Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 02:11:14 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 06:50:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 02, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI always run with a monotheistic (basically a Medieval Cathol expy) faith in fantasy settings (the others are deceived by demons) when I run.
...

^This is the way^

I have just found it so much easier to have religion be relevant to the PC's in my games with a monotheistic faith.

Most players are just not able to wrap their heads around polytheism at the table in any meaningful manner.

Unless the setting and character generation specifically ties in polytheism to the core of the setting, and you get player buy-in for that, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Monotheism is just an easier paradigm for most players to wrap their head around. And unless they have some kind of personal issue, I've had zero friction mapping in a Medieval Catholic export.

I get that people like the idea of "pantheons" because they have been around since the beginning of the hobby, but the truth is they are almost always crap from a worldbuilding perspective. You are not more imaginative than history.

Most fantasy polytheism is trite and doesn't really encompass what a true polytheistic world would be. Christianity is a spiritual revolution, and without that revolution, things would be unimaginable. I usually invert the values given by Christianity for fantasy religions. For instance, I made a religion with a god of the industro-military complex (and blood) as its head in henotheistic style.

Instead of Forgiveness, Mercy, and universality, I make ethnic religions that prize brutality, cruelty, vengeance, promiscuity, xenophobia, etc etc etc. I also just outright say 'You're playing master moralists like Nietzsche said' complete with an explanation. I say 'You play a character that worships a god that would put Jesus on the cross and laugh at him and his followers for being weak.' I make festivals where the characters perform human sacrifices and the pcs are expected to get in. Or where hated enemies of the religion are turned into dolls and destroyed. etc etc etc.

Basically I try to make it clear you aren't playing people with Christian morality, but fantasy morality in a fantasy world. No matter how horrible or alien you think it is. In an ideal campaign, the players accept this, and have fun. For instance, instead of going to save a princess from a monster, they save the monster and kill the princess, simply because the princess is of the wrong race and the monster put up a good fight.

Why would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

How has this setting ever risen above stone age bands beating each other to death with rocks? Even the pagans saw value in prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude.

You're mentally ill. Seek help.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMWhy would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

My friends and I play it and we have fun. Also, it's not 'nihilistic' there's a purpose in and out of universe. The out of universe purpose is that you're playing fascists. You don't get to punch fascists...or turn into a non-fascist...your character was groomed into fascism by the State and your character will die a fascist. There is no revolution.

You are playing the baddies. So the game is about two things:

1. Performing atrocities. The player that performs the most atrocities that are the most horrific gets boons.
2. Slight hint of tragedy. The PCs are intended to be like good meaning fantasy heroes in other worlds. It's just that this world brainwashed them and now they're evil. Just how Nazi Germany turned ordinary people into those that wanted millions of people to die brutally in concentration camps.

The in universe purpose is that you're following your religion. The things you do are natural. To your characters, Christianity is a coward's religion.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMHow has this setting ever risen above stone age bands beating each other to death with rocks

same reason most DND settings advance beyond a level despite the presence of monsters, gods, and magic: reasons that aren't important

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMEven the pagans saw value in prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude.

The setting's culture does see the value in justice and fortitude. It's just that they use it in a way most people won't like. The ideal ending for the characters to reach is to die in battle against the endless enemies of the State. Everything else- from dungeon crawling to patrolling cities- is secondary, a means to that end.

I don't approve of this, obviously. Otherwise I would be practicing what I preach. I make this setting partially because I don't approve of it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 11, 2024, 09:17:45 AM

Quote from: S'mon on December 11, 2024, 08:57:24 AMBut D&D is a Godwaful mess, with Conan Gandalf and Lancelot all expected to get along in the same setting. Maybe it was ok when it was just Law vs Chaos in OD&D, but Gods Demigods & Heroes really screwed the pooch. Ever since we have had medieval Clerics worshipping Thor (or even Loki). Most of the main D&D settings fully embrace the shittiness, notably Forgotten Realms, but Greyhawk is nearly as bad. Mystara gets a partial pass for mostly ignoring the polytheist-style Immortals in terms of what Clerics do.

  And then there's Dragonlance, which combines Gygax's bad foundation with Hickman's LDS theology (which I find has all sorts of problems) and Weis' infatuation with evil.

  (On the example, I can actually see Gandalf and Lancelot coexisting, although Gandalf would have harsh words for Lancelot's adultery. It's Conan, and also Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, another foundational model for D&D PCs, who would conflict with the other two in terms of cosmology and philosophy.)

Gandalf is basically the Anti-Merlin.

Merlin was a Cambion (intended to be the Antichrist) who manipulated a bunch of things (including Arthur's very birth) that ultimately fell apart (basically being the story of the downfall of a Golden Age).

Gandalf is an angel who aids and guides a series of individuals into finding the courage to fight and sacrifice to bring about the end of a great evil and start a new better age.

Other than that opposition in theme I see no reason the two couldn't co-exist in the same setting (they don't actually have to exist in the same place and/or time, the main point to this discussion for me is that setup of the divine within both sets of stories doesn't meaningfully conflict). The God of Tolkein is the God of Arthurian legend.

I also think Conan could potentially co-exist in a setting with them. He's basically the embodiment of the virtuous pagan. Mitra seems to be the equivalent of God, Crom may not even exist beyond the philosophy for living he embodies, and all the rest are demons or alien entities falsely worshipped as gods.

Again, they don't have to ever cross paths, but the setting's divinities don't really have a conflict with Arthur or Tolkein.

Similarly, the feared gods of Lankhmar do not conflict with the notion of demons masquerading as pagan gods.

These days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

The D&D-ish Henotheism certainly isn't a way to make settings feel more like either Medieval Europe or Classical Mythology. To the extent it models anything it's a sort of a bad expy of the American Protestant landscape of cafeteria worshippers choosing the version of God that most appeals to their own beliefs.

One of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 02:11:14 AMMost fantasy polytheism is trite and doesn't really encompass what a true polytheistic world would be. Christianity is a spiritual revolution, and without that revolution, things would be unimaginable. I usually invert the values given by Christianity for fantasy religions. For instance, I made a religion with a god of the industro-military complex (and blood) as its head in henotheistic style.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on December 11, 2024, 10:19:05 AMMy friends and I play it and we have fun. Also, it's not 'nihilistic' there's a purpose in and out of universe. The out of universe purpose is that you're playing fascists. You don't get to punch fascists...or turn into a non-fascist...your character was groomed into fascism by the State and your character will die a fascist. There is no revolution.

Fascism is a completely modern invention, and it is completely different than non-Christian religion.

As for thing being unimaginable without Christianity, I've read plenty of pre-Christian works like Plato, Homer, Luo Guanzhong, Ved Vyasa, and others. I don't think it's any more difficult to imagine than dragons and elves.

There's no mandate that fantasy gaming should match either medieval Christianity or medieval paganism in the real world. That's not what popular fantasy works have done that were the inspiration for D&D. You can game however you like, but it's not like industro-military fascism is the one true polytheism objectively more true than others.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 11, 2024, 11:03:17 AMOne of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Realistically speaking, yes... Every major culture should have their own separate pantheons, religious festivals and beliefs. They should vary across species and cultures as well.

The game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

Hence why something like "30 Gods" and some of them being the same God wearing different masks, tends to be the maximum in Fantasy settings.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMWFRP does a fairly good job of polytheism despite the Empire having Sigmar as it's primary patron diety.

It's not entirely bad, certainly better than anything D&D ever turned out. But they failed to really go all the way with it.

If one was so inclined you take a pantheon like the Nordic one; make Odin the "all-father" the supreme Diety, and have the other members of the pantheon act in exactly the same way 'patron saints' do in Catholicism. i.e. asking them for their prayers to intercede with the all-father on your behalf.

Which would be one way of still having a 'fantasy pantheon', but with it essentially being stealth-monotheism.

I just cut straight to the chase, but some might find doing something like that useful.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 10:49:54 AMThese days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

Basically this. Lots of looking back at the satanic panic with a very jaundiced eye.

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 12, 2024, 02:35:55 PMThe game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

I have found that for pure 'gameability' - monotheism is the hands down winner.

Players are already familiar with the concept, even if just through film and tv. The GM doesn't have to remember a 30-100 "gods" and what they all do. It just makes incorporating religion as a belief system of the people in the places they travel to much easier all around.

I think a lot of people think 'must have pantheon' because 'D&D game have pantheon'. But no, you really don't.

Quote from: Orphan81 on December 12, 2024, 02:35:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 11, 2024, 11:03:17 AMOne of D&D's weaknesses is that their gods & worshippers tended not to be localized. It's OK to have multiple gods of X so long as they each cover different areas or are worshipped by different peoples. While even Forgotten Realms tried to do this (poorly) with groups like the Mulhorandi pantheon, the pantheons tended to be weakly deliniated. Which might be possible with cultures bleeding across borders, but that rarely felt like it was happening.

Realistically speaking, yes... Every major culture should have their own separate pantheons, religious festivals and beliefs. They should vary across species and cultures as well.

The game table reality, however, is all about what is "Gameable". Having 100 different Gods in the setting, even if many of them are the same God wearing different masks may be "Realistic" but it's a pain in the ass to keep track of for players AND DMs.

Hence why something like "30 Gods" and some of them being the same God wearing different masks, tends to be the maximum in Fantasy settings.

Parochial gods are also a bit of an issue in a world where the Gods provably exist and do what their religions say they do. You can't have two different Gods that both ferry the sun across the sky each day, unless you're willing to engage in some Pratchett-esque "belief is reality" shenanigans. Hence the usual "same god, different name" excuse.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 12, 2024, 04:55:26 PM

QuoteThese days it feels like the attachment to using some type of paganism for rpg fantasy settings stems as much from a sort of spite at Christianity for its tangential association with the Satanic Panic as anything else.

Basically this. Lots of looking back at the satanic panic with a very jaundiced eye.

Yeah, it continues to amaze me how difficult it is to get the average role-player to actually play a Christian. The last two campaigns I've run were both in medievalesque settings with a "Catholic church with the serial numbers filed off" dominant religion, and both games had majority pagan parties.

I still use the old Deities and Demigods book, even with other editions of D&D

I never got into the Gods of the Forgotten Realms, whatever.

Here I talk about the 10 most powerful Gods in the Deities & Demigods, just to have some fun and do some comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKsomVetyBs&t=992s

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 12, 2024, 09:53:55 PMYeah, it continues to amaze me how difficult it is to get the average role-player to actually play a Christian. The last two campaigns I've run were both in medievalesque settings with a "Catholic church with the serial numbers filed off" dominant religion, and both games had majority pagan parties.

  I think Greg Stafford said once that he included paganism in King Arthur Pendragon, despite its minimal presence in most of the classic literature, in part as an alternative for players (including some of his) who weren't comfortable playing Christians.

  Now, Stafford was at most one step removed from Marion Zimmer Bradley, so I'm not surprised that was in the environment and take on Arthuriana he was running games in.

I think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

That explains it for me then. Unlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 11, 2024, 09:38:08 AMWhy would anyone have fun with such a pile of nihilistic bullshittery?

Nihilist, grimdark seems to have it's fans.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on December 13, 2024, 11:02:30 AMNow, Stafford was at most one step removed from Marion Zimmer Bradley, so I'm not surprised that was in the environment and take on Arthuriana he was running games in.

Eww, that's not a good thing...

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 13, 2024, 11:52:25 AMI think many players opt to play non-Christians for similar reasons to wanting to play non-humans: In an activity focused on escapism, the exotic holds more attraction than the familiar.

Which has always been a bad excuse.

They can call me back when the majority of players stop playing non-humans like humans in cosplay.

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 02:27:21 PMUnlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

What's funny is that they will cite that argument with a straight face, then turn around and do what most players do; proceed to ignore their pantheon entirely during the game unless it is directly relevant to their Clerics ability to use "divine magic"...

Quote from: Jaeger on December 13, 2024, 03:58:51 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 13, 2024, 02:27:21 PMUnlike others I know who use exactly the argument you cite, I've always preferred to embrace the classic tropes of heroic fantasy, so my ideal PC for the genre is a Male Human Warrior, ideally a Christian one.

Because it IS so rarely employed by other players it ends up standing out as distinctive as a result.

What's funny is that they will cite that argument with a straight face, then turn around and do what most players do; proceed to ignore their pantheon entirely during the game unless it is directly relevant to their Clerics ability to use "divine magic"...

I didn't say it makes sense. I said I've heard the argument before, practically word for word as justification for why they always played the weirdest race allowed by the GM.

That they don't actually play it as anything but a human with a rubber forehead doesn't change the truth of the argument which I think, ultimately, stems from wanted to be seen as special or noteworthy that they're not finding in their real life.

I mean, lets not pretend I'm not pretending to be something I'm not either... that degree of combat prowess and athleticism is never something I've had in real life.

The main difference I think is that my fantasy is pretty much to be myself only more competent in what the game is focused on, while theirs is to actually not be themselves for awhile.