The main reason why ordinary priests should not be able to make wonderous miracles is because in the Medieval-Authentic period no one expected them to. Miracles were for saints, not parish priests or bishops or even the Pope. In fact, most people didn't even honestly expect them to be particularly holy.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058908In 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".

Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas

Edit - I'm not sure if "suspect to be untrue" is a typo or not, but that part makes no sense.

Quote from: EOTB;1058937Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas

Edit - I'm not sure if "suspect to be untrue" is a typo or not, but that part makes no sense.

Chapter 6.

THAT TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE TRUTHS OF FAITH IS NOT FOOLISHNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABOVE REASON

[1] Those who place their faith in this truth, however, "for which the human reason offers no experimental evidence," do not believe foolishly, as though "following artificial fables"
 (2 Peter 2:16). For these "secrets of divine Wisdom" (Job 11:6) the divine Wisdom itself, which knows all things to the full, has deigned to reveal to men. It reveals its own presence, as well as the truth of its teaching and inspiration, by fitting arguments; and in order to confirm those truths that exceed natural knowledge, it gives visible manifestation to works that surpass the ability of all nature. Thus, there are the wonderful cures of illnesses, there is the raising of the dead, and the wonderful immutation in the heavenly bodies; and what is more wonderful, there is the inspiration given to human minds, so that simple and untutored persons, filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, come to possess instantaneously the highest wisdom and the readiest eloquence. When these arguments were examined, through the efficacy of the abovementioned proof, and not the violent assault of arms or the promise of pleasure, and (what is most wonderful of all) in the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and most learned, flocked to the Christian faith. In this faith there are truths preached that surpass every human intellect; the pleasures of the flesh are curbed; it is taught that the things of the world should be spurned. Now, for the minds of mortal men to assent to these things is the greatest of miracles, just as it is a manifest work of divine inspiration that, spurning visible things, men should seek only what is invisible. Now, that this has happened neither without preparation nor by chance, but as a result of the disposition of God, is clear from the fact that through many pronouncements of the ancient prophets God had foretold that He would do this. The books of these prophets are held in veneration among us Christians, since they give witness to our faith.

[2] The manner of this confirmation is touched on by St. Paul: "Which," that is, human salvation, "having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed to us by them that hear Him: God also bearing them witness of signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 7:3-4).

[3] This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness of the signs given in the past; so that it is not necessary that they should be further repeated, since they appear most clearly in their effect. For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through His saints for the confirmation of the faith.

  --St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. 1, Ch. 6

I don't think my answer is in context to his comment - that's why I put up the edit.  I read it originally as if you "have no proof but suspect it to be true", and I pointed out a book that discusses believing in things we can't understand.  My earlier comment wasn't about people who "stayed the course" even if doubting (which I what I take out of Pundit's comment on a re-read).  

To recenter this on the idea of using spells and such to show true and false splinters or denominations, I'm suggesting that the sort of world Aquinas suggests above is maintained as a play background.  Of course he and his contemporaries believed, devoutly; but they believed while observing the rain falling on the heathen too.  I'd only choose a world where objective, testable game mechanics evidences a clear school of truth if I wanted to run a theocratic game where religion is both settled and prominent (I don't).  

On the other hand, rain falling on everyone means that - just as in our experience - all splinter religious issues remain available to be solved or leveraged in classically adventurer-able ways.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Wars can politically tilt a faith struggle, or relics and artifacts could answer points of division.  Likely most play is going to focus on more typical and familiar themes anyway than religion, even in a monotheistic campaign world; but some player groups might want to get involved.

I think I do want a game where the question is actually settled.  Just like it is in most fantasy RPGs that has polytheism.  A world that looks pretty much indistinguishable from a world with no god isn't far enough for me.  For my medieval world it's not enough for the explanations and world view to be represented authentically, but for it to be right.  

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356405 or http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/13/news/la-ln-fresno-tree-weep-tears-of-god-20130813
"Fresno - A small but growing group of devout Christians believes that a clear liquid dripping from a myrtle tree outside a central California cathedral are 'miracle tears of God.' "

In our world:
"But there is a far more likely-- and far less 'miraculous'-- explanation for the 'tears' being shed by the myrtle tree: bug poop.
Jon Reelhorn, an arborist, told CBS 47 that aphids, small sap-sucking insects, have been excreting the 'miracle tears' out their backsides.
"The aphids will suck the sap, the sap goes through the aphid," Reelhorn explained. "And then it is a honey dew excrement from the aphid, and it gets so heavy in the summer that it will drip down."
Reelhorn said he knows where there is another 'weeping' tree across the street from the first. "

In a world where the miraculous worldview is right, they are the tears of god and might heal or something.

If you're referring to me, that's not the question I'm talking about.

Schisms happen downstream from questions such as "does god exist".

If the reformed church of the spaghetti monster and the orthodox church of the spaghetti monster both get weeping trees of god tears that are the real thing, then neither have any leg up on their schism with other each other.  That has zero to do with whether or not the spaghetti monster exists, on which they both agree.

Quote from: NathanIW;1059030I think I do want a game where the question is actually settled.  Just like it is in most fantasy RPGs that has polytheism.  A world that looks pretty much indistinguishable from a world with no god isn't far enough for me.  For my medieval world it's not enough for the explanations and world view to be represented authentically, but for it to be right.  

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356405 or http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/13/news/la-ln-fresno-tree-weep-tears-of-god-20130813
"Fresno - A small but growing group of devout Christians believes that a clear liquid dripping from a myrtle tree outside a central California cathedral are 'miracle tears of God.' "

In our world:
"But there is a far more likely-- and far less 'miraculous'-- explanation for the 'tears' being shed by the myrtle tree: bug poop.
Jon Reelhorn, an arborist, told CBS 47 that aphids, small sap-sucking insects, have been excreting the 'miracle tears' out their backsides.
"The aphids will suck the sap, the sap goes through the aphid," Reelhorn explained. "And then it is a honey dew excrement from the aphid, and it gets so heavy in the summer that it will drip down."
Reelhorn said he knows where there is another 'weeping' tree across the street from the first. "

In a world where the miraculous worldview is right, they are the tears of god and might heal or something.

If the existence of god is settled, and the church has a direct line to him then where is the conflict? Just get on the horn and order up some wrath of god like some sort of uber-artillery strike to set the heathens straight.

I don't see how you can have something like the Crusades if one side is clearly right and the other is wrong. The side backed by a god with divine magic on tap will just roll over the other side.


Then again I've never quite understood the whole God and Satan thing being monotheism, seems like there is more than one deity in effect which kind of goes against the mono- part.

In that case a god that doesn't answer the central issue of the schism is pretty much indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.  Just for the purposes of settling that question.  Instead you have a god that is giving two opposed sides miracles that each can claim to be proof of them being correct.  That's a god of chaos.

Which is fine I guess.  I think that's a pretty weak monotheism though.  Where the specifics of the belief are functionally irrelevant because everyone gets miracles regardless.

Revelation is a miracle as well.  So if a god is giving healing tree tears miracles that are not just people mistaking insect poop for a miracle but then isn't doing any miraculous revelation, then what's going on?  Then the sect that says that the god is one of confusion, conflict and strife is the one with the right theology.

If you want a mysterious or unknowable single god in a fantasy game, that's not monotheism.  All our monotheisms in the real world have revelation as arguably the most important miracle.  The giving of the Tanak and the establishment of prophethood.  The recording of the revelation of the Koran.  The revelation of God in the person of Jesus.

No revelation of what is actually the truth?  Then the god is functionally irrelevant as a single god in a a setting that assumes its a real thing.

QuoteIf you want a mysterious or unknowable single god in a fantasy game, that's not monotheism.

Point of pedantry: Yes, it would be.  A single god is monotheism regardless of whether the deity is as unknowable as Crom or as hands-on as a helicopter parent on meth.  But monotheism is not a binary choice between perfect revelation and unknowable god.  

It's a lot of philosophy, but remember that the primary focus in any design choice is to create worlds of conflict for adventurers to do their thing with.  

It's not to write out a philosophical position that expresses how an author thinks things should be.  Whatever an author puts into a game product is judged only on the basis of if it provides exciting play opportunities.  

Perhaps a deity that answered all questions and provided settled truth and total theological unity would still provide exciting play opportunities, but my opinion is it would preclude others.  And in using a more perfect monotheism than any humanity could point to, would not meet that subconscious, archetypal familiarity that gives players an instinctive point of reference to interact with your campaign world upon.

But different strokes and all that.  It's not really been done all that much in RPGs, so let a thousand different types of monotheism bloom.

Quote from: NathanIW;1059060In that case a god that doesn't answer the central issue of the schism is pretty much indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.  Just for the purposes of settling that question.  Instead you have a god that is giving two opposed sides miracles that each can claim to be proof of them being correct.  That's a god of chaos.

Which is fine I guess.  I think that's a pretty weak monotheism though.  Where the specifics of the belief are functionally irrelevant because everyone gets miracles regardless.

Revelation is a miracle as well.  So if a god is giving healing tree tears miracles that are not just people mistaking insect poop for a miracle but then isn't doing any miraculous revelation, then what's going on?  Then the sect that says that the god is one of confusion, conflict and strife is the one with the right theology.

If you want a mysterious or unknowable single god in a fantasy game, that's not monotheism.  All our monotheisms in the real world have revelation as arguably the most important miracle.  The giving of the Tanak and the establishment of prophethood.  The recording of the revelation of the Koran.  The revelation of God in the person of Jesus.

No revelation of what is actually the truth?  Then the god is functionally irrelevant as a single god in a a setting that assumes its a real thing.

Sorry I'm just not following your train of thought here.

Monotheism includes revelation.  When people talk about monotheism, they don't mean some deism with a distant god or a mysterious energy force or anything like that.  Monotheism is when a religion has one god and the knowledge of that god and what it wants is revealed to humans.  Monotheism includes divine intervention.

No revelation of the god's nature or what it wants?  Not monotheism in anything other than an irrelevant technicality.

Monotheism in the five major world religions:

Spoiler

 
Judaism?  Yahweh reveals himself and his desires for how people are to live through Moses, commands on stone tablets, a larger body of law and then some more prophets and some writings and songs (collectively this revelation is the Tanakh)

Christianity?  God is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and his teachings are passed on by the apostles and their successors.

Islam?  Allah is revealed to the final prophet.  The Koran is dictated and recorded as the literal words of that god.

Sihkism?  The Creator and Divine Unity revealed itself to Guru Nanak and 9 successor gurus over the years, and the teachings are recorded in the Guru Granth Sahib.

Hindu Vaishnavism?  All the lesser gods and powers and even reality itself is part of The Supreme Lord.  The sages who wrote the Vedas, Upanishads and the Gita got divine inspiration from The Supreme Lord.  Furthermore The Supreme Lord has even manifested itself in human form as an Avatar ten times throughout history in order to teach things directly.

The panentheistic slant on some Hindu monotheism makes it a corner case, but I think the important element of specific revelation is still present and central to the faith.

Typically monotheistic gods are very concerned about human behavior and revealing truth.  Even to the point that followers might be forbidden from eating specific animals or doing certain activities on certain days.  Even specific words they are supposed to say during a rite are given.  Revelation is both central and specific.

If you have a bit of specific revelation but then the god refused to weigh in on larger matters, things just get silly.

Spoiler

"You know guys, I really hate it when you boil a baby goat in its mothers milk or when your clothes are made from mixed fabrics, but this huge international schism over My Law?  I'll just ignore that and keep letting both of your groups keep working miracles.  Going to cast Commune and actually get an answer?  Nope.  I'll stay silent.  Best of luck guys.  Remember, no picking up sticks on the day of rest or having sex during a woman's period.  I may have anointed individual people as prophets, priests and kings in the past, but I'm obviously too distant and mysterious to weigh in on something so trivial as a schism or potential religious war among my followers."

"Remember that apostle I had who was in jail?  He was so important to my plan that I caused an earthquake to knock the door down so he could escape prison.  And that married couple that sold land but then didn't donate all the proceeds to charity?  Yep.  I killed them.  Actually settle a huge doctrinal difference that is going to split the religion apart?  Nah... You guys.... c'mon..."

"Remember how I told Guru Singh that you must never go out in public without your head covered and how no hair on your body must ever be cut?  That you must have a sacred comb made of wood with which to brush your hair?  Settle a major doctrinal dispute that threatens to split the faith?  Surely you jest.

In D&D type fantasy a cleric can call on a thunder god or a god of the hunt and do actual magic.  Wounds actually close.  The undead flee or are even destroyed.  And if you displease that god, you can lose your spells (less so in recent versions of D&D) so if you apply that same paradigm to a monotheistic god, have it play the part.  Monotheistic gods care about their revelation to mortals and care about who is an approved authority on their wishes.  

Don't have the god be some sort of "unknown mystery that maybe has something to say but who really knows?" just because that more modern skeptical take on god is simply more familiar.  The pre-modern god of any monotheism has very specific ideas about how human society should be ordered.  

Run with it.

Quote from: EOTB;1058937Summa Contra Gentiles by Thomas Aquinas

Edit - I'm not sure if "suspect to be untrue" is a typo or not, but that part makes no sense.

Not a typo. In the modern world, 'faith' is largely defined as a struggle against one's own cynicism or disbelief or the absence-of-evidence.