Quote from: talysman;824068People confuse pseudo-Christian with monotheistic.

D&D assumes pseudo-Christian. That is,  proselytizing, moral philosophy backed by a religious hierarchy that preaches against evil and promotes an eschatology. Holy symbols, holy water, and turning undead don't make much sense in a classical polytheistic cultural context. Hell, the alignment system doesn't make sense in that context.

However, it's possible to run a pseudo-Christian polytheism. Look at the main religion in A Game of Thrones.

Good point.

I like to take a page from Persian myth and set up a pantheon of lesser gods (godlings, cohorts, archons, aspects, manifestations, whatever) under a "chief" god of Good/Law/Light, and another one for Evil/Chaos/Darkness, with Neutrality/Balance as the esoteric middle ground of deities unaligned or uninterested in the cosmic moral struggle.

yeah im not seeing it myself clerics should not be differentiating themselves by spells they should be doing so by dogma

The clerical spells of older editions and newer editions have certain implications about the god that provides them, you would expect the spells given by a god to reflect their nature. So the spells do kind of shoehorn you in a particular direction.

Quote from: talysman;824068Holy symbols, holy water, and turning undead don't make much sense in a classical polytheistic cultural context.

If the holy symbol is a cross it would be pseudo Christian. But Pagan religions used lots of holy symbols that weren't crosses: sun disk, triskelion, the Eye of Ra (or of Horus), Thor's Hammer, Zeus's Thunderbolt, Athena's Aegis are just a few examples. Turn undead shouldn't be a property of all deities, only of mythologically appropriate deities. A few examples off the top of my head:

• A sun god which would explain vampire's aversion to sunlight. So the holy symbol might be a sun disk, Eye of Ra, etc.
• A death god whose symbol might be the first sword, a stylized image of which, not coincidentally, looks like a cross. In this case water from the River Styx could be used as Holy Water - which would make it much more rare and more like a magic item. Or alternately priests of the death god might be able to perform a ritual to turn normal river water into Styx water.
• A life god whose symbol might be a live plant. Holy water might be water gathered from the morning dew.
• A water god whose symbol might be a vial of water or wingdings character 104. This would explain vampire's aversion to crossing running water and could provide a reasonable source of holy water.

Pseudo Christianity is a bit easier to use than creating or adapting a pantheon. But pantheistic clerics varied by religion can also work just fine in D&D.

There is an inherent type of light/dark or sky/chthonian conflict built into both Greek Myth (Olympians vs. Titans) and Norse Myth (Asa & Vana vs. Jotuns, Midgard Serpent, & Fenris). But Persian gods that have a strong light/dark aspect of Manichaeism baked into them are perhaps an easier and closer fit for D&D clerics with less work.

Cant reconcile cleric with many gods? Part of me wants to say "History called. It says you are a moron." but thats a bit mean. Even if it may or may not be true.

Cleric spells have the baked in premise of monotheism? Part of me wants to say "RPG called. It says you are a moron." But that is a bit mean too. Even if it may or may not be true.

Ok. Heres a quick history lesson for those of you that flunked it. Most pantheistic religions had, and in some cases, still have, priests dedicated to just one god or goddess out of the whole group. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, Catholic, and so on. The reasons are varied. Usually because some leader just liked that particular being and dedicated a temple to them. Others being priests who gravitated, or were born into sects dedicated. and so on.

As for D&D cleric spells implying monotheism. Since at least AD&D and probably all the way back to OD&D some gods hand out slightly different spells than others. And the DM was encouraged to withhold spells to clerics based on what they felt the god would or would not grant. 2e in particular had the whole spheres system where gods granted spells from their spheres of influence and so on. Not to mention signature weapons for some, further distinguishing them apart.

Quote from: Omega;824112Since at least AD&D and probably all the way back to OD&D some gods hand out slightly different spells than others.

Think OD&D differentiated spells by specific deity? Part of me wants to say "Gygax and Arneson called. They said you are a moron." But that's a bit mean. Even if it may or may not be true.

Quote from: Omega;824112Cant reconcile cleric with many gods? Part of me wants to say "History called. It says you are a moron." but thats a bit mean. Even if it may or may not be true.

Cleric spells have the baked in premise of monotheism? Part of me wants to say "RPG called. It says you are a moron." But that is a bit mean too. Even if it may or may not be true.

Ok. Heres a quick history lesson for those of you that flunked it. Most pantheistic religions had, and in some cases, still have, priests dedicated to just one god or goddess out of the whole group. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, Catholic, and so on. The reasons are varied. Usually because some leader just liked that particular being and dedicated a temple to them. Others being priests who gravitated, or were born into sects dedicated. and so on.

As for D&D cleric spells implying monotheism. Since at least AD&D and probably all the way back to OD&D some gods hand out slightly different spells than others. And the DM was encouraged to withhold spells to clerics based on what they felt the god would or would not grant. 2e in particular had the whole spheres system where gods granted spells from their spheres of influence and so on. Not to mention signature weapons for some, further distinguishing them apart.

You got anything substantial to contribute? Or you just gonna make baseless assumptions about someones knowledge based on a single post you scarcely read? Now hush the grown ups are talking, go play.

Quote from: Bren;824105If the holy symbol is a cross it would be pseudo Christian. But Pagan religions used lots of holy symbols that weren't crosses: sun disk, triskelion, the Eye of Ra (or of Horus), Thor's Hammer, Zeus's Thunderbolt, Athena's Aegis are just a few examples.

Those are symbols. They appear in temple decorations or on priest clothing. By "holy symbol", I specifically mean the act of presenting some symbol strongly and using its power to command. That's specifically a Christian or pseudo-Christian behavior.

Quote from: Bren;824105Turn undead shouldn't be a property of all deities, only of mythologically appropriate deities.

But it wasn't, is the point.  Because the whole D&D undead thing comes to us filtered through Christian ideas of the undead as part of a demonic incursion into the world of the living. The only mythology where that idea even works is the Norse mythology. In the majority of mythologies, the dead coming back is usually the result of a human being's selfish desire, or, in the case of Aesclepius, hubris. The gods of the dead do not want their subjects to escape.

Quote from: Bren;824105There is an inherent type of light/dark or sky/chthonian conflict built into both Greek Myth (Olympians vs. Titans) and Norse Myth (Asa & Vana vs. Jotuns, Midgard Serpent, & Fenris). But Persian gods that have a strong light/dark aspect of Manichaeism baked into them are perhaps an easier and closer fit for D&D clerics with less work.

I think you misunderstan the older polytheistic conflicts. As for Zororastrian and Manichean myths: well, those are proselytizing moral philophies with an eschatology, precisely what I said is the essential elements of D&D clerical concepts. Zoroastrianism is sometimes held up as the place where Judeo-Christian eschatology came from. Manicheanism is a Christian competitor. Mithraism or Gnosticism would also work.

You *can* use Greek, Norse, Celtic, Vedic, or other polytheistic elements, but as I said, you have to recast them as pseudo-Christian with non-Christian trappings. You could use the religion in the Battlestar Galactica reboot as an example of Christianized Greek religion, for example. But the druid is a better fit for polytheistic priesthoods, at least Indo-European priesthoods, although even there, it's filtered through Victorian Christian fantasies about the druids.

Polytheism, like Monotheism, comes in many flavors and D&D is not particularly homogenous in its representation from my experience. You may want to look up the other major variations of polytheism, like monolatry, henotheism, and kathenotheism before you want to read overly into this D&D class. As it stands, and related to settings, it is pretty well flexible.

Quote from: talysman;824156Those are symbols. They appear in temple decorations or on priest clothing. By "holy symbol", I specifically mean the act of presenting some symbol strongly and using its power to command. That's specifically a Christian or pseudo-Christian behavior.

I question whether that actually is the case. But even if it were the case, there is absolutely no reason a Buddhist prayer wheel or bishops staff couldn't have an affect on demons or other unnatural creatures. Ditto with Shinto symbols or any other religion really. (I'm kind of recollecting that one or the other beliefs do confront demons, but can't be assed to look it up to confirm.) As another example, Glorantha, which has a fictional, non-Christian mythology explicitly uses various runes and symbols of power. The religious structure in Tekumel - which has a totally different invented mythology includes dual opposing pantheons that are more or less dualistic split between a more or less benevolent group of light, health, good deities and a malicious group of dark, death (or undeath), evil deities.

I think you are way too fixated on your understanding of Christian mythology and not open to the possibility of alternate D&D mythologies.

QuoteThe only mythology where that idea even works is the Norse mythology.

Pretty sure this is wrong too. In a number of Asian belief systems demons are an other. Not sure about undead, though pretty sure they include demonic possession and the casting out of demons. Spirit or demon possession is a very common thing in many mythologies after all.

QuoteI think you misunderstan the older polytheistic conflicts.

I don't think I do misunderstand. I was using them as a possible model for creating a type of Manichaeist duality with deities loosely organized into more or less opposing pantheons. Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to create an alt-mythology* where the Olympians and their predecessor deities the Titans both have worshippers and struggle for more worshippers on earth either as some proxy fight or because the gods need or feed on the sacrifices of their worshippers (whether that is feeding on emotion, devotion, mana, power, or whatever).

One could use also something like Aten worship as another non-Christian alternative to the monotheism (or monolatry depending on which part of the Torah, Bible, or Koran you happen to be reading at the time). Aten worship proselytized and it predates Christianity by 13 centuries. It may be the  inspiration for the monolatry of the Hebrews.

* Which might not actually be a totally alternative mythology. Its not like we have good records from that period to really understand how worship changed with the various invasions and changes of rule in pre-archaic Greece.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999A problem that frequently comes up for me in world building is religion. It's a tricky thing to do well under the best of circumstances and can end up being a huge time sink if you find yourself wrapped around that particular axle.

However D&D seems to include it's own particular pitfall on this issue, the Cleric. The cleric as a class, particularly in older editions but still to a degree in 5th, seems to assume a monotheistic pseudo-Christian religion. I don't think we have to go into how because it seems to be fairly well established.

How do you reconcile an apparently polytheistic world with the chief religious class implying monotheism? An easy out, that I'm considering for a setting I'm working on at the moment, is monolatry. Namely that the culture the PC's are likely to come from acknowledges many gods but exclusively worships one.

Another thing issue that can arise is reconciling the polytheism of most game worlds. What should it actually look like when you really do have a multitude of gods actively involved? This of course is influenced by just how active you assume the gods to be in your world and how they interact with it.

How do the gods interact with one another? How does that effect the game world? How would one establish a position of doubt in such a world, if that were even possible?

Thoughts? How do you typically handle these questions? What particular issues do you have? Interesting solutions? Think it's all a non issue and it would be much better just to shut the fuck up and roll the dice?

Why not have the religion be centered on a single divine being (the Allfather or Universal Mother) who then sired all of the other less powerful godlings? It would be a hierarchical family based organization allowing the divine descendants to each have their minor specialties, but with an overarching sense of unity.

I usually use the Small Gods rules for 3.0 from FFG in my games so that lesser divine beings grant lower level spells (and are easier to destroy), something similar to this can be used for the divine descendants to limit the power of their clerics spell portfolio while still allowing their specialities.

Quote from: JeremyR;824008I've never really understood this argument/problem.

It seems to be me that while most cultures had many gods, most places did have one main god that they worshiped above others, even if they acknowledged the existence of others. Indeed, I think most gods were local gods.

The ones that spread, did so because the local worshipers went out and conquered other places, bringing their god with them, and often merging it with the local gods of conquered places.

You see something similar with saints in the Catholic Church.

And given you are talking about a setting where gods are not a matter of faith, but real, tangible things that provide power and other things, I'd have to think they'd be jealous of each other, competing for worshipers, not co-operating.

The trouble I think is that too many people take neopaganism and such as being what ancient religion was like, when in reality it's modern day new age claptrap. There were never coherent, co-operative pantheons, there were several competing gods, even in the same culture, even as city-states and regions and tribes within that same culture competed.

I'd say you're partly right here.  Yes, I think both the fact that we're in a non-polytheist culture and the rise of neopaganism (which is really a kind of cargo-cult of paganism through a christian culture's eyes) have confused people's ideas of how it should work.  

There were pantheons of a sort, obviously.  The greco-roman pantheon, the egyptians, the norse too, among others.  But these were not as 'coherent', stable or absolute as we tend to imagine.   And yes, there were gods of the city, but there were also the gods of the tribe/nation, the gods of the ruling family, and then a bunch of gods for things.

For the average person in a pagan society, they would not have a 'patron god'.  No one would say "I'm a worshipper of Apollo".  A doctor or a musician might particularly like Apollo, but would have no problem with making an offering to Mercury, or to Vesta, or to Jupiter, when the circumstances demanded it.  Likewise, they would have no problem with being in the cult of Mithras, while doing all the above, and while their wife was in the cult of Isis.  Plus he might be a stoic or an epicurean on top of that.

Now, if you were a priest, you'd be a priest of a specific temple, which was (almost always) a temple to just one god. But even you wouldn't just worship that one god. You'd only be able to perform the rites of that god and have a particularly special relationship with them.

So clerics being clerics of only one deity isn't totally out to lunch, but a lot of the OTHER stuff that D&D does with deities, like pantheons, or excessively-logical "domains", are more improper.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824540But these were not as 'coherent', stable or absolute as we tend to imagine.

True. And sometimes deities and pantheons are presented as more coherent and stable due to lack of knowledge by the author. But I think at least as often it is due to the author's need to simplify and clarify so as to present something understandable in less than a 1000 page tome to a potential player or GM. That sort of simplification and imposed coherence is really no different than what we see in how the history, etiquette, social relations, political hierarchy, law, or economy are presented for various settings.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824540I'd say you're partly right here.  Yes, I think both the fact that we're in a non-polytheist culture and the rise of neopaganism (which is really a kind of cargo-cult of paganism through a christian culture's eyes) have confused people's ideas of how it should work.  

There were pantheons of a sort, obviously.  The greco-roman pantheon, the egyptians, the norse too, among others.  But these were not as 'coherent', stable or absolute as we tend to imagine.   And yes, there were gods of the city, but there were also the gods of the tribe/nation, the gods of the ruling family, and then a bunch of gods for things.

For the average person in a pagan society, they would not have a 'patron god'.  No one would say "I'm a worshipper of Apollo".  A doctor or a musician might particularly like Apollo, but would have no problem with making an offering to Mercury, or to Vesta, or to Jupiter, when the circumstances demanded it.  Likewise, they would have no problem with being in the cult of Mithras, while doing all the above, and while their wife was in the cult of Isis.  Plus he might be a stoic or an epicurean on top of that.

Now, if you were a priest, you'd be a priest of a specific temple, which was (almost always) a temple to just one god. But even you wouldn't just worship that one god. You'd only be able to perform the rites of that god and have a particularly special relationship with them.

So clerics being clerics of only one deity isn't totally out to lunch, but a lot of the OTHER stuff that D&D does with deities, like pantheons, or excessively-logical "domains", are more improper.

I always thought ANE mythologies tended to give sort of clear examples of it all. You had the concepts of chief deities, various lower ones, civic and tribal patrons, and all manner of other things all within in a related framework.

I think you summed up my actual issues with the cleric and religion in D&D in your last sentence there better than I did. It's not all really that congruent.

Quote from: Bren;824545True. And sometimes deities and pantheons are presented as more coherent and stable due to lack of knowledge by the author. But I think at least as often it is due to the author's need to simplify and clarify so as to present something understandable in less than a 1000 page tome to a potential player or GM. That sort of simplification and imposed coherence is really no different than what we see in how the history, etiquette, social relations, political hierarchy, law, or economy are presented for various settings.

Yup, it's a necessary simplified abstraction. Same reason alignment drags people through the ringer. All that campaign setting heavy lifting detail necessitates GM prerogative.

D&D talks about taxes and law, too, but we don't read the examples given as holy writ either. Something is necessarily lost in translation. The GM's job is to flesh out abstractions and tenuously strung together ideas, like 4000 copper pieces and a rat's nest in a room. You are every sense to the players of your world... be them.