Quote from: S'mon;1058577For a quasi-historical campaign I would only let the genuinely devout cast spells, but I wouldn't use Alignment as such. I'd expect to see Muslim/Muslim-analogue imans casting spells against spell-casting Catholic & Orthodox priests.

If it was a fantasy campaign, I'd run it like Narnia - those who believe in the Lion get spells (the good stuff, like cure light wounds & raise dead), those who believe in Tash get spells (the relatively crappy anti-cleric stuff, like inflict light wounds & slay living), equivocators get nothing. With the proviso that evil men who think they revere Aslan get their powers from Tash, and vice versa.

This is basically how original D&D already worked anyway.

If I were doing Narnia, those who revere Aslan get some mix of miracles and passive power. Those who believe in Tash get nothing. Tash is a monster and a deceiver. (cf. Rabadash calling on the power of Tash and getting nothing, then being turned into a donkey for his troubles.) I could see doing something like a dualist game with powers from both God and the Antagonist - but not in Narnia.

For historical, it depends on the tone I'm going for. In most cases, I wouldn't have clerical magic as such. I had different forms of shamanic magic in my Vinland game, but they weren't based on faith per se. They were more akin to arcane magic of other systems - though based more around spirits. That's more pragmatism than religion, though. The spirits were respected allies, but given people's syncretic beliefs there wasn't seen to be any conflict between respecting both the White Christ as well as other figures.

You run into the faithfulness issue with polytheism as well. I think 5e's "solution" of de-divinizing divine magic is horrible and stupid. I mean, is St Cuthbert really gonna keep granting you the power to heal the sick when you have not been smiting any liars lately?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1058582I think 5e's "solution" of de-divinizing divine magic is horrible and stupid.

I think it's only 4e that said Clerics get to keep their powers no matter what?

Personally, were I to run such a game, I'd differentiate clerics from priests and disconnect God from magic altogether--clerical magic is a magical tradition preserved and passed down by the monastic warrior-orders of clerics, many of whom serve the Church and take vows of some sort (and a twisted form of it is available to heretical anti-clerical orders, cults and warlocks), but no one takes it as divine in origin or proof of God's favor. This would, of course, require some trimming of the spell list to remove things that are more obviously divine in connection or perogatives (commune and resurrection would be on the chopping block).

Quote from: S'mon;1058584I think it's only 4e that said Clerics get to keep their powers no matter what?

   Which, if clerical powers are considered part of ordination and not gratia gratis datae, is more orthodox than the alternative. Look up Donatism.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1058582You run into the faithfulness issue with polytheism as well. I think 5e's "solution" of de-divinizing divine magic is horrible and stupid. I mean, is St Cuthbert really gonna keep granting you the power to heal the sick when you have not been smiting any liars lately?

To be fair, that lore change started with 4E and the rationale for it was two-fold.

Mechanically, you needed a stable baseline for balancing to mean anything and that meant access to abilities as reliable as for a wizard or fighter; especially since it's nearly impossible to balance mechanics against restrictions that are virtually entirely fluff-based.

Adventure/Lore-wise, not tying divine powers directly to the gods, but to the investiture process, allowed for villains to also be corrupt members of a typically good aligned religion without the obvious tell of the corrupt official no longer being able to perform divine spells because their god has cut them off (the default setting also presumed distant deities who only interacted with the mortal world through intermediaries).

The basic lore was that, once the spigot to divine power was opened through investiture, only death could close it. Thus, the religions tended to vet their candidates quite closely and send assassins (such as the Avenger class) after those who had been found to be abusing the divine power granted them.

I'm sympathetic to both elements; just like old-school divinations could often completely shut down any sort of mystery-based adventure unless a ridiculous level of magical countermeasures are employed; getting all your power shut off the moment a Church figure gets even remotely out of line just shuts down a lot of plots related to corrupt religious institutions because "okay, cure this light wound" makes it obvious who is or isn't the secret heretic (and not every heretic going to start worshipping some other deity... the whole point of heresy is that they're in error about their belief in their god, not that they're now worshipping a different one.

Likewise, if you're a fan of more class balance and have other classes capable of comparable feats (ex. Bards in 5e; Warlords, Bards, Skalds, Artificers, Shamen, Sentinel Druids and Ardents in 4E) without any comparable drawbacks then it doesn't make much sense to keep the restrictions on the divine classes.

Quote from: Chris24601;1058588getting all your power shut off the moment a Church figure gets even remotely out of line just shuts down a lot of plots related to corrupt religious institutions because "okay, cure this light wound" makes it obvious who is or isn't the secret heretic (and not every heretic going to start worshipping some other deity... the whole point of heresy is that they're in error about their belief in their god, not that they're now worshipping a different one.

I don't think anyone at all said "remotely out of line."  In the examples I gave it was the shutting down of churches.  The actual suppression of people's worship.  And the demand that other bishops accept subservience to one particular Bishop.  So we have a wholesale power grab and the suppression of an entire branch of your faith.  There are not "remotely out of line" issues.

And I did not suggest a priest who lost their spells would immediately go looking for another source of power.  I put forward doing so as a possibility.  I think the vast, vast majority of such clerics would reflect and repent rather than turn to demons or whatever.

The other thing is, that a given path of adventure is not necessary for every campaign.  It's actually okay to not have a game that includes priests that are secret heretics.  It's not necessarily a bug that a given game world doesn't support every idea you can come up with.

I also think right now a game where knights and priests are heroic rather than corrupt is a great idea.  Current media is full of corrupt religious institutions and ignoble knights.  Making a monotheistic medieval religion actually be the good and heroic one is a nice contrast to all that.

Incidentally I'm thoroughly enjoying my reading of Lion & Dragon and have a major campaign revamp coming up (I promised my group I'd run my current game for 3 years and we're past that by a few months) and I'm definitely going to implement a lot of the ideas in there.  The implications of monotheism and approved and not approved arcane magic is also an interesting topic.  Monotheism can definitely have implications for non-divine spellcasters as well.

Imagine a one-divinity setting where the only divinity is CN (or even CE) but has sufficiently fooled everyone into thinking it's benevolent (because know alignment isn't going to work on the only god in the setting). It encourages strife among its followers for the divine lolz.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1058614Imagine a one-divinity setting where the only divinity is CN (or even CE) but has sufficiently fooled everyone into thinking it's benevolent (because know alignment isn't going to work on the only god in the setting). It encourages strife among its followers for the divine lolz.

That would make for an interesting game.  If you ran that how much would you tell the players in advance?  Would the game be about finding this sort of thing out?

Quote from: NathanIW;1058589I also think right now a game where knights and priests are heroic rather than corrupt is a great idea.  Current media is full of corrupt religious institutions and ignoble knights.  Making a monotheistic medieval religion actually be the good and heroic one is a nice contrast to all that.

I think for game purposes this is going to work best with a heavy dose of Manichean quasi-Dualism, where there is an Evil force that corrupts and grants power too, even if its power is lesser than that of the Divine.

Personally I like the Zoroastrian notion that Ormazd needs us just as much as we need him, that he can be an ally and friend, not just the stern Patriarch of both Heaven & Hell.

Quote from: NathanIW;1058617That would make for an interesting game.  If you ran that how much would you tell the players in advance?  Would the game be about finding this sort of thing out?

It wouldn't be the focus of the game. It really couldn't be. It's an all-powerful divine being that really doesn't give a shit but it clouds it's concern constipation behind mysterious and contradictory signs (which most blame the failings on the mortal messengers since the divine is supposedly infallible).
So rather than worrying about "what's up with god," PCs largely go adventuring for personal causes (meaningful or shallow, benevolent or depraved, whatever) and profit. Sure, some may say they're doing it for god, but nobody can say for sure.
And yes, I enjoy Preacher.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1058586Personally, were I to run such a game, I'd differentiate clerics from priests and disconnect God from magic altogether--clerical magic is a magical tradition preserved and passed down by the monastic warrior-orders of clerics, many of whom serve the Church and take vows of some sort (and a twisted form of it is available to heretical anti-clerical orders, cults and warlocks), but no one takes it as divine in origin or proof of God's favor. This would, of course, require some trimming of the spell list to remove things that are more obviously divine in connection or perogatives (commune and resurrection would be on the chopping block).

Yeah, I think this is a good option - similar to my take on shamanic magic in my Vinland game. There were traditions of magic associated with given religions, but their use didn't depend on faith or adherence. Within a monotheistic setting, I can see there being a tradition of magic that is related to God, but doesn't consist of the power of God flowing through a chosen vessel. Medieval alchemy and hermetic magic often had a lot of theological associations, for comparison.

But as I mentioned, I can see going a lot of different ways depending on the flavor I'm going for.

Quote from: NathanIW;1058570I would definitely require actual faith and faithfulness in a monotheistic religion in an RPG campaign.  The first side to lose their miracle working powers is going to lose the debate.  If you start claiming your opposition can only work miracles through the power of The Enemy when you know that's not the case, then you just lost your powers for lying about your brothers and sisters and turning them into enemies instead of having an honest disagreement with them.

I highly doubt the Catholic-Orthodox split would have happened had the side that escalated the split lost all their actual miracle working power.  If the Patriarch of Constantinople was a miracle working name level cleric and then he closes down all the Latin Rite churches in his city and then loses all his spells and all his abilities and no one he confers priesthood on can ever work miracles or cast spells, that'd be a pretty clear indicator.  Same goes for the Latin rite excommunicating anyone who doesn't fall into line with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Imagine the Reformation if all the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists couldn't work any miracles but every ordained priest in the catholic side of things could do at least some spell casting.  Even if it was limited to dispelling some fevers and closing small wounds or making light shine from their hands.  And if any priest suddenly decides to leave the church and join the protestants, they suddenly lose all their spells and are fully aware of why.

If I was doing a magical medieval Europe, I'd have the east-west split not really happen, but instead be a friendly disagreement where the moment anyone goes too far, they find out they are wrong directly from God through the removal of their spells.  The Patriarch of Constantinople ends up being the head of his own Orthodox Rite and the Bishop of Rome realized it's not his place to force the subservience of all other Bishops.  Instead the pope is universally regarded as the wisest bishop who should be listened to, not a special class of super bishop over the rest.

The biggest strength of Monotheism in an RPG is that there really is a single bulwark against supernatural evil.  I would not have it be a matter of interpretation, infighting, and corruption.  That's just cliche and typical of what we already expect from religion in the real world.  If supernatural power actually existed, then it would preserve the church as christ said it would.  His prayer that the church would be one would actually be listened to if he really was the son of god.

I would simply select a version of the many forms of Christianity that existed in the first four centuries as the right one.  And it would win the debates about the heresies from that time because it had the only actual magic spells and miracles.  The same form would last through the disagreement with the East and any proto-reformer.  And the reformation itself would be a non starter.

Similarly if I was making a monotheistic religion for a game universe that was not just ours with real magic, I'd have the religion just be right and proven with actual miracles and spells and the ability to call and commune with angels and past saints/holy people.

What about clerics with different alignment or splits?  Nope.  Alignment in my game will be the answer to the question "To whom are you aligned?" and if it's the One and His Church, then that's your alignment.  If it's the demons and monsters of the underworld, that's your alignment.  If you don't care either way, then that's your alignment.  No way would I ever have alignments as moral categories.  Not interested in that at all.

So what if you are an ordained priest who can cast spells but are a selfish asshole who wrongs people?  Then your discipline and walk of faith is going to be one of learning the hard way through constantly having to make amends to get your powers back.  And if you go so far as to instead channel the power of the underworld to imitate the power of the faithful, the Church has orders ordained for just such an eventuality and since they actually have access to the council of angels and real magic to find you out, tread carefully!

I'd also take an OD&D cleric and anti-cleric approach where you simply can't imitate the most telltale and basic powers of the good clerics.  You only have the reverse versions of the good spells.  So no healing, no blessing, etc.,  Instead you can only curse and wound and spread disease and not heal it.

Thank you this gives me something to work with.

I find this bit in particular interesting

QuoteIf the Patriarch of Constantinople was a miracle working name level cleric and then he closes down all the Latin Rite churches in his city and then loses all his spells and all his abilities and no one he confers priesthood on can ever work miracles or cast spells, that'd be a pretty clear indicator.  Same goes for the Latin rite excommunicating anyone who doesn't fall into line with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

I could see a deity encouraging debate, assuming they get something from the faith of human followers some dissent is probably helpful. Ford vs Chevy arguments tend to make one side want to one up the other (prove they are more faithful), vs just wearing the minimum required 13 pieces of flair.
Of course at some point they can cross a line (perhaps engaging in open war between the various factions, or encouraging behavior at odd with the rules of the deity). The east and west had fairly distinct spheres of influence, so a little disagreement over interpretations is unimportant so long as the big picture is maintained (forwarding the work of the deity). Clearly going so far as to suppress the faith of other followers would put the individual in the penalty box (no miracles for you).

This also could explain how the leaders could cross those lines (ex-communicating each other), yet the followers continue to have powers. Short of a very cinematic game where you would expect the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople to duke it out in a magical duel, they may not even have powers. Even if they did, they could lose their powers but due to position it really doesn't matter, they have people to manage these things. One doesn't make demands of a pope or senior bishop lightly.
So long as the rank and file are following the tenants of their faith (don't suppress the faith of believers), then they could maintain their abilities despite the troubles higher up the food chain. I imagine Popes and Bishops would be more political in nature, probably drawn from the priesthood rather than clerics. Sure that could be change in a world where magic is real, but ultimately they will still probably be chosen for their deep knowledge of the faith and ability to maneuver through the politics, rather than how many sick they have healed or heathens they have converted. Saints tend to miracle, not Popes and Bishops.

The protestant reformers tended to focus on specific issues, rather than tearing down the foundations of the church. In reality this was probably at least partially for self preservation, but it could also be explained by their desire to weed out some aspects that they saw as hurting the faithful without burning it all to the ground. They were just trying to steer the church back on track. Politically inconvenient, but with noble intent so no loss of abilities (if such were granted in the first place).


I guess I don't see monotheism as equal to only one true church. They are run by humans, an short of a direct phone like to god, there are going to be some disagreements over implementation. So long as these disagreements are over the appropriateness of Sunday vs Saturday services, then there is no reason for the deity to get involved. When one starts discussing the merits of baby eating, well then it is time to revoke their license.


I find the small differences of interpretation makes things more interesting than one monolithic, irrefutable church.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1058542I was just going to ask about priests in L&D and see they were one of the new classes you included. I think that is an important distinction as we have seen in other discussions many see clerics = priests in RPGs since there is rarely an in game distinction.

Yes, exactly. Priests in the new RPGPundit Presents: Priests, Courtiers, Sages and Craftsmen are a completely non-magical class. They are the parish priests and church administrators. They have abilities related to theology and performance of ceremony, and knowledge skills.

Clerics are a specific holy order of militants chosen by God.

Quote from: EOTB;1058548re: magic and splits, I don't think it would matter.  Monotheism typically has lesser adversaries to the deity who rebel, or refuse fealty, in full knowledge; but human nature is less selfish?  

It's approaching it from an atheistic perspective in many ways.  I'm not saying that's wrong, but a no-faith-required monotheism isn't going to feel instinctively archetypal.

In the medieval world, miracles were all around. "Faith" was understood as something different. It had nothing to do with the later paradigm of "believing in something for which you have no proof and suspect to be untrue".