
>>22651779
Kek yet you have no examples to provide, but keep believing. Surely God will see your courageous fight on imageboards and reward you with some pussy when you get to heaven.

[Anonymous No.22651800]

>it's yet another case of current events spilling into other boards
fuck off back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.22651819]

>>22651787
You yourself said you view religious leaders as "cliche villains." What examples could you even want with reddit takes like this? History is already there for you to examine but all you draw from history is "religion bad."

[Anonymous No.22653278]

>>22650918
Lel idrc about Khamenei, but Khomeini was by no means an "obvious cliche villain." Actually read a book about the islamic revolution--it'll give you some ideas.

[Anonymous No.22653669]

>>22651779
>OP has a cartoonish view of religion and politics
I haven't given my opinion on irl religion and politics, dummy.

[Anonymous No.22653788]

>>22650918
Depict the theocratic party as heroic revolutionaries fighting against decadent secular forces. So basically copy the Taliban

[Anonymous No.22653798]

>>22650918
>why do schizophrenic liars come always come across as villains?

[Anonymous No.22653809]

>>22650918

[Anonymous No.22654948]

>>22650938
yeah this
if they want to be left alone then theocrats arent that bad

[Anonymous No.22654970]

>>22651062
Kek look at this twitter trad cath larper

[Anonymous No.22655134]

>>22651062
kek seething christcuck

[Anonymous No.22655260]

>>22654948
How many children do amish people have on average?

[Anonymous No.22655354]

>>22651062
What's the deal with christlarpers and acting like they have a profoundly mystical knowledge of the esoteric gnosis taught by the ancient masters of the faith... when that faith is just the religion everyone was raised with or at the very least knows of because like 80% of the population practices some form of it? Maybe if you live in Sweden you need to read a book to have an opinion on Christianity that isn't based on television or something, but if you are an American it isn't some exotic religion it is the religion. What's exotic is supporting theocracy, a form of government we've literally never had here

[Anonymous No.22655945]

>>22655260
Depends on the type. The most conservative have 8-10, but most Amish only have 4-6. I personally wouldn't call the ones that have 1-2 "Amish", they're more like odd Radical Reformers rather than truly "Amish". The number of kids scales inversely with technological usage.

Anyways, the map is making the assumption that these two populations will continue grow: they won't. Mormons are already below replacement (although the LDS church is working hard on importing Africans to keep their numbers up), and the Amish are a parasite race and as such cannot grow past the local English population's carrying capacity (they just abandon Amish life and become normal Red State Americans).

>>22650938
An alternative would be to make them some kind of international aid organization that ended up being given a country due to being the only stable organization around. Think "the Red Cross takes over Albania".

>>22655354
They want to be edgy, but not actually hold beliefs that cost social currency.

>>22653278
Khomeini's beliefs are absolute cartoonish and villainous, that's just how Islam works. The Shah being incompetent doesn't change that fact.

[Anonymous No.22656010]

>>22655945
I don't like Khomeini or IRI, but Iran absolutely deserves nukes for deterrence purposes. The only people who argue against this are literal Jews or Evangelist cucks. Moreover, even post-Revolution Iran is more of a rational actor than Pissrael. Verily, Cyrus the Moron truly made a mistake sparing such vermin from Babylonian captivity (granted, Ashkenazi aren't even Jewish).

[Anonymous No.22656026]

>>22656010
I never said anything about nukes, Israel, or Cyrus (I agree with you on all three points btw). I'm just pointing out that the majority of humanity finds Islam to be abominable, even most Muslims, and Khomeini's theology and politics are absolutely cartoonish and villainous as such. The fact that Israel is a genocidal cancer upon the planet doesn't change that fact (although ironically it's keeping the Islamic Regime from collapsing into infighting).

[Anonymous No.22656048]

>>22656026
Honestly, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism are all trash because of their obsessions with renovating the world, linear progressive accounts or time, "saviors", following an anti-life transcendent life, etc. The Enlightenment neutered Christianity in the West, but it did create new kinds of complications.
Kartir Hangirpe was very much like Khomeini and persecuted many non-Zoroastrians too. Islamic apostasy laws actually have precedence in Sassanian era laws.
I would have preferred Kushan era Sarvastivadin Buddhism to have grown into Iran.
Still, I would like to see Israel obliterated in my lifetime.

[Anonymous No.22656189]

>>22655945
>The most conservative have 8-10
That's higher than Niger, what the fuck.
Their population actually doubles every 20 years. In a century, all of America will be Amish.

[Anonymous No.22656223]

>>22651787
>Kek yet you have no examples to provide, but keep believing. Surely God will see your courageous fight on imageboards and reward you with some pussy when you get to heaven.

[Anonymous No.22656309]

>>22650918
Well by making the theocracy not explicitly evil but with problems. For example the government could be perfectly stable but there is a growing movement of extremists that want to bring about harsher punishments etc or for some senior members of the government want to outlaw scientific endeavour without approval from the state. Depending on how much you want to write about the theocracy itself you could present characters within that are for and against and the internal struggles.

[Anonymous No.22656801]

Makes you wonder, why are theoracracies always villainous in literature?

[Anonymous No.22656849]

>>22650918
Attach the theocracy to some kind of populist liberatory cause like the Taiping Rebellion. They can still be religious fanatics, but their ideology is understandable considering the conditions they're fighting against.

[Anonymous No.22656908]

>>22650918
The mullahs were/are frequently educated in Cold War Moscow and their motives are more cynical and utilitarian than faithful. Then add the non-Semite Shia vs. Arab Sunni element, and Tehran being promised to "take care of the -Stans" as part of the Belt & Road. And the undercurrent of Sufism as sub rosa indigenious Parsi religion sustained through initiatic secret societies post-Mongol wrecking itself preceded by a regime which was para-free love utopian socialist, wife-swapping and all Have in mind Iran's youngest demographics in the semi-developed world and how difficult that is to maintain the state as it is in the face of recent face covering femminist protest the past year and a half.

>How do you write a theocracy without making it the obvious cliché villain?

If you don't have the spider in hand, make the web first.

[Anonymous No.22656999]

>>22650918
Obviously the nature of your theocracy will depend a lot on what their god is like (I'm assuming you're building your own world and aren't restricted to real world religions). If your holy text tells you to kill all non believers, it's much easier to fall into the villain cliché then a god that gave you a holy land that you are currently in control of and just told you to care worship the trees in there or something.

[Anonymous No.22657007]

>>22656908
>The mullahs were/are frequently educated in Cold War Moscow and their motives are more cynical and utilitarian than faithful.
One of the bizarre things about modern history is how secular concepts were re-theologized and it seemed to happen around the same time in different countries. If you went to a Jewish settlement in Palestine in the late 40s, odds were good you'd find a bunch of secular leftists who were pro-USSR until the mid-50s and drilling with militias. And there were Jews who were interested in the Bible as a historical document and digging up archaeological sites to see how it compared, but it's not that removed from Thomas Jefferson being a Deist who found it useful but cut out the superstitious parts. Mormons took it further where they are almost like "American Zionists" who came up with a new book where Jesus came to America. They re-theologized it.

Then there was this shift to that in the 70s/80s in different parts of the world. Israeli politics moved to the right, but what "left" and "right" meant also changed. In Israel, it just meant if you were for more settlements (right) or fewer (left), but that wouldn't have made sense in the 1950s. Then you see the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The rise of Sunni jihadi stuff. There's also the rise of the Evangelical Christians in American politics and the "moral majority" who are also pro-Israel, which is an alliance between two governments, which are comprised of people, but it took on religious significance.

That could be an interesting analogy in a sci-fi setting, like Martian colonists struggling for independence from Earth developing a Martian religion that helps them do that.

>Have in mind Iran's youngest demographics in the semi-developed world and how difficult that is to maintain the state as it is in the face of recent face covering femminist protest the past year and a half.
I have a sense that changes in the future will happen in multiple countries and it will appear contradictory and confusing, like changes in politics and society in the United States will parallel developments in Iran. The decline of the Evangelicals in America is happening at the same time as the Mullahs in Iran are facing all kinds of problems with the rising generation.