TheRPGSite

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jealous gods.

I've never really understood this argument/problem.

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

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

You see something similar with saints in the Catholic Church.

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

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

I think the cleric works fine as it is. Consider your Greek or Roman who might propitiate any number of gods, including "bad" ones - often to appease them to leave you alone or not to plague them. The cleric works just fine as a "favored" of an individual god, who would respect all gods of the collective faiths, but would have special knowledge and favor of an individual god.

I am not very interested in religion and mostly handwave it with standard DnD stereotypes.  Players whose PC is a member of a church is free to make up their own tenants if they like.  Nobody has ever done much.  The cleric of Bahamut in the game I ran today has not cared much beyond declaring that the Earth Dragon cult of the Slavers is a corrupted abomination of dragon worship that must be annihilated.

I don't see how the cleric class requires or implies monotheism. Maybe I missed that one.

Clerics are the champions of a god, who may belong to a related pantheon and the clerics relationship to his rival clerics usually mirrors the relationship of the rival gods.

AKA, in my Mazes & Minotaurs game, the priests and their temples are both allied and rivals, mirroring the machinations of their gods in Olympus.

Quote from: Spinachcat;824031I don't see how the cleric class requires or implies monotheism. Maybe I missed that one.

Its kind of baked into the vanilla spell selection where all good clerics got one set of spells and all evil clerics got a different (in some cases mirror imaged) set of spells. The lack of variety in spell choice by religion in a number of versions of D&D could be considered to imply a setting that is not pantheistic. I think the reversal of some spells and titles for Chaotic/Evil clerics would seem to better support a dualistic religion where there is a struggle between good and evil than a monotheistic religion. Something like Persian Manichaeism.

When I ran D&D I used pantheistic, pagan religions with pantheons and clerics as priests of a specific deity in the pantheon with some minor variation in spells by deity. Because that made more sense to me than the vanilla all good clerics get the same exact spell list. Then I moved on to Runequest which already had spells by deity and pantheons already worked up.

Option 1: drop the cleric and add its spells to MUs. My preferred one.

Option 2: drop the assumption that they are clerics of particular gods and make them clerics of the pantheon. The individual spells would then be prayers to/blessings from individual gods within the pantheon. The monotheistic equivalent would be prayers to saints/angels/etc. Religious conflicts in this case would be between pantheons, or between gods and demons/devils/daemons/cthonians/etc.

Option 3: customize the spell lists by deity served.

Option 4: go monotheistic.

Quote from: Bren;824048Its kind of baked into the vanilla spell selection where all good clerics got one set of spells and all evil clerics got a different (in some cases mirror imaged) set of spells.

I'd love to hear Old Geezer's take on this issue.

Someone call forth the Geezer!!!

Quote from: Bren;824048The lack of variety in spell choice by religion in a number of versions of D&D could be considered to imply a setting that is not pantheistic.

I can see that. D&D 2e introduced Domains which did somewhat differentiate clerics and gods. I missed that in 4e and I had hoped 5e clerics would be much more defined by their gods than we have seen.

The problem of course is that some gods have "better" spells than others, leading to min-maxing.

Looking at the RAW, I see what you mean. It's just been so long for me since I didn't differentiate spell lists by gods in my OD&D settings.

Quote from: Bren;824048I think the reversal of some spells and titles for Chaotic/Evil clerics would seem to better support a dualistic religion where there is a struggle between good and evil than a monotheistic religion. Something like Persian Manichaeism.

That's an interesting idea.

I think you have to say Old Geezer's name three times in the dark over burning copies of the 4th edition core books to summon him.

Besides that I often just end up axing the cleric and rolling the relevant spells in the M-U list and making the cleric a background or something. However I like the idea of a dedicated divine caster, I'm just not sure I like it as written.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999However D&D seems to include it's own particular pitfall on this issue, the Cleric. The cleric as a class, particularly in older editions but still to a degree in 5th, seems to assume a monotheistic pseudo-Christian religion. I don't think we have to go into how because it seems to be fairly well established.

I am aware of the elements of the cleric that are grounded in the Christianity of Western Europe. But the class never felt to beholden to a pseudo-Christian religion to me. If anything that more a problem of the implicit society setup by each edition rather than the class itself.

And ever since 2nd edition AD&D, the referee has had the option of tailoring the cleric to a particular religion. Spheres, Domains, etc.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999How do you reconcile an apparently polytheistic world with the chief religious class implying monotheism? An easy out, that I'm considering for a setting I'm working on at the moment, is monolatry. Namely that the culture the PC's are likely to come from acknowledges many gods but exclusively worships one.

I heard it called Henothesism. Perhaps the Pundit can resolve that one as it is his real life specialty.

Honestly tho, get my Majestic Wilderlands. I ran the campaign for 30 years and dealt with the same questions you are asking. You can see how I resolved.

The short version?

Since multiple religions gain very obvious supernatural powers i.e. divine spells, henotheism is almost universal through all the cultures of my Majestic Wilderlands. All gods are rea, but your own cultures gods are the special ones you worship.

Some culture worship one deity specifically. But most have a specific pantheon they worship. The most similar thing in our own history is situation with religion in the 1st century BC.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999Another thing issue that can arise is reconciling the polytheism of most game worlds. What should it actually look like when you really do have a multitude of gods actively involved? This of course is influenced by just how active you assume the gods to be in your world and how they interact with it.

It depends on your cosmology. In mine there are only ten major deities but they have many faces. The Skandian Vikings worship Thor the Thunderer along with his wife Sif. The Ionian Horse Barbarians worship Mantriv the Skylord and his wife Dannu, the Lady of Plenty. Thor and Mantriv, Sif and Dannu are the same being. If you compared how the Skandian worship the pair to the how the Ionian do you will find many fundamental similarities but their are also many specific differences. Most of which are a result of the two culture having different histories and living in very different environments.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999How do the gods interact with one another? How does that effect the game world? How would one establish a position of doubt in such a world, if that were even possible?

The way I handle it is that the gods (good, neutral, or evil) operate through faith, signs, and portents. They allow the grant of divine spells and powers (like paladins). But they don't interfere with free will. The bulk of their involvement is guidances to how to live life and it is done through their priesthood i.e. the clerics.

However when it comes to supernatural menaces (like demons, etc) they are allowed to intervene more directly hence Rangers, Paladins, and Warlocks.

Quote from: Arkansan;823999Thoughts? How do you typically handle these questions? What particular issues do you have? Interesting solutions? Think it's all a non issue and it would be much better just to shut the fuck up and roll the dice?

You resolve by describing your setting in natural languages and then figure out how to apply the rules. And if the rules don't do what you want, you add stuff. If the game gets too bent out of shape, you find another game that your group will play and that fits better with what you are trying to do.

However with D&D, it not that hard. It is a little work. If you want to see an example get my Majestic Wilderlands.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/68864/The-Majestic-Wilderlands?term=majestic+wilde

If want to read about how this stuff goes down in my campaign you can read these posts by one of my players. This players is in the thick of religion as he is a paladin of the High Lord Veritas, the God of Truth.

http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/search/label/Majestic%20Wilderlands

Quote from: Spinachcat;824054I'd love to hear Old Geezer's take on this issue.

Someone call forth the Geezer!!!

A proper summoning requires the offering of beer...or some other offering that you don't want to know about...you know, I suggest you just offer up the beer.

QuoteThe problem of course is that some gods have "better" spells than others, leading to min-maxing.

I wouldn't expect that all gods would make equally useful choices for worship. And that lack of equality would go double if we are looking at usefulness for some sort of adventurers. The goddess of grain is really important to the tribe or nation, critically important for the farmers, but not much use at all to a wandering tomb robber. Rather than a problem with diversity of spells by religion, I see that as an advantage. And I would expect most players would select from a "useful" set of deities for the type of play or the type of adventures the group intends on having.

QuoteLooking at the RAW, I see what you mean. It's just been so long for me since I didn't differentiate spell lists by gods in my OD&D settings.

Yeah, differentiation has always made more sense to me. It is one of the things nearly all DMs I knew included way back in the day.

QuoteThat's an interesting idea.

Obviously not original, but it is kind of cool and it is a bit different than the monotheistic view point that most people who play RPGs grew up with. So it seems strange without being quite as alien as real pantheistic religions are to most of us. And it plays into the good vs. evil dichotomy we see in some fiction and some RPG settings.

Estar I will check out the Majestic Wilderlands, I've eyeballed getting it for a while now anyway.  On Henotheism vs Monolatry, Monolatry more asserts that there are other gods but that your god is even more powerful and relevant than the other who are likely to be derided. Henotheism is a simple acknowledgment of others while chiefly worshiping only one. Well, that's my understanding anyway.

Bren I rather like the idea of a dualistic monotheism for a game world. It would make a lot of these issues non-issues and is different enough from the standard approach to be interesting. It would take a little bit of work to explain the multiple player races in this context but no more than coming up with separate gods for them.

Quote from: Arkansan;824058Estar I will check out the Majestic Wilderlands, I've eyeballed getting it for a while now anyway.  On Henotheism vs Monolatry, Monolatry more asserts that there are other gods but that your god is even more powerful and relevant than the other who are likely to be derided. Henotheism is a simple acknowledgment of others while chiefly worshiping only one. Well, that's my understanding anyway.

Ah I see, learn something new everyday. I think you will find the Majestic Wilderlands informative. I try to explain why I do what I do at various points. And I try show how things work via classes and rules rather than just rely on a wall of text in the setting section.

Quote from: Spinachcat;824031I don't see how the cleric class requires or implies monotheism. Maybe I missed that one.

People confuse pseudo-Christian with monotheistic.

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

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

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

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

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

Good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteI think you misunderstan the older polytheistic conflicts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You see something similar with saints in the Catholic Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is one of the reasons I love Runequest with its cult system. The same character can be a Mithraic initiate, an acolyte of the Eleusian Mysteries and a high priest of Mars.

Quote from: The Butcher;824632This is one of the reasons I love Runequest with its cult system. The same character can be a Mithraic initiate, an acolyte of the Eleusian Mysteries and a high priest of Mars.

Yes, RQ's more accurate (from the POV of what humans with pantheistic world views actually do in the real world) religions is one of the major reasons I switched from D&D to Runequest way back when. The cult write ups are huge improvements from the way D&D handles religions.

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

Well, sure.  I'm not saying that this is terrible or something, a lot of settings don't need that much detail for these things.  But it also means that it can be done different, if someone worries more about these social-studies details about the setting than about carefully classing different types of pole-arms.  Neither is itself bad.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824780Well, sure.  I'm not saying that this is terrible or something, a lot of settings don't need that much detail for these things.  But it also means that it can be done different, if someone worries more about these social-studies details about the setting than about carefully classing different types of pole-arms.  Neither is itself bad.

Poor Gary. Its too late now for him to live that one down. That huge pole arms table in the Strategic Review seemed pretty whacked to my teenage self. And it hasn't improved with age either.

Runequest did a much, much better job with the pantheist religions. Actually of late, Glorantha has gone way too far in the direction of everything is subjective and in flux for the new mythology to be useful to me as a GM. So I want something in between that and D&D.

I don't have a big issue with clerics as written, but I also don't think that the one-god cleric is a necessary simplification.

I think it would be pretty easy to do pantheist clerics (or clerics of other different traditions) that are just as simple. I'd be interested to see this as an option, actually.

Henotheism and monolatry is still under pantheism, people. Do look them up. Everyone singing kumbaya is not the only form of behavior regarding a pantheon. The D&D Forgotten Realms style pantheism is not a modern anomalous creation.

Quote from: Opaopajr;824867Henotheism and monolatry is still under pantheism,

Don't know what your point is, since no, those are not "under pantheism". Pantheism is a very specific, usually philosophical, approach to religious belief.

Quote from: Opaopajr;824867Henotheism and monolatry is still under pantheism, people. Do look them up.

  Polytheism, not pantheism. The two are different things. :)

  On the general point, I'd rather lose the polytheism than the traditional cleric, but I find myself growing more and more attracted to a different form of 'old school inspiration'--the folklore and fairy tales, Arthurian and Carolingian legends, and Hollywood movies that inspired D&D alongside the Sword & Sorcery pulps and novels. The OSR seems to strongly favor the latter, but I think there's something to be done with the former. :)

  I do think conflating 'cleric' with 'priest' to the point of identity was a mistake; I'm not sure if it started with D&DG or Dragonlance.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;824971I do think conflating 'cleric' with 'priest' to the point of identity was a mistake; I'm not sure if it started with D&DG or Dragonlance.

I don't know what you mean by conflating cleric and priest. Could you clarify please?

Quote from: Bren;824973I don't know what you mean by conflating cleric and priest. Could you clarify please?

  All clerics (character class) are priests (role in the gameworld) and vice versa.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;824974All clerics (character class) are priests (role in the gameworld) and vice versa.

Whereas in the real world all priests are clerics but not all clerics are priests.

Follow up question: Is your desire to have or to allow the priest role in the game world include characters who are not clerics and thus presumably to have priests who do not have the powers (particularly spell powers) of the cleric class?

I've always just tailored a cleric to suit his religion/deity. Never cared for the pseudo-Christian assumptions inherent in the cleric and paladin. Lately my games have been set in a pastiche of the Balkans/Anatolia/Middle East and have had versions of Islam and Zoroastrian stuff for the religions. never found it hard to modify a class to suit my setting.

Quote from: talysman;824969Don't know what your point is, since no, those are not "under pantheism". Pantheism is a very specific, usually philosophical, approach to religious belief.

D'oh, brain fart. Thought we were staying on the OP.

Quote from: Bren;825019Whereas in the real world all priests are clerics but not all clerics are priests.

Follow up question: Is your desire to have or to allow the priest role in the game world include characters who are not clerics and thus presumably to have priests who do not have the powers (particularly spell powers) of the cleric class?

For me, that's how I do it.

The priests who officiate weekly at the temple, the religious beauocracy, and the village vicar are usually not "clerics" blessed with divine abilities. Those who specifically step up and are willing to directly serve and are chosen are invested with power.

The general priesthood, however, is tasked with the societal issues and the beaurocracy. These things are of no interest to adventurers. However, it is a place that people retire to, so the officiant of the seasonal and high holy days are usually classed clerics. RuneQuest informed my thinking on this quite a bit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824540Now, if you were a priest, you'd be a priest of a specific temple, which was (almost always) a temple to just one god. But even you wouldn't just worship that one god. You'd only be able to perform the rites of that god and have a particularly special relationship with them.

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

I'll take this in a slightly different direction. Your post was solid. But in game terms, I think there is a consistency that is finally being established/realized with the Cleric that started in 2e with the Specialty Priest.

In reference to the idea that strictly speaking - a "pantheon" is a cultural group of gods, that in a culture wasn't this edifice of solid understanding - is true.

The average person looked at the world phenomenologically - You wake up, you have your daily survival checklist (at whatever sociological stage your culture inhabits) - then shit happens. The "Gods" were the beings that oversaw these phenomenon and each culture projected their views on them. But that doesn't mean the gods worked in this unified understanding throughout the culture. If you were a viking from Sweden, you honored all the Gods on some level, but most especially the God that oversaw whatever endeavor you're pursuing. Horus was another such god. He and his father Re were believed to be different, related, and later the same being within the same culture.

Same is generally true about other pantheons.

Heck - even in Monotheism, Christianity wasn't codified until the Nicene Council almost 400 years after Christ. The Bible didn't even exist until Constantine forced the issue because all these Bishoprics used different books to teach the Gospel(s). That editorial jam-session gave us the New Testament. So even here, we see that the culture of monotheism isn't always uniform in their understanding (still isn't. Hello! all you other denominations!)

So in game-terms we have one BIG difference...

The Gods are Real. At least by implication of the game conceits. YMMV depending on the GM and how they want their fantasy world to operate of course.

But Forgotten Realms? Greyhawk?
Yep - These fuckers are real. They move. They do shit. They plot. They use mortals as their pawns. They're very much like the Greek Gods of old. But due to the analogous nature of kitchen-sink worlds the demarcation line over a God's influence is culture and domain.

So where does the Cleric come in? Back to my original claim - the 1e Cleric does assume a kind of a 1-on-1 relationship between Cleric and Deity. The natural fit for that class was obviously in the Church of that Deity. Sure. But if we're to assume that each God has its own worshippers - then the problem of all these Gods giving their Clerics the same powers and spells (at least RAW) became head-scratching moments.

Further complicating the matter was the conception of competing Pantheons. This is especially true of Forgotten Realms - where the syncretic nature of its "pantheon" comprised gods from different cultures and a handful of new deities. THEN it added entire pantheons from other cultures are separate Pantheons entirely - The Egyptian gods of Mulhorand, and the Celestial Bureaucracy of Kara-Tur. And representative of the God's and their own divine politics was this singular class?

Yeah - I remember in my own games as far back as the early 80's I was segregating spells off. No way Eldath is granting Unholy Word to her Clerics! But when 2e came out - they created the Specialty Priest as an option. I immediately said - Cleric class doesn't exist. Only Specialty Priests do.

This further made Clerics more specific to the Gods they supported. In my own games the Specialty Priests were the direct agents of those Gods and the spheres of influence their Gods controlled. More importantly - that "domain" was constantly in competition by other Gods who rubbed up against those areas of control. This promoted a lot of pro-activity on the parts of these priesthoods.

This idea kinda lost some ground, but not entirely, in 3e.... but the demarcation was there in the form of Domains.

The big revelation for me (and I still secretly think it's the best Cleric mechanic out there) - was Fantasy Craft. In Fantasy Craft the "Cleric" is the holy man touched by the Gods. You perform miracles within the context of the Domain - but you weren't mechanically a Wizard with the name Cleric painted over it. The concept is powerful - it hearkened back to the Abrahamic concept that anyone could become a Cleric - a direct agent of that god. A miracle worker. Even in a world of competing faiths - and was not Abraham in that boat? The irony brought up in religious debates all the time is that Yahweh didn't really become a monotheistic religion until all the other religions were run out of town. It's just that the enforcement of the idea they are the ONE TRUE religion becomes enshrined as a metaphysical fact. This is not something done in RPGs - though it would be interesting if it would happen...

 now... in 5e they take an even more DIRECT and intimate stance: The Cleric is not just a divine conduit, but it is exempt from the religion itself, much like Fantasy Craft in concept - but not mechanics. Clerics are in direct contact and therefore are agents of the Gods, potentially free of the religions themselves (through that would be extremely rare in my games). Run of the mill Priests have no clerical ability.

So how do you reconcile these ideas? Easy. It's already done for you. You just have to decide to what degree do the Gods tolerate one another, and to what degree to they meddle in the affairs of mortals. Flavor to your tastes by emphasis on what you deem important.

This was what I was getting at. In older editions we ostensibly had support for polytheistic religions but the cleric class a presented had a specific spell list that presented set assumptions about the kind of god that provided them. I actually think 5th edition has my favorite presentation of the class so far, we get support for various domains that allow for more individualization of each cleric as suited to their preferred deity.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;824971I do think conflating 'cleric' with 'priest' to the point of identity was a mistake; I'm not sure if it started with D&DG or Dragonlance.

I've felt the same way for some time now. I dare say it may have started with Supplement I: Greyhawk which featured a "holy warrior" class (the Paladin) separate, and more "martial" than the Cleric.

To the best of my understanding, Clerics were originally inspired in equal measures by Medieval knightly orders associated with the Roman Catholic Church and manned by ordained, monastic soldier-priests (like Templars, Hospitallers or Teutonic Knights) and undead hunters (mostly inspired by Peter Cushing's recurring incarnations of Van Helsing, ever opposing Christopher Lee's Dracula, in the old Hammer movies), with a side order o Abrahamic miracle-working by way of a spell list cribbed from Biblical miracles, with both Old and New Testament represented.

Right off the bat, this clashes with the clearly-not-Christian (or even Abrahamic) polytheism of most sword-and-sorcery settings that inspired D&D campaigns, a conflict that led to the birth of the now-widespread Crystal Dragon Jesus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrystalDragonJesus) trope (I do find TVTropes a useful reference on occasion).

And when Supplement I: Greyhawk gave us the Paladin, a calque (again, to the best of my understanding) of a more specific fantasy source (Holger Carlsen from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions), Gygax not only invented supplement power creep :D but also more or less displaced the Cleric from its niche as "holy warrior" towards a more generic "priestly" type. From there to the universal conflation of priests with the Cleric class was a small step.

I belive it was Unearthed Arcana that first tried to dial the Cleric back into soldier-priestdom by offering a "cloistered cleric" variant.

And one of the things I am very fond of in ACKS is that the Player's Companion features a Priestess class, ostensibly specific to the Auran Empire campaign setting, but easily generalized into a non-armor-clad, non-skull-bashing devotee of the Gods.

Next time I run ACKS I intend to use the Cleric as the soldier-priest archetype, and the Priest/Priestess as a more contemplative adventurer under holy orders. I may or may not use the Paladin as a divinely-inspired warrior unaffiliated with religious hierarchies.

Quote from: Bren;825019Follow up question: Is your desire to have or to allow the priest role in the game world include characters who are not clerics and thus presumably to have priests who do not have the powers (particularly spell powers) of the cleric class?

  That's a lot of it, as well as what The Butcher pointed out and the fact that certain versions of the cleric are so specific in their feel, bells and whistles. Another part is taking inspiration from van Helsing and the Mentzer descriptions of the cleric to suggest that the cleric need not be a priest--Templar (religiously vowed but not a priest or worship leader), vampire hunter, or stretching the concept a little, Jedi Knight, warrior-poet, or even noble prince or princess with a pure heart and some combat skills. :)

Quote from: tenbones;825171Heck - even in Monotheism, Christianity wasn't codified until the Nicene Council almost 400 years after Christ. The Bible didn't even exist until Constantine forced the issue because all these Bishoprics used different books to teach the Gospel(s). That editorial jam-session gave us the New Testament.

   *Groan* No. Just, no.

   --Questions of orthodoxy in Christan doctrine go back to the Pauline and Johannine epistles, and by the late 2nd century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons is writing Against Heretics.
   --The general canon of the New Testament was agreed upon--especially the centrality of the four Gospels and the letters of Paul--with some dispute about the edges, and it didn't even come up at Nicea, IIRC. Unfortunately, I'm aware from my copy of Denzinger and other resources at the moment.
   --Nicea was called by Constantine because the Arians were introducing what many others saw as a novelty into the traditional teaching, requiring that the codification of the Church's own understanding.
   --The post-Constantinian emperors for the next half-century were predominantly Arian or Arian-sympathizers, not Nicene. It wasn't exactly a case of the Emperor imposing his own preferences. (And many of the barbarians wound up going Arian as well, so that the Western Church was still trying to stamp out the heresy a few centuries later.)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;825347That's a lot of it, as well as what The Butcher pointed out and the fact that certain versions of the cleric are so specific in their feel, bells and whistles. Another part is taking inspiration from van Helsing and the Mentzer descriptions of the cleric to suggest that the cleric need not be a priest--Templar (religiously vowed but not a priest or worship leader), vampire hunter, or stretching the concept a little, Jedi Knight, warrior-poet, or even noble prince or princess with a pure heart and some combat skills. :)

:cool: I'd only understood the first half (non-spell using priests) of what you wanted. Not the spell-using non priest part. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;825347That's a lot of it, as well as what The Butcher pointed out and the fact that certain versions of the cleric are so specific in their feel, bells and whistles. Another part is taking inspiration from van Helsing and the Mentzer descriptions of the cleric to suggest that the cleric need not be a priest--Templar (religiously vowed but not a priest or worship leader), vampire hunter, or stretching the concept a little, Jedi Knight, warrior-poet, or even noble prince or princess with a pure heart and some combat skills. :)



   *Groan* No. Just, no.

   --Questions of orthodoxy in Christan doctrine go back to the Pauline and Johannine epistles, and by the late 2nd century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons is writing Against Heretics.
   --The general canon of the New Testament was agreed upon--especially the centrality of the four Gospels and the letters of Paul--with some dispute about the edges, and it didn't even come up at Nicea, IIRC. Unfortunately, I'm aware from my copy of Denzinger and other resources at the moment.
   --Nicea was called by Constantine because the Arians were introducing what many others saw as a novelty into the traditional teaching, requiring that the codification of the Church's own understanding.
   --The post-Constantinian emperors for the next half-century were predominantly Arian or Arian-sympathizers, not Nicene. It wasn't exactly a case of the Emperor imposing his own preferences. (And many of the barbarians wound up going Arian as well, so that the Western Church was still trying to stamp out the heresy a few centuries later.)

Christianity was much cooler in them old school days with all those house rules.  Someone should do an OSR clone.

Quote from: Matt;825530Christianity was much cooler in them old school days with all those house rules.  Someone should do an OSR clone.

They did, it was called Lutheranism.

Quote from: Rincewind1;825531They did, it was called Lutheranism.

Naw. Lutherans persecuted the later Arians. In fact it was one thing that Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Anglicans all agreed on, i.e. that Arians or semi-Arians were heretics.

Quote from: jeff37923;824174Why not have the religion be centered on a single divine being (the Allfather or Universal Mother) who then sired all of the other less powerful godlings? It would be a hierarchical family based organization allowing the divine descendants to each have their minor specialties, but with an overarching sense of unity.

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

as long as the originator god was only divine rank 20 deities with a divine rank above 20 are a shit

Quote from: Bren;824796Poor Gary. Its too late now for him to live that one down. That huge pole arms table in the Strategic Review seemed pretty whacked to my teenage self. And it hasn't improved with age either.

I think it's fine; as a designer, he was really into medieval weapons (pole-arms, specifically, I guess) and so he wrote about that.  Other designers may be into religious history, and will write about that.

Coming at it from a flexible OD&D attitude, I've always found it a handy enough framework for a fantasy adventure game I can easily tailor to whatever cosmology may be interesting. The Druid monster-cum-class is a classic example of extensive tailoring, but a lot of folks are happy with simpler adjustments.

Some thoughts:

'Turning' and PFE can apply to whatever seems appropriate, which might vary from deity to deity. Some things might be doable by laymen, too, such as offering blood to ghosts come up from Tartarus. Protection from enemies is a pretty common service for gods to render (Thor for instance beating back the life-threatening storms represented by the Giants).

Spell lists are easily varied. I'm in favor of limited lists - perhaps 6 or 8 per level - as opposed to the open-ended approach (new supplement = additional spells for every cleric).

Holy symbols and holy anointing - whether with water, oil, ashes, liquor, or what have you - are also pretty common.

Remember that the point is a fun fantasy game. It will often be meet to go for a variation rather than trying to be historically accurate. While D&D is flexible it does have some basic concepts that facilitate game challenges and strategies; there's an overall structure. For a very different setup, it might be more convenient to start with some other rules set. It's often not too much work to mix and match things from different FRP games, though.