TheRPGSite

Hey, I like it.  Why?  If all Clerics have access to all the Divine Spells anyway, then why not?


Doesn't bother me a bit.  It simplifies the game.  Some people believe in the Divine, while others do not.  Really devout believers may receive some perks in return for their devotion.  It doesn't hurt the game from my perspective to go Monotheistic, as opposed to having a diverse pantheon to choose from.  It's all still a Divine caster at work, doing what they do.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.  I'm a big boy.

If it's appropriate to the setting, sure why not?

I've played in a number of D&D, or related, games with monotheism and in fact I've played a cleric character of a monotheistic religion. It works perfectly well from everything that I have seen.

I once made a monotheist deity called the Leviathan, based on the seminal work by Thomas Hobbes. He was a big fan of law. And obedience. His clerics had a very Inquisitorial bent to them.

"Law" doesn't necessarily translate to "Nice"

...

I'm not certain how relevant that is to your post but I wanted to share

Just go for it.

It's actually become my default way of doing things for D&D.  One big catholic like Church - usually of a sun god.   Evil clerics get their powers from demons.  It means that you can have a religion that's better integrated into daily life and politics.

It makes more sense than the usual nonsensical mishmash of polytheism.

If PC clerics don't like it you can have them be a cleric of one of the old pagan gods.

Quote from: TJS;1057151Just go for it.

It's actually become my default way of doing things for D&D.  One big catholic like Church - usually of a sun god.   Evil clerics get their powers from demons.  It means that you can have a religion that's better integrated into daily life and politics.

It makes more sense than the usual nonsensical mishmash of polytheism.

If PC clerics don't like it you can have them be a cleric of one of the old pagan gods.

Yes, I do this quite commonly now, eg when running Gary Gygax's Yggsburgh. Medieval & Renaissance type settings tend to be more plausible with monotheism.
Wilderlands stays determinedly polytheistic, but even that has Mycr, the 'true God'.

I like polytheism for fantasy RPGs because of the rival gods / gods by alignment / pantheon issues BUT there is no reason why monotheism wouldn't work in a specific setting.

Decades ago, I ran what today would be called Eco-Fantasy. It was 2E D&D with no clerics, just druids as the only god was Nature, as the planet was sentient. Man was the work of nature, but magical creatures were abominations whose presence poisoned nature...thus, they had to be destroyed. I used a bunch of the 2e kits and tailored those as the only class choices to tighten the setting. It worked fine.

My homebrew is the medieval church with the serial #s filed off.  I've never thought polytheism was a good fit for D&D.

It's fine to me except -

Quote from: Razor 007;1057139Some people believe in the Divine, while others do not.

If people are actively using divine spell-casting - it's going to take a stubborn person to disbelieve in the divine power. Now - maybe they don't think that they're worth worshiping - but actual disbelief seems unlikely.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1057296If people are actively using divine spell-casting - it's going to take a stubborn person to disbelieve in the divine power. Now - maybe they don't think that they're worth worshiping - but actual disbelief seems unlikely.

I don't really see that when there are lots of other sorts of magic. Maybe belief in the divine empowers the caster, regardless of its existence? That's how I run it in my Wilderlands.

Quote from: Razor 007;1057139Thoughts and opinions welcome.  I'm a big boy.

So what happens if a players wants to play a character who is a samauri?

Yes it is a leading question with a point. Namely that in the long run your cosmology needs to account for the diversity of culture that will be present in a setting. Even if initially you are only focusing on a region the size of Gygax's Yggsburgh. Now if this a one off probably don't need to sweat it.

However for me, running the same fantasy setting for decades, this question is a major factor. The solution I adopted was that God exists, excepts he opted for the Majestic Wilderland not to directly manifest or send any type of revelation concerning him. Instead sent his servants (think archangels). Each having a different outlook on life and faith. While there is a limited number of these beings, their religions and what they teach is filtered differently for the various cultures. In the northern fjords there is a god Thor, god of thunder and patron of those who hunt monsters to defend their communities.  While in the southern plains there is the Sky Lord Mantriv hurling his thunderbolt and also patron of those who hunt monsters to defend their communities. The Skandian vikings worship the former and the nomadic horse riders Ionians worship the latter.

One can do that for a Monotheistic deity as well. Same god, but different cultures emphasizes different aspect of his philosophy and call him by a different name.

Sometimes small differences can serve the bedrock of the evolution of two different culture. For example Western Catholic Europe, and Eastern Orthodox Europe. For the former Latin was used widely for the latter Greek was used widely.

Plenty of room for different ways to run things.

The biggest issue I see with this in D&D is how can you have clerics of different alignment?!? There are some theological shenanigans that one can use to justify it - like the power coming from belief rather than the god directly. On the other hand, if you have clerics with opposing alignments and differing kits/circles, then what does it even mean for them all to be worshipping the same god? If there is this full variety, I think it's simpler to just have polytheism.

On the other hand, if one wants just one kind of cleric, then monotheism is the obvious answer.

In general, I think there's a lot of room for interesting stuff with religion in games - but it can be tricky to combine with a clerical magic system like D&D.

If you want monotheism, consider why the world has monotheism. Do the beliefs of the people stem from the god(s) or do the god(s) stem from the beliefs? If a singular monotheistic entity is all there is, then it needs to be vague and largely mysterious/unknowable otherwise there really shouldn't be scores of different species with radically different beliefs and attitudes. IOW, monotheism should impact just about everything in the game world.

Quote from: Azraele;1057143I once made a monotheist deity called the Leviathan, based on the seminal work by Thomas Hobbes. He was a big fan of law. And obedience. His clerics had a very Inquisitorial bent to them.

"Law" doesn't necessarily translate to "Nice"

...

I'm not certain how relevant that is to your post but I wanted to share

Was his name, "Dredd"?

Quote from: estar;1057300So what happens if a players wants to play a character who is a samauri?

You're extrapolating from the POV of the least-powerful entity in the equation in a bottom-up sort of thinking.  Not every culture has to be follow a god, and even if every culture either worshiped or merely acknowledged a monotheistic god, why would that preclude samurai?  From a top-down perspective (i.e., the god's POV) this doesn't have to matter all that much.

Quote from: jhkim;1057319The biggest issue I see with this in D&D is how can you have clerics of different alignment?!?

Why would a D&D monotheism be different from every other historical monotheism?  Which monotheism do you think resulted in all of its adherents solemnly approaching its mysteries from the exact same moral-ethical perspective?

My "white christ" knock-off, to steal from Poul Anderson somewhat, accepts worship from: all law; true neutral and neutral good; and chaotic good.  (This is not the same as saying all the people of those alignments, especially the more steps removed from Law or Good, give fealty to the white christ.)

Nothing wrong with a monotheistic setting. The one thing that you'll have to figure out is how all cultures came to know and believe in this one deity, since, historically, different people across the world have made up their own mythologies based on their social histories, perceived spiritual needs, etc.. Of course, they could all just have different names for it, and worship it in different ways, so it just seems like a different religion. Or some might worship something else which they think it the deity, but is in actuality a demon or other entity. Or worship something else which doesn't even exist and is really mythological, and they get no divine power from it.

Quote from: EOTB;1057326You're extrapolating from the POV of the least-powerful entity in the equation in a bottom-up sort of thinking.  Not every culture has to be follow a god, and even if every culture either worshiped or merely acknowledged a monotheistic god, why would that preclude samurai?  From a top-down perspective (i.e., the god's POV) this doesn't have to matter all that much.

Every human culture in history incorporated religion as part of their fabric. Note I specifically stated religion not a god. The culture that surround the worship of the divine. I am not saying it would preclude a samauri however it would raise questions about the religion of the culture that produce the samurai which was very different than the monotheism of a singular God.

Nor I stating any particular outcome. One choice could be that only the cultures that adopted religion of God is worshiping a divine deity that is real. The rest are just made up myths. Just as another choices is that only God exists but he appear in many forms to different cultures and speaks in many voices. Or that the "gods" of other religions are in reality either demons or powerful magical spirits but none of them have the power of God.

Hence

So what happens if a players wants to play a character who is a samauri?

Quote from: EOTB;1057326Why would a D&D monotheism be different from every other historical monotheism?

Divine spells that are not miraculous but a regular manifestation of God's power that other religions can only fake by disguising arcane spells as divine. Your main point, a monotheistic religion having priest and adherents of varying alignments, is fine. However the overall situation would have differences than historical monotheism. Especially as they edge towards their version of the Renaissance or better yet the 5th Century BC of Greece. Philosophers, mundane and religious, would reason out that there a quantifiable difference between one religion in particular and others.

Ignore alignment.  It was always one of D&Ds dumbest ideas.

If you don't want an interventionist god make clerical magic just a type of magic practiced by the church - Theurgy - powered by faith.  It's fundamentally just a different magical tradition to arcane magic or druidic magic.  Obviously the priests believe it is powered by their god - but members of other traditions don't have to see it that way.

Quote from: estar;1057353Every human culture in history incorporated religion as part of their fabric. Note I specifically stated religion not a god. The culture that surround the worship of the divine. I am not saying it would preclude a samauri however it would raise questions about the religion of the culture that produce the samurai which was very different than the monotheism of a singular God.

Nor I stating any particular outcome. One choice could be that only the cultures that adopted religion of God is worshiping a divine deity that is real. The rest are just made up myths. Just as another choices is that only God exists but he appear in many forms to different cultures and speaks in many voices. Or that the "gods" of other religions are in reality either demons or powerful magical spirits but none of them have the power of God.

Hence

So what happens if a players wants to play a character who is a samauri?

For my homebrew, they would play a samurai.  It has nothing to do with monotheism - samurai weren't religious warriors.  

To your larger question (I believe) of "how do the cultures whose religion(s) are different, and likely false, handle it when confronted with divine power?" the answer is: they either fight it, convert, or ignore unless compelled otherwise.  As you noted, a single deity doesn't mean there's global conformity, or even acknowledgement.  But there's only one cleric; others glorifying lesser supernatural entities are witch doctors or shaman (mechanically) with magic of an inferior sort.  

So the samurai might worship what they believe are ancestor spirits, as professed by their cultural priesthood (who have shaman powers).  They've likely never encountered a cleric in their lives.

This is a conflict seed.

Quote from: estar;1057354Divine spells that are not miraculous but a regular manifestation of God's power that other religions can only fake by disguising arcane spells as divine. Your main point, a monotheistic religion having priest and adherents of varying alignments, is fine. However the overall situation would have differences than historical monotheism. Especially as they edge towards their version of the Renaissance or better yet the 5th Century BC of Greece. Philosophers, mundane and religious, would reason out that there a quantifiable difference between one religion in particular and others.

First, you presume geographical overlap that allows wise philosophers to compare alternatives.  Second - you are aware of Paul's discussions with the philosophers at Athens, correct?  It didn't result in a new monotheism sweeping aside their ancient beliefs, and this is (according to the materials) with miracles performed throughout the ancient world at the same time.

Last, I think you overestimate how willing people are to turn aside from the traditions of their ancestors (and the entire structure their existing society is built upon), even to gain a new magic accomplishing wonders your own objectively can not.  Again, look at the Broken Sword and similar books.  The conflict is archetypal - "go out unto all the world, etc.".  I'm not breaking new ground here...unlike TSR, I simply chose not to turn away from source material to duct-tape ancient Greece's religious structure on to an old testament emulator.   It's more cohesive to keep the latter than the former, and I don't care if an old lady in the midwest will tut-tut me for it - which is the real reason for polytheism in D&D.

Quote from: estar;1057354Divine spells that are not miraculous but a regular manifestation of God's power that other religions can only fake by disguising arcane spells as divine. Your main point, a monotheistic religion having priest and adherents of varying alignments, is fine. However the overall situation would have differences than historical monotheism. Especially as they edge towards their version of the Renaissance or better yet the 5th Century BC of Greece. Philosophers, mundane and religious, would reason out that there a quantifiable difference between one religion in particular and others.

That depends on whether you see individuals with divine character classes as being village priests (i.e. one in every village) or once-in-a-lifetime miracle workers (i.e. only a handful in the world at any one time with most church officials being as devoid of miracle working ability as they are in the real world (i.e. at best so subtle it'd be written off as coincidence/taken on faith).

For that matter, maybe clerics aren't even 'divine' in the setting being created, but just a specialized type of arcane caster, so the only signs of any God or gods one way or the other are events that might be attributed to wild coincidences by unbelievers.

Quote from: estar;1057353So what happens if a players wants to play a character who is a samauri?

Well I would say:

"This setting is based on medieval Europe. No Samurai. You can play a Nerian (LG African Monotheist culture) if you want to get exotic." :)

Quote from: Razor 007;1057139Hey, I like it.  Why?  If all Clerics have access to all the Divine Spells anyway, then why not?


Doesn't bother me a bit.  It simplifies the game.  Some people believe in the Divine, while others do not.  Really devout believers may receive some perks in return for their devotion.  It doesn't hurt the game from my perspective to go Monotheistic, as opposed to having a diverse pantheon to choose from.  It's all still a Divine caster at work, doing what they do.

Thoughts and opinions welcome.  I'm a big boy.

In Dark Albion/Lion & Dragon, Monotheism is a given.

You can't call any fantasy setting a real "Medieval European fantasy setting" if isn't monotheistic.

I've come around on this and now see monotheism as the way forward for my campaign.  I didn't want to do any retconning or a hard reset, so I've been having the existing "gods" be exposed as demons, killed or otherwise removed from power.  With the miracles of those who serve the one god and follow the teachings of that beings avatars being the only real divine magic.

Clerics are not popular at all in my gaming group so it hasn't been an issue with any character.  There's one monk who's very religious, but his ascended master was an avatar of the one, so that player is already totally on board.

Quote from: NathanIW;1057776I've come around on this and now see monotheism as the way forward for my campaign.  I didn't want to do any retconning or a hard reset, so I've been having the existing "gods" be exposed as demons, killed or otherwise removed from power.  With the miracles of those who serve the one god and follow the teachings of that beings avatars being the only real divine magic.

Clerics are not popular at all in my gaming group so it hasn't been an issue with any character.  There's one monk who's very religious, but his ascended master was an avatar of the one, so that player is already totally on board.

Very deep down in my Wilderlands there is a creeping sense that "The One God Comes, to Chase Out the Many Gods" - that Mycr is more real and has greater power than all the other 'gods'. I like the Late Antiquity feel. But it seems unlikely to come to fruition within the scope of the campaign, even if that's the rest of my life. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1057778Very deep down in my Wilderlands there is a creeping sense that "The One God Comes, to Chase Out the Many Gods" - that Mycr is more real and has greater power than all the other 'gods'. I like the Late Antiquity feel. But it seems unlikely to come to fruition within the scope of the campaign, even if that's the rest of my life. :)

I like your idea of Mycr going from a polytheistic god through henotheism to total monotheism.  Even if it's in the background or happening very slowly.

I'm not as patient as you :D  I'm making it happen very rapidly.  The player characters just happen to be living in interesting times.

I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  

So Red Team/Blue Team stuff? It gets messy whether your god is a deity or a nation, but that's only because the other side is totally wrong about everything. Now, if the god directly communicates its true feelings/intentions in an unambiguous manner then one side really is going to be correct (or at least more correct), so that changes things.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yes, this is all good to include.  The one thing monotheism shouldn't include in an RPG game, is monotheism as a cloud oracle micromanaging things and clearly separating truth from fiction.  RPG Monotheism shouldn't be finally having the perfect sky-parent who helicopters in and makes everything right whenever the kids can't arrive at the same truth/solution.

The deity might require the faithful to accomplish something X so that a new era can commence.  If the faithful can't achieve X, the new promised era can't work because they're not ready.  Everyone agrees that X hasn't happened yet, but argue if that means that the traditional church is being kneecapped by the splinters, or if the splinters are correct and the corruption of the traditional church is what's holding up the future.  Everyone gets spells so no clear divine (dis)favor is established.  One conceptual anchor of most monotheisms is the striving required by its adherents - it's what separates them from simple mystery cults, and the more transactional approach of polytheists.  

It can all be a opaque to the players.  I know many DMs like to have this all buttoned up in advance, but it doesn't need to be conceptually tucked in.  As DM, you're trying to create explosive status quos that the PCs can take over the edge into a resolution of one type or another.  RPG monotheism should offer no more solutions or certainties than polytheism or it's less useful as an RPG conceit.

Quote from: EOTB;1057962Yes, this is all good to include.  The one thing monotheism shouldn't include in an RPG game, is monotheism as a cloud oracle micromanaging things and clearly separating truth from fiction.  RPG Monotheism shouldn't be finally having the perfect sky-parent who helicopters in and makes everything right whenever the kids can't arrive at the same truth/solution.

The deity might require the faithful to accomplish something X so that a new era can commence.  If the faithful can't achieve X, the new promised era can't work because they're not ready.  Everyone agrees that X hasn't happened yet, but argue if that means that the traditional church is being kneecapped by the splinters, or if the splinters are correct and the corruption of the traditional church is what's holding up the future.  Everyone gets spells so no clear divine (dis)favor is established.  One conceptual anchor of most monotheisms is the striving required by its adherents - it's what separates them from simple mystery cults, and the more transactional approach of polytheists.  

It can all be a opaque to the players.  I know many DMs like to have this all buttoned up in advance, but it doesn't need to be conceptually tucked in.  As DM, you're trying to create explosive status quos that the PCs can take over the edge into a resolution of one type or another.  RPG monotheism should offer no more solutions or certainties than polytheism or it's less useful as an RPG conceit.

This reminds me of the Star Trek episode Who Mourns for Adonais? where they meet the Greek god Apollo (or at least an alien claiming to be). Apollo really just needed worshipers, so he probably wouldn't get too hung up on how various splinter factions honored him, so long as it means more worship (and power) for him. This of course assumes some actual conscious divine power transfer rather than it being incidental.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Splits?  Different Interpretations of Doctrine, or differing opinions regarding which holy writings are to be officially recognized.

Quote from: Razor 007;1058019Splits?  Different Interpretations of Doctrine, or differing opinions regarding which holy writings are to be officially recognized.

I don't understand, is this a question, a comment, a rebuttal?


Yes to both, but differing opinions sounds pretty tame until you consider these differences were enough in some cases to accuse followers of heresy, result in ex-communication and in a few cases led to holy wars against others for "doing it wrong".

That is where I was going with this, ideas for handling these differences of opinion within a monotheistic setting.


Now personally, I kind of like the idea that "god" (whichever that may be) is not too closely involved and just kind of puts his stamp of approval on any of the religions that are sending the faith of their worshipers in his direction.

Using this theory of devineness (spell check tells me this isn't a word :o ), it could even be used to explain more dramatic differences such as that between the Christian and Islamic faiths which share some common history, but draw some very different conclusions. Taken to extremes this could even be expanded to explain the divine powers of many polytheistic faiths (god & angels interpreted as many gods). Perhaps polytheism evolved to monotheism as one deity gained power over the others leading to the weakening of the older Egyptian, Greek, Norse etc polytheistic pantheons as power was withdrawn from them and given to the monotheistic faiths that directed the energy of their followers to the one lead deity.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There's no reason you couldn't have a Schism in monotheism, if you're using something like Lion & Dragon. The division could be over some very fine points of doctrine, and over administration (who's the boss), and 'schismatics' are not the same as 'heretics'.

It might be possible for Clerics not to receive any clear answer from God as to who was right.

Quote from: EOTB;1057962Yes, this is all good to include.  The one thing monotheism shouldn't include in an RPG game, is monotheism as a cloud oracle micromanaging things and clearly separating truth from fiction.  RPG Monotheism shouldn't be finally having the perfect sky-parent who helicopters in and makes everything right whenever the kids can't arrive at the same truth/solution.

The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

And then the clerics that agree with the non miracle working administration are posthumously declared Doctors of the Church.  The ones that don't are only ever talked about for their great deeds and not their beliefs and teaching.  While they are alive, the Church is very conciliatory with them about differences, knowing that the disagreement is only temporal while the Church is eternal.  Their differences are always framed as an ongoing conversation and never anything like opposition.

There's also the possibility that miracle working and the presence of real magic and demons will be sufficient validation of the Church's teachings to make actual splits almost never happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058500The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

I agree that not all churchmen are clerics; in fact, most won't be.  I don't put a hard line separating them from the administrative hierarchy (a cleric is eligible for the office of Patriarch), but their class powers give them no additional sway.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058500The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

I 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.

Quote from: NathanIW;1058530And then the clerics that agree with the non miracle working administration are posthumously declared Doctors of the Church.  The ones that don't are only ever talked about for their great deeds and not their beliefs and teaching.  While they are alive, the Church is very conciliatory with them about differences, knowing that the disagreement is only temporal while the Church is eternal.  Their differences are always framed as an ongoing conversation and never anything like opposition.

There's also the possibility that miracle working and the presence of real magic and demons will be sufficient validation of the Church's teachings to make actual splits almost never happen.

Or exacerbate them. The split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox was as much political posturing between the leaders as legitimate religious disagreement. The rank and file considered the whole thing academic until Rome sent armies against Constantinople.

Good point though actual magic would definitely change things, but just because the actual power comes from the same source, that wouldn't keep people from claiming otherwise out of ignorance or for personal gain. Pretty easy to claim the other guys power is fueled by demons trying to trick true believers. People still run the church and people can be real bastards.

re: 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.

Personally, I think in such a setting spellcasting clerics work best as those 1-in-a-million wonder working Saints that people hear stories of, but only those in close physical proximity ever get to meet.

Historically those actually reputed to be wonder workers tended to so focused on their mission from God (saving souls, healing the sick, driving out demons, etc.) that they just don't get involved in whatever politics are going on (i.e. it's a distraction from God's work) and after they die every faction claims they were a member of their sect.

Wonder working saints also seem to get their actual call to work miracles via some personal vision of God separate from any sort ordination to Holy Orders (some are priests, brothers or sisters who recieve a vision, others have visions and then become priests, brothers or sisters, still others never join a Holy Order at all).

From a game mechanics perspective this sidesteps a lot of the "which sect is right" issue because God uses whomever God wills regardless of their current station and their mission as God's agent in the world rarely concerns itself with the temporal power structure one way or another (i.e. God doesn't say "only cure the faithful of X sect" it's "cure the sick wherever you find them").

Heck, the Bible says you don't even have to be a believer yourself to be chosen by God to fulfill His ends (ex. King Cyrus). Imagine those figures as clerics whose spells are less overt healing and such, but effects like bless upon their forces or divinations that provide the proper course to take; allowing success where none seemed possible because God was using them for His ends.

I would just let every consecrated priest cast spells. In case of extreme schism the other side might claim your spells really come from Satan - but who's to say what the truth is?

Quote from: S'mon;1058558I would just let every consecrated priest cast spells. In case of extreme schism the other side might claim your spells really come from Satan - but who's to say what the truth is?

I would go different ways depending on the direction and/or feel of the campaign. I think there's certainly room to handle this different ways.

The one thing I would say is that I think it will make a significant difference to how play goes. If clerics (and maybe paladins too?) aren't restricted to a particular code of behavior or alignment, then it would be a big difference from if they need to stick to their religious code or lose their powers. It'll definitely change the tone.

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.

I 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.

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.

I think we're using the same word ("faith") to mean different things.  You're presenting scenarios where its reasonable to infer dis/favor based upon the acts one side can do that another can't.  That's the opposite of what I'm talking about, and would insert a dynamic I'm trying to avoid.  

But that's me, only.

For 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.

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 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/252696/RPGPundit-Presents-46-Courtiers-Priests-Sages--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".

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.