Split off from Dr.Rotwang's thread on designing pantheons, something occurred to me. A common theme in many pantheons (and games) is that the God's strength somehow depends on how many worshippers he has and that somehow these worshippers 'shape' the God, or at least his power in the divine realm, to some degree. It's a chicken and egg situation though really. Is an insignificant God that way because his portfolio (for want of a better word) is insignificant and therefore attracts fewer worshippers or is the fact that he has fewer worshippers keep his divine power low? If the God of Lost Artifacts suddenly got loads of worshippers, would he grow in power in the divine realm and if so, why? Seems to me that if you're divine, you shouldn't need to rely on piddly little mortals for your power. The flow should be in the other direction surely? The God gives power and shapes his worshippers. Forgotten Gods should be reminding mortals of their existence, not because they need more power, but because they should be worshipped. Sure, you have divine magic that is normally said to be granted by the Gods, but why stop there?

Is it a case of more believers = more divine power, a case of greater portfolio = more worshippers and thus more power, when it should really be a case of divine power = flow of power to followers and worshipping a God does not = a flow of power to that God?

You have a good point but I think that the original idea that godhood has its own heirarchy fueled by the size of it's worship is better for gaming, because it pits the gods in conflict with each other, which is great game fodder. Nothing sounds cooler to me than some petty god of garden weeds who happens to have a mad plan to replace the god of all growing things by spreading a plague.

OTOH, your idea has a merit to it, especially if the more potent gods are 'lost'. It would be a great quest for a group to seek and find these gods of important portfolios to bring a dying world back to life or to even bring magic to a mundane world.

Quote from: JamesVYou have a good point but I think that the original idea that godhood has its own heirarchy fueled by the size of it's worship is better for gaming, because it pits the gods in conflict with each other, which is great game fodder. Nothing sounds cooler to me than some petty god of garden weeds who happens to have a mad plan to replace the god of all growing things by spreading a plague.

Why should the worshipper base affect a God's power though? They're Gods. You can have exactly the same kind of conflicts via the flow of power from God to follower as you can in the more common pattern of flow of power from worshipper to God. The difference is that the worshipper base has no affect on this conflict other than having more tools to do the Gods work on earth (or wherever). Rivalries will still exist, but the focus will not be on more worshippers for more power, but on more worshippers for more worship. Certainly feeds into the Gods having huge egos that way, rather than being poor little guys in the sky depending on the ants below for their power. They exert their power on us.

Quote from: One Horse TownWhy should the worshipper base affect a God's power though?

A god may have a baseline to its power as a divine being, but there is something neat in needing worshippers to give it greater meaning and as a result, power. It creates in a setting levels of conflict as gods and their worshippers have a stake in their religion beyond prestige or ego, though that can definitely play a part.

From the perspective of the ancient world (i.e. pre-Christianity and therefore pre-theology), "god" is really more like a job description rather than a statement about a given being's innate nature. For the most part, people weren't interested in what gods were made of or how they came to be that way, etc. They were primarily interested in what they could do for them. Worship, most commonly in the form of sacrifice (i.e. the sharing of a meal with one or more gods), occurred as a way of thanking gods for favors and thereby ensuring a productive working relationship based on mutual benefit. The assumption, of course, is that the gods derive some sort of pleasure and/or prestige from such dealings and are happy to grant more favors in exchange for more sacrifices. So it's definitely a two-way street, even though the gods occupy the superior position in the relationship.

Of course, mortals could and did receive these sorts of divine honors, as well. Since "god" was a job description and not a statement about a being's nature, it wasn't a big stretch for kings and emperors and the heads of households to be given worship as gods in exchange for their favor. Again, it's a two-way street (though obviously unequal), since the inferior party stands to gain favors, while the superior party gains prestige from said worship. In that sense, the gods are just particularly powerful patrons that can be persuaded to look out for their social inferiors in exchange for being honored and feasted. On the flip-side, a god who never gets honored or feasted in that way might as well not be a "god," since the function isn't being performed. A powerful being who never bestows favors consequently won't receive worship, since there's no reason for people to do so.

Quote from: Black FlagFrom the perspective of the ancient world (i.e. pre-Christianity and therefore pre-theology), "god" is really more like a job description rather than a statement about a given being's innate nature.

In Finnish, the word jumala was originally used for any being that had somehow come to possess enough mystical power, väki: it might have been a spirit of some sort, certainly, but just as easily a bear or a boulder or a blacksmith. In fact, the old term for the kind of a witch who dealt in the fertility of the land and those who lived on it was maajumala, "an earth god".

Quote from: One Horse TownSplit off from Dr.Rotwang's thread on designing pantheons, something occurred to me. A common theme in many pantheons (and games) is that the God's strength somehow depends on how many worshippers he has and that somehow these worshippers 'shape' the God, or at least his power in the divine realm, to some degree. It's a chicken and egg situation though really. Is an insignificant God that way because his portfolio (for want of a better word) is insignificant and therefore attracts fewer worshippers or is the fact that he has fewer worshippers keep his divine power low? If the God of Lost Artifacts suddenly got loads of worshippers, would he grow in power in the divine realm and if so, why? Seems to me that if you're divine, you shouldn't need to rely on piddly little mortals for your power. The flow should be in the other direction surely? The God gives power and shapes his worshippers. Forgotten Gods should be reminding mortals of their existence, not because they need more power, but because they should be worshipped. Sure, you have divine magic that is normally said to be granted by the Gods, but why stop there?

Is it a case of more believers = more divine power, a case of greater portfolio = more worshippers and thus more power, when it should really be a case of divine power = flow of power to followers and worshipping a God does not = a flow of power to that God?

Hi Dan:

In Book of Jalan, my one whack, unsuccessful whack at that, at designing a fantasy game, gods and mortals create a circuit. Everyone has some PSI energy, which could be measured as 0.235664 or 2.876155 or whatever, but it is only usable in inter-like breakpoints - i.e. 1 or 3 or 4 or whatever. WHen a god or pantheon is worshipped, the remnant PSI - the amount over the breakpoint - is transferred to the god. The god uses that power to create miracles of various sorts - i.e. an acute usage - as well as to do his or her job - i.e. a diffuse or chronic usage, and thus returning to the mortals as benefits they could not acheive on their own.

-clash

Quote from: Black FlagFrom the perspective of the ancient world (i.e. pre-Christianity and therefore pre-theology), "god" is really more like a job description rather than a statement about a given being's innate nature. For the most part, people weren't interested in what gods were made of or how they came to be that way, etc.

That true but....

Quote from: Black FlagThey were primarily interested in what they could do for them.

Then they thought gee what happen when Joe Bob my competitor asked X for the same thing I am asking Y. With X and Y being two gods with similar portfolios from different cultures.

One thing they like was to combine them saying "Oh they are really just one god in two aspects." Syncretism (sp?) I believe it was called. This was especially common after the time of Alexander. When a whole bunch of cultures came into contact.

The ancient thinkers went all kinds of ways on this. Some of the philosophical underpinnings of the great monotheistic religion used Greek Philosophy. Many philosophers looked at the religious situation and thought "This can't be how it is.

The Romans, practical as ever, viewed honoring their gods as honoring Rome itself. There was a family aspect as well to Roman worship as family was very important to the Romans. Worshiping the Emperor as a god was the result of the emperors being perceived as synominous with Rome itself.

One thing to remember is that about what you do about religion is what role morality plays in the equation. Are they just using the god. Do X get Y boon. Or the converse, Please X so Y doesn't happen. Or the god trying to get people to act in a certain way.

Finally unlike the real world the power of the Gods is very very overt. Cleric perform miracles on command, there been manifestations of dieties or their servants within living memory.

One variant could be the freedom fighter. The deities are real. He doesn't argue that. But he view their power over the races as a rule of a tyrant no matter how benign it is. Between the Rivers by Turtledove is a interesting book about this type of situation.

In RPGs, gods get power from worshipers because such gods are nothing more than the personification of a religion.