So I have been interested in Golarion as of late. However I noticed that the cool campaign setting for the Inner Sea Region is no longer available. Then I remember how the 1st edition of Pathfinder had inbred ogre rapists, Fantasy Romani Travellers, Slavery and a whole bunch of pulp fantasy ideas. Sadly Pathfinder has added in Atheist Paladins (who are actually agnostic paladins but let's forget that because REEEEEE Religion is bad. Even in fantasy worlds.) Anywhoosit, I hoped to find out more of what happened to your favorite parts of Golarion and therefore Pathfinder.
Quote from: arcanuum;1129049So I have been interested in Golarion as of late. However I noticed that the cool campaign setting for the Inner Sea Region is no longer available. Then I remember how the 1st edition of Pathfinder had inbred ogre rapists, Fantasy Romani Travellers, Slavery and a whole bunch of pulp fantasy ideas. Sadly Pathfinder has added in Atheist Paladins (who are actually agnostic paladins but let's forget that because REEEEEE Religion is bad. Even in fantasy worlds.) Anywhoosit, I hoped to find out more of what happened to your favorite parts of Golarion and therefore Pathfinder.
Wait what?
Agnostic or Atheist anything makes exactly zero sense in a fantasy world where gods are real and constantly interfere in the lives of mortals!
Agnostic or Atheist Paladins make the least sense of all!
Honestly, this idiots should just hire me to run their business, there's no fucking way I could do worst than whoever is running it right now!
I hear ya man. If the gods don't interfere all that often I don't mind there being agnostics. However that is really hard for PCs because they are more likely to see a gods power manifest.
Quote from: arcanuum;1129054I hear ya man. If the gods don't interfere all that often I don't mind there being agnostics. However that is really hard for PCs because they are more likely to see a gods power manifest.
Greetings!
Hmmm...Atheism enforced in the game just seems contrarian, delusional, and stupid. Everyone in the world is theistic. There is no scholarly enclave holding out for the virtues of atheism. It's just stupid. Any player of in my group insisting on such a philosophy would be very alone, as most everyone around such a character would deem them hopelessly stupid at best--and blasphemous and cursed at worst, in which case they would typically be exiled, or hunted down and executed for their blasphemy. Whatever their fate, it would be terrible, lonely, and grim. There would be zero philosophical or ideological support for such a character, and socially they would be an ostracized pariah.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I can see an atheist in a fantasy world. They'd just believe the 'gods' were really powerful beings, but not capital G gods.
Wasn't there a faction in Planescape that believed such?
Quote from: arcanuum;1129054I hear ya man. If the gods don't interfere all that often I don't mind there being agnostics. However that is really hard for PCs because they are more likely to see a gods power manifest.
Not even then, you'd need a world where the gods do not interfere at all. And like I said, the Paladin makes the least sense of all, you could sell me on a Wizard tho. The Wizard can justify it by thinking it's just magic and magic is an art and a science that can be understood and mastered.
You'd need to tailor your world very carefully tho, gods can't interact directly ever, it has to be always thru mortals.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129056I can see an atheist in a fantasy world. They'd just believe the 'gods' were really powerful beings, but not capital G gods.
Wasn't there a faction in Planescape that believed such?
No, I just can't, faith is unnecessary in such a world, and atheism is just the lack of faith. Agnosticism is the lack of certainty on the existence of. So neither make sense IMHO.
You don't need faith because you can see the gods working, if the anti-theists can't stamp out religion in our world, and they can't convince the believer most of the time... In a world where the gods interact, with low tech, I just can't see it doesn't make sense, especially in the case of the paladin.
Quote from: SHARK;1129055Greetings!
Hmmm...Atheism enforced in the game just seems contrarian, delusional, and stupid. Everyone in the world is theistic. There is no scholarly enclave holding out for the virtues of atheism. It's just stupid. Any player of in my group insisting on such a philosophy would be very alone, as most everyone around such a character would deem them hopelessly stupid at best--and blasphemous and cursed at worst, in which case they would typically be exiled, or hunted down and executed for their blasphemy. Whatever their fate, it would be terrible, lonely, and grim. There would be zero philosophical or ideological support for such a character, and socially they would be an ostracized pariah.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Exactly, speaking as an atheist myself it makes exactly zero sense.
Mind you if the danger hairs wish to houserule any game and play it as they wish more power to them, but including this class in the rule book? Plain stupid.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129052Wait what?
Agnostic or Atheist anything makes exactly zero sense in a fantasy world where gods are real and constantly interfere in the lives of mortals!
Interesting question. There are a few ways that you can spin it but essentially, to my point of view, it makes as much sense for an Agnostic or Atheist character in DnD as it does to be a Religious person in real life.
There was a Faction in Planescape who believed that all of the higher powers were essentially just very high powered Wizards and it made as much sense for someone to worship them as it did for someone to worship an 18th level Archmage.
OP you can still get the Inner Sea World guide from Paizo directly https://paizo.com/products/btpy8ief . Unless you mean the Pre-pathfinder 3E version then you’d probably shit out of luck. So it's not out of print. As for the SJW elements and atheism they put into the game I simply ignore. Just like how I plan to ignore that slavery no longer exists and all the fantasy races suddenly get along. They turned their setting from Neopolitan ice cream into boring Vanilla. I enjoy both flavours yet prefer the first more.
I'm not sure what kind of jobs some of you work at yet unless one owns their own business like Pundit good luck. Any fantasy one has of strutting into an rpg company and simply writing what they want is just that. Unless one hired you to just write what ones wants. Your shutting your Danny mouth. Putting your head down and doing as your told. Of your shown the door.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129063Interesting question. There are a few ways that you can spin it but essentially, to my point of view, it makes as much sense for an Agnostic or Atheist character in DnD as it does to be a Religious person in real life.
There was a Faction in Planescape who believed that all of the higher powers were essentially just very high powered Wizards and it made as much sense for someone to worship them as it did for someone to worship an 18th level Archmage.
Call them wizards, call them aliens from mork, you can't be an atheist in regards to them, because you know they exist, no faith required, the same makes being an agnostic (don't know if it exists) make zero sense.
The theist believes, the Gnostic knows
the atheist doesn't believe, the agnostic doesn't know.
But you don't need to believe in DnD or similar, you know they exist, you can see them, touch them, talk to them, etc.
No faith required, atheism/theism is a divide on faith while Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a knowledge divide. You don't need faith in such a universe and you do know they exist. Makes zero sense.
Woah, thanks Sureshot. My google fu sucks sometimes. But yeah I see your point. Still the mass appeal while good for the bottom line, still pisses me off about games nowadays.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129059Exactly, speaking as an atheist myself it makes exactly zero sense.
Mind you if the danger hairs wish to houserule any game and play it as they wish more power to them, but including this class in the rule book? Plain stupid.
Greetings!
Hey my friend! Yeah, damned straight! An *Atheist Paladin*??? *Laughing* They just get stupider and stupider, you know? It's like, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Now a Paladin can be any race, and any alignment, and now they can be atheist, too?
*Laughing*
I'm sorry, I like the ancient archetype. Paladins are zealous, strict, disciplined holy champions, devoted to a god, or goddess, that is Good, and Righteous.
Paladins are not atheists, or demon worshippers, or mushy, liberal hippies. All the circle-jerking hippies can play a FIGHTER. That's what they get, you know? Other religions and alignments can have various flavoured holy warriors, but they aren't Paladins. I believe in exercising the power of NO. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: sureshot;1129064OP you can still get the Inner Sea World guide from Paizo directly https://paizo.com/products/btpy8ief . Unless you mean the Pre-pathfinder 3E version then you'd probably shit out of luck. So it's not out of print. As for the SJW elements and atheism they put into the game I simply ignore. Just like how I plan to ignore that slavery no longer exists and all the fantasy races suddenly get along. They turned their setting from Neopolitan ice cream into boring Vanilla. I enjoy both flavours yet prefer the first more.
I'm not sure what kind of jobs some of you work at yet unless one owns their own business like Pundit good luck. Any fantasy one has of strutting into an rpg company and simply writing what they want is just that. Unless one hired you to just write what ones wants. Your shutting your Danny mouth. Putting your head down and doing as your told. Of your shown the door.
I am very aware that getting hired by a company means doing what the company wants, in regards to RPGs it means writing/drawing what they want. Doesn't make it any less stupid to include this in such a setting.
As for slavery and everybody just getting along and singing cumbaya... Where does the conflict come from then? What do the PCs do? hold TEDx talks about how to feed your hundred cats with vegan food?
Quote from: SHARK;1129069Greetings!
Hey my friend! Yeah, damned straight! An *Atheist Paladin*??? *Laughing* They just get stupider and stupider, you know? It's like, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Now a Paladin can be any race, and any alignment, and now they can be atheist, too?
*Laughing*
I'm sorry, I like the ancient archetype. Paladins are zealous, strict, disciplined holy champions, devoted to a god, or goddess, that is Good, and Righteous.
Paladins are not atheists, or demon worshippers, or mushy, liberal hippies. All the circle-jerking hippies can play a FIGHTER. That's what they get, you know? Other religions and alignments can have various flavoured holy warriors, but they aren't Paladins. I believe in exercising the power of NO. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Make an Anti-Paladin class (isn't that what the Warlock is?) if you want an evil paladin.
Sorry but it just makes no sense, and anyone coming to my table wanting to play such a class would get told NO.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129067Call them wizards, call them aliens from mork, you can't be an atheist in regards to them, because you know they exist, no faith required, the same makes being an agnostic (don't know if it exists) make zero sense.
The theist believes, the Gnostic knows
the atheist doesn't believe, the agnostic doesn't know.
But you don't need to believe in DnD or similar, you know they exist, you can see them, touch them, talk to them, etc.
No faith required, atheism/theism is a divide on faith while Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a knowledge divide. You don't need faith in such a universe and you do know they exist. Makes zero sense.
Just because they exist does not mean that you would worship them. A Warhammer marine dressed in his power armour backed up by his ship shooting from orbit have fantastical destructive force but you dont go around worshiping him (unless he calls himself Emperor).
Quote from: SHARK;1129069Greetings!
Hey my friend! Yeah, damned straight! An *Atheist Paladin*??? *Laughing* They just get stupider and stupider, you know? It's like, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Now a Paladin can be any race, and any alignment, and now they can be atheist, too?
*Laughing*
I'm sorry, I like the ancient archetype. Paladins are zealous, strict, disciplined holy champions, devoted to a god, or goddess, that is Good, and Righteous.
Paladins are not atheists, or demon worshippers, or mushy, liberal hippies. All the circle-jerking hippies can play a FIGHTER. That's what they get, you know? Other religions and alignments can have various flavoured holy warriors, but they aren't Paladins. I believe in exercising the power of NO. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I like what Paizo did with 2e Paladins. They are the zealous, strict, disciplined holy Champions.
But there are also other Champions as well that are not Paladins.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129056I can see an atheist in a fantasy world. They'd just believe the 'gods' were really powerful beings, but not capital G gods.
Wasn't there a faction in Planescape that believed such?
There's a follower of the Mythic Dawn in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, called Elsie God-Hater, who thinks that way (and hates them all - the irony being that the Mythic Dawn are in service of Mehrunes Dagon, the Daedric Prince trying to destroy Tamriel).
Quote from: Shasarak;1129072Just because they exist does not mean that you would worship them. A Warhammer marine dressed in his power armour backed up by his ship shooting from orbit have fantastical destructive force but you dont go around worshiping him (unless he calls himself Emperor).
Again, no faith required, a Paladin gets his powers from his god, he knows it exists, he needs no faith and can't be an agnostic, plus I think doing the god's bidding counts as worshipping.
WH40K... The one with the God Emperor, the one with soul eating...
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1129074There's a follower of the Mythic Dawn in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, called Elsie God-Hater, who thinks that way (and hates them all - the irony being that the Mythic Dawn are in service of Mehrunes Dagon, the Daedric Prince trying to destroy Tamriel).
You all miss the point, atheism is the lack of belief, of faith, no faith needed when you KNOW they exist. What difference does it make calling them aliens from mork?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129067Call them wizards, call them aliens from mork, you can't be an atheist in regards to them, because you know they exist, no faith required, the same makes being an agnostic (don't know if it exists) make zero sense.
The theist believes, the Gnostic knows
the atheist doesn't believe, the agnostic doesn't know.
By that reasoning, anything and everything can be a god to someone.
A beetle could be a god. You can see it and touch it, and worship it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129076Again, no faith required, a Paladin gets his powers from his god, he knows it exists, he needs no faith and can't be an agnostic, plus I think doing the god's bidding counts as worshipping.
WH40K... The one with the God Emperor, the one with soul eating...
I always liked the Paksenarrion Paladin myself. God bothering was always more of a Clerical thing.
Slavery - ALL the Golarion nations with slavery suddenly abandoned it?!
So when that character was growing up, they didn't believe in the god, but they just liked the suit?
Quote from: S'mon;1129084Slavery - ALL the Golarion nations with slavery suddenly abandoned it?!
Yes and now Cheliax is filled with sugar and spice and all things nice.
Oh wait, no it was the opposite.
Atheist Paladin? I don't mind every fantasy religion having their own champions with various abilities but an atheist paladin would be struck by lightning every time he brandished his sword.
"I don't exist? Watch this!"
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129077You all miss the point, atheism is the lack of belief, of faith, no faith needed when you KNOW they exist. What difference does it make calling them aliens from mork?
And you're missing the other side's point. Yes, the character KNOWS they exist - but the character
does not believe that they are gods. Sure, Thor is sitting over there and he's insanely strong and can call down thunderbolts, but I know a 20th level barbarian who's insanely strong, too, and a 12th level wizard who can call down thunderbolts, and they're not gods, so why should I consider Thor to be a god? Is it just because he can both be strong and call lightning? (Nah, I also have multi-classed friends who can do both kinds of things, too.)
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129058You don't need faith because you can see the gods working.
Do you actually see the gods working, or do you see workers of "divine" magic that claim their power comes from gods? The first does not require faith, but the latter does (as there can be many explanations where the power might come from).
Generally, atheists in Golarion are of the 'they're not gods, they're just ridiculously powerful beings!' variety. And it's loosely backed up by certain things; the death of some deities and the ascension of other mortals to godhood.
There are mortals who actively hate the gods (and I mean ALL the gods); I believe 3.5E had a class for that, the ur-priest, which was basically Screw You, I'll Be My Own Religion With Blackjack And Hookers. Also involved stealing divine power to fuel your own spells.
It's noted that atheists in Golarion do not get a good afterlife. Their nature makes them disruptive, and so such souls are sealed up in special areas in Pharasma's domain, and she occasionally feeds one to Groetus so he doesn't fly down too close. I think you'd get a better deal from Asmodeus, all things considered :)
I don't see why atheism is incompatible with "a fantasy world". The vast majority of fantasy that I consume contains exactly zero direct intervention or definitive presence by anything divine. If I add in "from the character's point of view", the amount of fantasy that would meet that criterion is infinitesimal in relation to the body of fantasy in media.
As far as paladins go, they really don't make sense outside of Christianity. When the paladin sheds that mantle and becomes a "holy warrior", it introduces a "generic holiness" to the game that is by its nature morally relative. And once those gates are open, then anything can be a "holy" or sacred purpose, including atheism. I agree it's ridiculous, but it's a natural consequence of trying to retrofit a Christian archetype into "you know, whatever religion."
There are no atheists on the Disc World, because the gods'll put a brick through your window for spouting off like that.
The implementation is a bit weak in places but I do like the Warlock profession from Rolemaster Standard System's Channelling Companion. They are anti clerics with spells like "Faith Breaker" that directly inhibit a cleric (or other channelling user) from using magic.
Even outside the SJW crap the setting is just worse. Reminds me of 2nd revision Darksun.
All the mysteries resolved and all the interesting antagonist forces are dead.
Golarion wasn't the best setting, or even very cohesive but it revelled in this anachronistic patchwork of things you can like.
Now it has all the faults it had before but now it lacks what made it good.
The 'Athiest Paladin' problem is similar to the 'Can Paladins be not LG' question. Id say while permitting such changes enables more ideas, it devalues the concept in it of itself.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129078By that reasoning, anything and everything can be a god to someone.
A beetle could be a god. You can see it and touch it, and worship it.
The Sun is a god in many IRL religions.
As for fantasy worlds, does the beetle give you supernatural powers? does it speak to you? does it perform "miracles"?
Atheism is the lack of faith in god/gods, not the assertion that they do not exist. If you know they do exist you can't be neither agnostic nor atheistic in regards to them. Look above your response, What Altheus is saying.
A Paladin gets his powers from the god/gods, does their bidding, would a god not punish such a thing as thinking gods are just aliens from mork? Wouldn't that leave the Paladin powerless? Wouldn't that have happened several times before and thus making it into the worlds folklore?
Atheism in a fantasy world I can sort of buy (Heretic seems more apt), but an atheist Paladin? That is fucktarded. When an entire character concept revolves around powers derived from faith in a deity.....
Quote from: Zalman;1129101I don't see why atheism is incompatible with "a fantasy world". The vast majority of fantasy that I consume contains exactly zero direct intervention or definitive presence by anything divine. If I add in "from the character's point of view", the amount of fantasy that would meet that criterion is infinitesimal in relation to the body of fantasy in media.
As far as paladins go, they really don't make sense outside of Christianity. When the paladin sheds that mantle and becomes a "holy warrior", it introduces a "generic holiness" to the game that is by its nature morally relative. And once those gates are open, then anything can be a "holy" or sacred purpose, including atheism. I agree it's ridiculous, but it's a natural consequence of trying to retrofit a Christian archetype into "you know, whatever religion."
But we're not talking about the fantasy you consume, we're talking about the setting of fantasy game worlds, and it makes no sense if in your fantasy the gods interfere in mortal affairs constantly.
How can a holly warrior introduce moral relativism? Gods and Demons are real, they do intervene good and bad are objective not subjective in the game world. And if you're gonna introduce stand point "theory" then you'd need to have characters thinking the gods are the demons and the demons the gods, it doesn't work it throws all the worlds preconceptions to the trash.
Quote from: David Johansen;1129102There are no atheists on the Disc World, because the gods'll put a brick through your window for spouting off like that.
The implementation is a bit weak in places but I do like the Warlock profession from Rolemaster Standard System's Channelling Companion. They are anti clerics with spells like "Faith Breaker" that directly inhibit a cleric (or other channelling user) from using magic.
The Warlock is an anti-paladin yes.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1129103Even outside the SJW crap the setting is just worse. Reminds me of 2nd revision Darksun.
All the mysteries resolved and all the interesting antagonist forces are dead.
Golarion wasn't the best setting, or even very cohesive but it revelled in this anachronistic patchwork of things you can like.
Now it has all the faults it had before but now it lacks what made it good.
The 'Athiest Paladin' problem is similar to the 'Can Paladins be not LG' question. Id say while permitting such changes enables more ideas, it devalues the concept in it of itself.
Exactly, if Paladins can be not LG then the very concept of objective good and bad, of objective morality goes out the window, and now you need to truly justify why killing Orcs is okay.
Instead you introduce the Warlock, and presto you have an anti-Paladin, hell make it playable even.
Quote from: oggsmash;1129110Atheism in a fantasy world I can sort of buy (Heretic seems more apt), but an atheist Paladin? That is fucktarded. When an entire character concept revolves around powers derived from faith in a deity.....
But, wouldn't the heretics be persecuted? And exactly my point, if the deity grants you your powers how the fuck would it allow you to think it's just a very powerful alien?
Sanya from the Dresden Files is a great example of an atheist/agnostic paladin. He is essentially unconcerned with the identity or even the reality of his patrons. Maybe they are aliens, maybe he is crazy, maybe they are angels.
It doesn't matter. Alll he cares about is that he is doing good work and helping people.
All the Knights of the Cross are wonderful examples of paladins.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129114But, wouldn't the heretics be persecuted? And exactly my point, if the deity grants you your powers how the fuck would it allow you to think it's just a very powerful alien?
Why the fuck would it care, unless it was concerned about its own market image? So long as the champions it chooses get the jobs done that advance it's ineffable plans, why would it care about how correct their prayers are?
The only reason I can think of would be a setting where there are multiple gods competing for the same purview. A single supreme god may have nothing to be concerned about so long as the job gets done. A single death god without competition in the death arena might be able to use an asset to hunt rogue immortals without care about how the asset feels about the god itself.
But multiple sun gods all trying to be the king of the sun would care very much about how their particular champions act and talk. Branding and market forces become very important in that situation.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129115Sanya from the Dresden Files is a great example of an atheist/agnostic paladin. He is essentially unconcerned with the identity or even the reality of his patrons. Maybe they are aliens, maybe he is crazy, maybe they are angels.
It doesn't matter. Alll he cares about is that he is doing good work and helping people.
All the Knights of the Cross are wonderful examples of paladins.
You can't be agnostic about beings you KNOW exist, because the agnostic says : "I don't KNOW if god/gods exist" It's a claim about knowledge not faith.
And, since you know said god/gods exist you require exactly zero faith.
faith
noun
noun: faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Similar:
trust
belief
confidence
conviction
credence
reliance
dependence
optimism
hopefulness
hope
expectation
Antonym:
mistrust
Since you have proof they exist then no faith required.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129117Why the fuck would it care, unless it was concerned about its own market image? So long as the champions it chooses get the jobs done that advance it's ineffable plans, why would it care about how correct their prayers are?
It depends, where do the gods get their power from? Why do they need prayers? Is the act of worshiping that fuels their power? Is worshiping their food?
Lets examine that:
Are there churches to worship the gods? Yes there are according to the worlds preconceptions.
Why would they exist? A deity that doesn't care about it's "market image" (even if it's the single god of the storm) wouldn't need churches and wouldn't reward fidelity by granting you powers.
IMHO the only reason churches would exist in such a universe is because the deities need the worshiping, it's their food, without it they grow weak and eventually die. Granted this is nowhere to be found (to my knowledge) in the official lore. But neither was the post apocalyptic setting and every body (or the vast majority) agree it must be so.
I would argue that Sanya has complete and utter faith. It is just faith in the cause he is fighting for and not who his giving him the power to do it.
Definition one, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
He doesn't believe in God, but he believes in the job. He is doing the right thing. He is helping people. He is defeating evil things, thwarting wiles, and saving people from terrible fates.
It just doesn't matter if it is God giving him the power or not. He has absolute faith in the brings he deals with, even if he doesn't believe they are what iconography says they are.
And they don't have the vanity or ego that needs to correct him.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129122I would argue that Sanya has complete and utter faith. It is just faith in the cause he is fighting for and not who his giving him the power to do it.
Definition one, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
He doesn't believe in God, but he believes in the job. He is doing the right thing. He is helping people. He is defeating evil things, thwarting wiles, and saving people from terrible fates.
It just doesn't matter if it is God giving him the power or not. He has absolute faith in the brings he deals with, even if he doesn't believe they are what iconography says they are.
And they don't have the vanity or ego that needs to correct him.
So to win the argument you choose the definition that doesn't have anything to do with supernatural beings? Okay, you win.
I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause. 5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin. There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith. IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".
Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause. 5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin. There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith. IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".
I liked the 1e AD&D Anti-paladin, published in Dragon, for this very reason. Very clearly a villain in the Dark Lord mode; a fantasy Ming the Merciless or OT Darth Vader; a scalable nemesis for a well-played Paladin.
And then there's his undead counterpart, the pre-Dragonlance Death Knight, courtesy of the 1e Fiend Folio; and their leader, again from Dragon, St. Kargoth.
Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause. 5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin. There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith. IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".
I find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129112The Warlock is an anti-paladin yes.
I thought they were a full or hybrid caster. I'll have to check. Paladins are semicasters.
The Warlock is the guy who can talk your faith away.
One thing I have never understood in modern Social Politics and its influence on media is why do RPG SJWs have such an obsession with eliminating conflict from their worlds? Conflict drives stories.
The whole raison d'tre for having places like Cheliax be evil slave drivers is to create conflict which the PCs resolve. It's to point to the slavery and say "this is bad."
Torque2100... SJWs hate anything that remotely challenges them, or is a threat to their mary sues.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129125So to win the argument you choose the definition that doesn't have anything to do with supernatural beings? Okay, you win.
No, I'm not trying to win anything. It is just a point of view.
The second definition is common parlance, sure, but ultimately irrelevant in how I view deities.
As an admittedly rough analogy, objectively existing gods need worshippers like politicians need votes. It won't kill them if they don't have them, but they are needed to advance agendas, maintain authority, and generally keep things they way they like them to be kept. And there is probably no small satisfaction in having a fan base like that.
Just like voters and politicians, if worshippers lose faith in their objectively real gods it isn't a matter if if they exist or not, just whether or not they should be followed.
While I realize that I'd have to change tone if I was talking about a specific setting like Discworld or American Gods, those ideas are not going to be how any setting I run operates.
The only question of faith necessary is if your cleric/paladin trusts a god enough to be able to expect assistance when asked for or needed and if the god trusts the champion enough to provide it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129111But we're not talking about the fantasy you consume, we're talking about the setting of fantasy game worlds, and it makes no sense if in your fantasy the gods interfere in mortal affairs constantly.
I agree that atheism makes no sense in a world where gods intervene directly. I don't agree that the fantasy worlds we play in have to include that element. You don't even need to posit direct divine intervention to have clerics. Of course, it's equally nonsensical for a cleric or paladin
themselves to be an atheist, regardless of the conceits of the world, but other people certainly could be.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129111How can a holly warrior introduce moral relativism? Gods and Demons are real, they do intervene good and bad are objective not subjective in the game world. And if you're gonna introduce stand point "theory" then you'd need to have characters thinking the gods are the demons and the demons the gods, it doesn't work it throws all the worlds preconceptions to the trash.
Not sure what you're getting at here. The point is that if you can be a "holy" warrior of a beneficent god just as easily as can you can be "holy" warrior of an evil demon, then you have departed from the Christian archetype from which these character classes originate. Now, literally anything can be "holy" or "sacred" or have a "religious purpose" -- just make up an appropriate deity. You could have a cleric of the Divine Cheesecake Recipe whose sacred duty is to bake the perfect dessert. Once you give up the archetype for a generic "holy whatever knight" it's not far away to "holy atheism".
Quote from: Torque2100;1129147One thing I have never understood in modern Social Politics and its influence on media is why do RPG SJWs have such an obsession with eliminating conflict from their worlds? Conflict drives stories.
The whole raison d'tre for having places like Cheliax be evil slave drivers is to create conflict which the PCs resolve. It's to point to the slavery and say "this is bad."
Is Cheliax really no longer a slave state? That does seem pretty fucked up if so. The other nations that were ostensibly run by the goddess of light and goodness and healing and all that were slave holders was a bit of a disconnect, but Cheliax was solid in the villain category.
Quote from: jeff37923;1129139I find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.
Agreed.
For SJWs, that's a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129155Is Cheliax really no longer a slave state? That does seem pretty fucked up if so. The other nations that were ostensibly run by the goddess of light and goodness and healing and all that were slave holders was a bit of a disconnect, but Cheliax was solid in the villain category.
Cheliax has slaves in the official books but I think not in S'mons home game.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129114But, wouldn't the heretics be persecuted? And exactly my point, if the deity grants you your powers how the fuck would it allow you to think it's just a very powerful alien?
Supernatural pacts like in GURPS and DCC, the gods in question seem to not care about worshippers so much as creating chaos. A person who swears against the gods or crosses them are in all sorts of mythologies and are often cursed. I could take atheist as being people who know there are powerful entities, but feel they are not gods. A paladin, can not and should not ever be one of those people.
Quote from: Brendan;1129126I think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause. 5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin. There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith. IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".
Paladins been self-powered since ADnD. There was never anything tieing them to a Monotheistic faith, all the book talks about is Law and Good.
Atheists in Fantasy really depends on the setting.
They clearly don't work in DnD 3.5 or Pathfinder worlds like Golarian (why do I keep wanting to type Glorantha, when I type this name?) or Faerun.
However, if you are running something like The Witcher's Continent or Final Fantasy XIV's Eorzea, I could totally see a person being an atheist there.
In Eorzea, the only gods most common people know to exist are terrifying avatars of destruction who are less Gods and more collective Tulpas given form by magic. Sure there's Zodiark and Hydeline but these are Gods in the Lovecraftian sense of immensely powerful beings beyond mortal comprehension. They care not a whit for worship
As for The Witcher, I like how Sapkowski managed to have his cake and eat it to by having priests who seemingly possess divine powers, but Mages have studied them and come to the conclusion that what is actually happening is that the true believer priest is actually engaging in self-hypnosis. The real power source for priestly magic is Chaos: the exact same force that Mages and Sorceresses wield to cast spells.
Personally I prefer gods not to hand out powers or if they do that its actually near all-mighty.
In general I find religeons most interesting when they are based in faith and not power.
IF anything, the Existence of Warlocks is a great argument in favor of being an Atheist in a fantasy setting.
A warlock is just someone who made a pact with a powerful being and gained power from it. Clerics and Paladins are just that on a larger level*... So to an atheistic Wizard let's say. They can look at Paladins and Clerics and just see them as worshiping beings who are a little more powerful than the ones Warlocks serve.
Atheist Paladins are still stupid though.
*(This did make me think of an interesting "Dawn of time" style setting where Clerics and Paladins didn't exist yet, Just Warlocks because none of the Gods were yet powerful enough to create them.)
This is one of the reasons I really enjoy Fantasy AGE. There are no mechanics that rely on active gods and no character class for cleric, much less paladin. That is possible because it has no default setting with active gods. There can still be religions in a GM's setting and of course those religions require clerics as administrators and may have holy warriors to defend them. But if any of those people want magic, they have to learn the same spells that the wizards use. Even that does not preclude real and active gods if you want to add them. They simply aren't required in a system that has good, flexible mechanics.
If you choose a setting with real and active gods you should certainly validate it with clerics and paladins who properly honor those gods, so I understand why people are disappointed in the new Golarion.
Quote from: Orphan81;1129166IF anything, the Existence of Warlocks is a great argument in favor of being an Atheist in a fantasy setting.
A warlock is just someone who made a pact with a powerful being and gained power from it. Clerics and Paladins are just that on a larger level*... So to an atheistic Wizard let's say. They can look at Paladins and Clerics and just see them as worshiping beings who are a little more powerful than the ones Warlocks serve.
The issue is less what the "reality" of supernatural beings is and rather how the paladin relates to his source of magical power. An atheist or agnostic paladin makes no sense because the paladin's entire reason for being is as a holy warrior granted power by divine authority. A warlock is engaged in an entirely different kind of relationship. Dr. Faust isn't the same kind of figure as Joan of Arc. For a paladin to be a paladin they must have unshakable faith in their divine mission - and since they are able to manifest supernatural powers granted to them in pursuit of that mission they would most certainly see their belief as justified.
If you believe that Gods have the sole ability to grant power then you can not have an Atheist Paladin.
Unfortunately in DnD you have magic using classes out the wazoo that dont get their power from Gods so that hypothesis fails.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129157Cheliax has slaves in the official books but I think not in S'mons home game.
I've never run a game in Cheliax so it never came up! I remember issues around why didn't Korvosa have slavery in my Curse of the Crimson Throne game, since they ape Chelish culture & King Arabasti had a harem.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129056I can see an atheist in a fantasy world. They'd just believe the 'gods' were really powerful beings, but not capital G gods.
...
LOL... I'm playing a rouge in our groups current 5e 'Waterdeep Heist' campaign that believes essentially that!
The so-called "gods" of the D&D pantheon/Waterdeep are just really powerful horrible people.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129077You all miss the point, atheism is the lack of belief, of faith, no faith needed when you KNOW they exist. What difference does it make calling them aliens from mork?
Quote from: Shasarak;1129072Just because they exist does not mean that you would worship them. ...
Exactly - one does not believe that these powerful beings should be worshipped.
Atheist = One who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.
I.e. The "Gods" in D&D are just really powerful assholes. Not anything resembling what a 'God' worthy of worship would be.
I'm doing it in the D&D game as a reaction to the fact that the way D&D does pantheons/religion is pure ass. It is simply impossible for me to take seriously as a form of in game religion.
Plus I get a kick out of the fact that IRL I'm the only really religious one in the group and I find it funny the way the other players have their Characters try to take the D&D pantheon seriously when my Rouge goes on a "They're not really Gods..." Rant.
Quote from: Orphan81;1129166IF anything, the Existence of Warlocks is a great argument in favor of being an Atheist in a fantasy setting.
A warlock is just someone who made a pact with a powerful being and gained power from it. Clerics and Paladins are just that on a larger level*... So to an atheistic Wizard let's say. They can look at Paladins and Clerics and just see them as worshiping beings who are a little more powerful than the ones Warlocks serve.
Atheist Paladins are still stupid though.
*(This did make me think of an interesting "Dawn of time" style setting where Clerics and Paladins didn't exist yet, Just Warlocks because none of the Gods were yet powerful enough to create them.)
Atheism is about the lack of faith, if you know such powerful beings exist you need exactly zero faith.
If anything the existence of Warlocks is a great argument over not needing faith, you make a deal with a demon and it grants you powers.
The best handling of all this is IMHO found in DCC.
Sure, a Wizard might think or believe Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks to be delusional and just channeling the same energies as him up until the point when one such entity crosses his way.
Imagine if you will Richard Dawkins walking and Jesus comes down from the heavens, performs all sorts of miracles in such a way as to leaving no doubt it's not a trick. Would you expect Dawkins to still not believing Jesus exists? He might have a bad opinion of him sure, but his existence? That would have been proven without a doubt.
And Dawkins would need exactly zero faith to think Jesus is real.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129173If you believe that Gods have the sole ability to grant power then you can not have an Atheist Paladin.
Unfortunately in DnD you have magic using classes out the wazoo that dont get their power from Gods so that hypothesis fails.
Unfortunately in DnD you have such entities crossing your path.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129176LOL... I'm playing a rouge in our groups current 5e 'Waterdeep Heist' campaign that believes essentially that!
The so-called "gods" of the D&D pantheon/Waterdeep are just really powerful horrible people.
Exactly - one does not believe that these powerful beings should be worshipped.
Atheist = One who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.
I.e. The "Gods" in D&D are just really powerful assholes. Not anything resembling what a 'God' worthy of worship would be.
I'm doing it in the D&D game as a reaction to the fact that the way D&D does pantheons/religion is pure ass. It is simply impossible for me to take seriously as a form of in game religion.
Plus I get a kick out of the fact that IRL I'm the only really religious one in the group and I find it funny the way the other players have their Characters try to take the D&D pantheon seriously when my Rouge goes on a "They're not really Gods..." Rant.
In your game you can houserule whatever, but, according to the mechanics of the game there are churches to worship the gods, why?
And clerics and paladins need to follow a code or loose their divine powers.
Well I'm running a Pathfinder 2E campaign in my own homebrew world. I've been using my homebrew world for years. I very much prefer my own world vs prepackaged worlds others come up with ;)
As far as agnostic Paladin's go: Paladins are Champions and Champions are in Paizo's own words: divine servants of a deity so I think the OP is getting D&D 5E paladin's wires crossed with Pathfinder's :)
Quote from: Zalman;1129101...
As far as paladins go, they really don't make sense outside of Christianity. When the paladin sheds that mantle and becomes a "holy warrior", it introduces a "generic holiness" to the game that is by its nature morally relative. And once those gates are open, then anything can be a "holy" or sacred purpose, including atheism. I agree it's ridiculous, but it's a natural consequence of trying to retrofit a Christian archetype into "you know, whatever religion."
100% This.
Quote from: jeff37923;1129139I find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.
Exactly!
Because D&D does religion epically bad. In their defense, most RPG's do religion epically bad.
Shoehorning Monotheistic beliefs into a Pantheon sandal is not a very good fit.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129177Atheism is about the lack of faith, if you know such powerful beings exist you need exactly zero faith..
Faith is inseparable from belief but belief does not require faith.
Quote from: The Dictionarynoun: Atheism
A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Atheism is not about faith. It is about what one believes.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129177...Imagine if you will Richard Dawkins walking and Jesus comes down from the heavens, performs all sorts of miracles in such a way as to leaving no doubt it's not a trick. Would you expect Dawkins to still not believing Jesus exists? He might have a bad opinion of him sure, but his existence? That would have been proven without a doubt.
And Dawkins would need exactly zero faith to think Jesus is real.
Just because Dawkins may know the entity that calls himself Jesus is real - that does not mean that he would believe him to be a God.
The Bible has many examples of people who saw miracles, angels, the power of God. And yet still persisted in their disbelief of the one true God.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129180In your game you can houserule whatever, but, according to the mechanics of the game there are churches to worship the gods, why?
And clerics and paladins need to follow a code or loose their divine powers.
Powerful asshole beings who dole out power and favors in return for worship/doing what they say. Because they like to play games with lesser beings. It's just that simple.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129177Atheism is about the lack of faith, if you know such powerful beings exist you need exactly zero faith.
If anything the existence of Warlocks is a great argument over not needing faith, you make a deal with a demon and it grants you powers.
The best handling of all this is IMHO found in DCC.
Sure, a Wizard might think or believe Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks to be delusional and just channeling the same energies as him up until the point when one such entity crosses his way.
Imagine if you will Richard Dawkins walking and Jesus comes down from the heavens, performs all sorts of miracles in such a way as to leaving no doubt it's not a trick. Would you expect Dawkins to still not believing Jesus exists? He might have a bad opinion of him sure, but his existence? That would have been proven without a doubt.
And Dawkins would need exactly zero faith to think Jesus is real.
Arthur C Clarke pokes holes in that statement.."Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Dawkins and skeptics are more likely to see someone coming down and doing miracles while claiming to be Jesus as using some heretofore unseen or known Science. Something more advanced than what human beings are capable of. Faith, is extremely important to the metaphysics of Dungeons and Dragons worlds. Just because your deity can make themselves manifest does not mean you no longer need faith in them. Faith is what feeds them. You have faith in their ability to protect you, and provide power to you.
I'm not talking about Atheist Paladins anymore by the way. That's just a stupid concept as is. But one can very much be an atheist in the Dungeons and Dragons fantasy world, if anything being a Wizard is probably one of the best ways to do it. As a Wizard who has more knowledge, more ideas on how the cosmos works.. it's more likely you're able to see how the "Deities" of the universe work, and their direct, necessary relationship with Humans and come to the conclusion they're not actually Gods. Given without worship and without faith they shrivel up and die.
Having one of these beings cross your path doesn't mean you necessarily suddenly begin to believe they are Gods. It just means you encountered a powerful being. And given Mortals are capable of ascending to Godhood through various means, it stands to reason you don't need to actually believe they're the true architects of creation and the mysterious powers behind everything.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129190100% This.
Exactly!
Because D&D does religion epically bad. In their defense, most RPG's do religion epically bad.
Shoehorning Monotheistic beliefs into a Pantheon sandal is not a very good fit.
Faith is inseparable from belief but belief does not require faith.
Atheism is not about faith. It is about what one believes.
Just because Dawkins may know the entity that calls himself Jesus is real - that does not mean that he would believe him to be a God.
The Bible has many examples of people who saw miracles, angels, the power of God. And yet still persisted in their disbelief of the one true God.
Powerful asshole beings who dole out power and favors in return for worship/doing what they say. Because they like to play games with lesser beings. It's just that simple.
If you know such beings exist you don't need to believe jack shit. Plus Faith (religious faith) is the belief lacking evidence or even in the face of evidence against.
Quote from: Orphan81;1129192Arthur C Clarke pokes holes in that statement.."Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Dawkins and skeptics are more likely to see someone coming down and doing miracles while claiming to be Jesus as using some heretofore unseen or known Science. Something more advanced than what human beings are capable of. Faith, is extremely important to the metaphysics of Dungeons and Dragons worlds. Just because your deity can make themselves manifest does not mean you no longer need faith in them. Faith is what feeds them. You have faith in their ability to protect you, and provide power to you.
I'm not talking about Atheist Paladins anymore by the way. That's just a stupid concept as is. But one can very much be an atheist in the Dungeons and Dragons fantasy world, if anything being a Wizard is probably one of the best ways to do it. As a Wizard who has more knowledge, more ideas on how the cosmos works.. it's more likely you're able to see how the "Deities" of the universe work, and their direct, necessary relationship with Humans and come to the conclusion they're not actually Gods. Given without worship and without faith they shrivel up and die.
Having one of these beings cross your path doesn't mean you necessarily suddenly begin to believe they are Gods. It just means you encountered a powerful being. And given Mortals are capable of ascending to Godhood through various means, it stands to reason you don't need to actually believe they're the true architects of creation and the mysterious powers behind everything.
Would Dawkins still doubt the existence of Jesus?
Would the people from medieval Europe think that magic = Tech they do not understand?
You're inserting what YOU know into the world, your character wouldn't have a way to know that or to think that, because of how it grew up.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, but in DnD and PF you can see, interact with them, plus you have Clerics and Paladins that get their powers from them... How can you doubt what you see with your own eyes?
Stop thinking like a 21st century person and try and think like someone from that world.
GB are you working on a new RPG, "Jesuit: The Semantic Arguing"?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129196Would Dawkins still doubt the existence of Jesus?
Would the people from medieval Europe think that magic = Tech they do not understand?
You're inserting what YOU know into the world, your character wouldn't have a way to know that or to think that, because of how it grew up.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, but in DnD and PF you can see, interact with them, plus you have Clerics and Paladins that get their powers from them... How can you doubt what you see with your own eyes?
Stop thinking like a 21st century person and try and think like someone from that world.
It's clear to me you're a believer, and that very much effects your own perception right now. You're trying to impose your own beliefs and views on the setting. If I came to England Circa 900 with a Thompson Sub machine gun, a tablet, and antibiotics, you bet your ass the people there would assume I was a great sorcerer and these were my magic spells. The most educated, however, would be able to look at, and understand it was a type of Technology.
In a setting where Magic is real, and anyone with sufficient knowledge and capability can harness and use that Magic, the existence of powerful beings does not necessarily mean I view them as Divine in the sense of a Christian in the real world, or even a peasant follower of that faith in the fantasy world. If I'm a wizard, I can look at Warlocks and Clerics, look at their magic, and see how I'm able to duplicate the majority of it myself. From the Warlocks various pacts I can also summarize that powerful beings are able to grant some of their own power to others in exchange for service. I also know on a long enough timeline, as a Wizard, I too could one day ascend to these potential heights and be considered a "God" among mortals.
With that knowledge, I can very much be an atheist. I can know there is no true creator behind the scenes of the Universe, that it simply exists. The fact their are powerful beings that can grant magic to others doesn't invalidate that viewpoint. If anything, one can take the very same look that modern day skeptics have... Religion is an effective means to control people.
There have been atheists all throughout History, the inclusion of magic and powerful beings claiming to be Gods does not mean I have to believe they are so..
And Faith is still very much a thing in those worlds. Clerics and Paladins cannot get their abilities without Faith that these powerful beings are exactly who they say they are.
Hell, if a being came down in a ray of light, declared himself to be Jesus Christ, and turned my water bottle into a wine bottle while it was still in my hand, I might not believe it was the son of God. Especially if it was red wine. I'd have to say, "Dude, Jesus would know I can't stand this stuff."
It is true that this wouldn't be a very medieval European mindset, but we aren't talking about medieval Europe. We are talking about a world where wizardry is just a job with not much more skill needed than being a medic and where gods can get murdered (sometimes BY mortals ) or mortals raised up to be new gods. There is not a lot of jumping needed to start wondering if gods aren't just big wizards that bought into their own hype.
I do agree that divinely powered athiests are a stretch and would be rare as Asmodeus' tears, but if that is the sort of person that a god decides "this one will do good works" and doesn't seem to mind that "in my name" isn't on the end of that sentence, then who am I to argue?
I'll just chalk it up to ineffability and be glad that somebody with those skills is on the side of the angels, regardless of whether they believe in them.
Greetings!
Well, the fact that there are so many people that play in Forgotten Realms that somehow have the impression that the gods aren't god at all, but just assholes that are super powerful and dole out power to who worships them and so on is just ridiculous. In my campaigns, the gods are enormous, vast spiritual beings that are simply beyond mortal comprehension. Individual worshippers may experience dreams, visions, prophecies, mystical experiences--and sometimes communicate with powerful spiritual beings like Devas or Demons, but that is all. People do not see, or speak directly with gods. Even speaking to a powerful divine servant of a god--like a powerful Deva--is utterly profound, and an awesome, life-changing experience. Those that may arrogantly doubt the gods, or blaspheme against them, in particular circumstances, can just be simply annihilated in seconds by the hand of judgment.
Beyond such unusual experiences, divine magic, and divine minions--and in particular, holy clerics, are sufficient evidence of divine power and holiness. People do have visions, people do make prophecies of the future, people are miraculously healed, and especially wicked cities are thrown down in fire and brimstone in an hour. Plagues, strife, and calamity do strike a family and it's fortunes over a lifetime, bringing the family of an evil and blasphemous patriarch to ruin, no matter what efforts they may go through to otherwise avoid such calamities. Others may be majestically blessed in wealth, power, and blessing, though they are a humble shepherd. The divine realms are certainly a reality, and something that mortal people provoke or challenge at their own peril.
So, the gods are used as a generally mystical, mysterious, force within the world in my campaign, beyond mortal comprehension, often distant and inscrutable, but possessing overwhelming and unimaginable powers. Wizards and whatever spells that are in the books are like children playing with playdoh in comparison.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I did run a Rolemaster game where in the past, a great human empire had discovered that the gods required faith and worship and undertook a program of deliberate deicide in order to focus power into a smaller number of gods and weaponise them using mystical goads to direct and control the gods themselves. It all came to an end when the mother goddess stopped all new births for thirty years which was enough to collapse the empire.
I also ran one where the gods lived in a heaven in geosynchonous orbit and were tall enough to be seen moving about at night. Those gods were more like Jack Kirby's Celestials, present but inscrutible though the priests of their church received powers. But that world was the cooling corpses of planetary class elementals and humans were essentially decay bacteria while elves and orks were like antibodies. Hell was a fungus with a continental patch on the surface and a mass of hyphae / tunnels beneath the surface. The only time the players really paid much attention to it all was the time when the gods had a schism and one of their corpses landed on the city they were staying in.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1129197GB are you working on a new RPG, "Jesuit: The Semantic Arguing"?
LOL, no. Plus I'm an atheist
Quote from: Orphan81;1129198It's clear to me you're a believer, and that very much effects your own perception right now. You're trying to impose your own beliefs and views on the setting. If I came to England Circa 900 with a Thompson Sub machine gun, a tablet, and antibiotics, you bet your ass the people there would assume I was a great sorcerer and these were my magic spells. The most educated, however, would be able to look at, and understand it was a type of Technology.
In a setting where Magic is real, and anyone with sufficient knowledge and capability can harness and use that Magic, the existence of powerful beings does not necessarily mean I view them as Divine in the sense of a Christian in the real world, or even a peasant follower of that faith in the fantasy world. If I'm a wizard, I can look at Warlocks and Clerics, look at their magic, and see how I'm able to duplicate the majority of it myself. From the Warlocks various pacts I can also summarize that powerful beings are able to grant some of their own power to others in exchange for service. I also know on a long enough timeline, as a Wizard, I too could one day ascend to these potential heights and be considered a "God" among mortals.
With that knowledge, I can very much be an atheist. I can know there is no true creator behind the scenes of the Universe, that it simply exists. The fact their are powerful beings that can grant magic to others doesn't invalidate that viewpoint. If anything, one can take the very same look that modern day skeptics have... Religion is an effective means to control people.
There have been atheists all throughout History, the inclusion of magic and powerful beings claiming to be Gods does not mean I have to believe they are so..
And Faith is still very much a thing in those worlds. Clerics and Paladins cannot get their abilities without Faith that these powerful beings are exactly who they say they are.
You fail at mind reading too. I'm an atheist, now you're just arguing on bad faith, I'm talking about a game world, you keep on trying to inject stuff YOU know into it, that's called metagaming.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129199Hell, if a being came down in a ray of light, declared himself to be Jesus Christ, and turned my water bottle into a wine bottle while it was still in my hand, I might not believe it was the son of God. Especially if it was red wine. I'd have to say, "Dude, Jesus would know I can't stand this stuff."
It is true that this wouldn't be a very medieval European mindset, but we aren't talking about medieval Europe. We are talking about a world where wizardry is just a job with not much more skill needed than being a medic and where gods can get murdered (sometimes BY mortals ) or mortals raised up to be new gods. There is not a lot of jumping needed to start wondering if gods aren't just big wizards that bought into their own hype.
I do agree that divinely powered athiests are a stretch and would be rare as Asmodeus' tears, but if that is the sort of person that a god decides "this one will do good works" and doesn't seem to mind that "in my name" isn't on the end of that sentence, then who am I to argue?
I'll just chalk it up to ineffability and be glad that somebody with those skills is on the side of the angels, regardless of whether they believe in them.
Like the Greeks/Romans believed mortals could become Gods?
Like Christians believed and believe you can become a saint and then perform miracles?
Yes atheists/agnostics powered by a divinity are a stretch so big you end in the other side of the galaxy.
Quote from: SHARK;1129201Greetings!
Well, the fact that there are so many people that play in Forgotten Realms that somehow have the impression that the gods aren't god at all, but just assholes that are super powerful and dole out power to who worships them and so on is just ridiculous. In my campaigns, the gods are enormous, vast spiritual beings that are simply beyond mortal comprehension. Individual worshippers may experience dreams, visions, prophecies, mystical experiences--and sometimes communicate with powerful spiritual beings like Devas or Demons, but that is all. People do not see, or speak directly with gods. Even speaking to a powerful divine servant of a god--like a powerful Deva--is utterly profound, and an awesome, life-changing experience. Those that may arrogantly doubt the gods, or blaspheme against them, in particular circumstances, can just be simply annihilated in seconds by the hand of judgment.
Beyond such unusual experiences, divine magic, and divine minions--and in particular, holy clerics, are sufficient evidence of divine power and holiness. People do have visions, people do make prophecies of the future, people are miraculously healed, and especially wicked cities are thrown down in fire and brimstone in an hour. Plagues, strife, and calamity do strike a family and it's fortunes over a lifetime, bringing the family of an evil and blasphemous patriarch to ruin, no matter what efforts they may go through to otherwise avoid such calamities. Others may be majestically blessed in wealth, power, and blessing, though they are a humble shepherd. The divine realms are certainly a reality, and something that mortal people provoke or challenge at their own peril.
So, the gods are used as a generally mystical, mysterious, force within the world in my campaign, beyond mortal comprehension, often distant and inscrutable, but possessing overwhelming and unimaginable powers. Wizards and whatever spells that are in the books are like children playing with playdoh in comparison.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
And this is why you limit the amount of power your characters can get, failure to do so not only may break immersion it breaks the world.
Quote from: David Johansen;1129202I did run a Rolemaster game where in the past, a great human empire had discovered that the gods required faith and worship and undertook a program of deliberate deicide in order to focus power into a smaller number of gods and weaponise them using mystical goads to direct and control the gods themselves. It all came to an end when the mother goddess stopped all new births for thirty years which was enough to collapse the empire.
I also ran one where the gods lived in a heaven in geosynchonous orbit and were tall enough to be seen moving about at night. Those gods were more like Jack Kirby's Celestials, present but inscrutible though the priests of their church received powers. But that world was the cooling corpses of planetary class elementals and humans were essentially decay bacteria while elves and orks were like antibodies. Hell was a fungus with a continental patch on the surface and a mass of hyphae / tunnels beneath the surface. The only time the players really paid much attention to it all was the time when the gods had a schism and one of their corpses landed on the city they were staying in.
Now those are games I would love to hear more about! The first is close to my preconception of the gods/demons requiring worship/sacrifice as sustenance or risk dying.
And the second just sounds so... Unique, in the best way possible.
Quote from: SHARK;1129055Hmmm...Atheism enforced in the game just seems contrarian, delusional, and stupid. Everyone in the world is theistic. There is no scholarly enclave holding out for the virtues of atheism. It's just stupid. Any player of in my group insisting on such a philosophy would be very alone, as most everyone around such a character would deem them hopelessly stupid at best--and blasphemous and cursed at worst, in which case they would typically be exiled, or hunted down and executed for their blasphemy. Whatever their fate, it would be terrible, lonely, and grim. There would be zero philosophical or ideological support for such a character, and socially they would be an ostracized pariah.
Since I first got my hands on D&DG, and then even more so after the Avatar Trilogy, I've been a firm proponent of maltheism in fantasy settings.
Kill the gods and take their stuff!
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129208And this is why you limit the amount of power your characters can get, failure to do so not only may break immersion it breaks the world.
Greetings!
That's right, my friend! I am always watchful and cautious in whatever powers that player characters may gain. Especially so with things relating to the divine, divine powers, and so on. Thus, while my players often joke that my answers are usually either "No, you can't do that; No, your efforts to achieve X fail, for a variety of reasons. No, you can't do that. The knowledge or processes are not known, do not exist, or have not been discovered by anyone." Or, there is some way that the character gets fucked; the experiment blows up, disaster strikes them in some other manner, and on and on. They laugh about it, but their powers, regardless of what class they are, are limited, and remain limited. Except when they are assaulting some evil temple, they regard clerics and temples with proper reverence and respect. Evil gods and demons are temporal, and an earthly threat. A true God is incomprehensible and can snuff you out like an ant. Players typically take a very respectful and cautious approach when dealing with genuine religions and divine beings in the game world. In my campaigns, players cannot travel to divine realms, nor do they ever directly interact with the gods; and player characters certainly cannot "become gods". Evil characters like to believe they can "become gods" though such is a delusion, and a metaphysical fraud. At best, they can become transformed to a very powerful evil demonic-like being. No matter how powerful such evil characters may become, or seem to be, they too can be utterly annihilated by righteous powers and gods. A somewhat earthly example, characters can become vampires--immensely powerful, near-immortal, and yet, they too can be brought to judgment. Mummies, liches, whatever. Even demons can be scourged by holy fire, wounded with righteous weapons, and destroyed, returning their spiritual essence to the realms of Hell, to suffer further humiliation and scorn. It's different, I suppose, for sure. The mystical and divine are encountered everywhere, and yet, there are restrictions and barriers that firmly separate the divine realm from the mortal realm.
Players "becoming gods". *laughing* No, my players would never seek to even think they can attempt such. The thought makes them think of blasphemous rebellion and eternal judgment and damnation. They know they should not meddle with that which is beyond their comprehension. They are mortals, and remain content with their existence, and whatever way they must live their lives on the mortal world. Resisting evil powers, and seeking to live lives that are more or less righteous and in humble obedience to the ways of righteous and noble faith.
I also use limited "plane hopping" mostly restricted toFaerie realms, or elemental realms, as I tend to think it is somehow more realistic, more believable, to keep powers and such instances restricted from the players. The divine is always mysterious and ultimately unknowable, or as Paul says, "We see as through a glass darkly." Our vision, our comprehension is very limited, even when exposed to some kind of divine encounter or experience. Limited, mortal, bewildering. It keeps the players having a real sense of being grounded in a realistic world, and yet fantastic.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Pat;1129211Since I first got my hands on D&DG, and then even more so after the Avatar Trilogy, I've been a firm proponent of maltheism in fantasy settings.
Kill the gods and take their stuff!
Greetings!
*Laughing* Oh yes. When you get higher level, who doesn't want to challenge Orcus, or Demogorgon? I know what kind of awesome goodies they get in their hoard, according to the Treasure Tables!:D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I am firmly in the camp of atheist wizards and religious paladins. The idea that someone who understands the inner workings of the multiverse can look at so-called gods and think "these are just very powerful wizards" makes perfect sense to me. There's also nothing in D&D or similar fantasy games dictating that gods have to take an active role in the world. That might be the case in specific settings but not an essential component of a fantasy world.
The fact that powerful beings exist and call themselves "gods" doesn't mean "therefore they are (truly) gods". For all I know those are just demons trying tempt me away from "the one true god(dess)" who has yet to reveal him/herself. Can these beings obliterate me or ruin my life? So can a wizard. Damn these demon-mages sure are petty.
Now, an atheist paladin, on the other hand, is just absurd. Even if you want to reduce "paladins" to some generic "champion" status (and I think you could) I think it makes more sense to just make a separate "champion" (or perhaps mystical warrior) class rather than generalize paladins just to fit a square peg in a round hole. Paladins embody a very specific archetype and role, and have very specific abilities that fit that archetype and role (lay on hands, smite evil), but might not necessarily fit a more generic champion or mystical warrior concept.
Granted, you could also make a universal "champion" class and make "paladins" a specific tradition within that general class. But if that's the case then you should stop calling the baseline class "paladin", cuz that's just simply not what a paladin is. A paladin is a specific type of champion that's supposed to be pious and channel the power of their gods, and should get at least a few specialized (non-generic) abilities to fit that role. But letting "paladins" be atheistic just to allow them to fit some generic "champion" role is just messing with the concept of what a paladin is supposed to be.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129076Again, no faith required, a Paladin gets his powers from his god, he knows it exists, he needs no faith and can't be an agnostic, plus I think doing the god's bidding counts as worshipping.
But does he know the god exists? Because getting powers from belief is not in itself proof that a god exists, it's proof that some people with faith in that sort of thing have powers. You can definitely play it that the gods are unknown and unknowable, but belief has power. And whether that power is based on believing some objective truth is something that can be demonstrated at least via circumstantial evidence -- for instance, if you believe your religion is right and contradicts the other religions, then do the believers of other those religions also have divine powers? The answer's probably yes, unless you want a very limited world. In which case, the evidence leans toward the idea that its belief that gives people power. And, incidentally, you end up with a situation not that far off from our real world, where all kinds of religions believe all kinds of crazy and contradictory things, it's just they all have super powers. In that world, religions will either have to accept polytheism, or rationalize it away within their own framework. For instance, something similar to how the Catholic Church tried to explain away pagan myths and legends -- the wizards and druids and so on were either saints, or drew from the power of the Devil.
Quote from: Pat;1129215But does he know the god exists? Because getting powers from belief is not in itself proof that a god exists, it's proof that some people with faith in that sort of thing have powers. You can definitely play it that the gods are unknown and unknowable, but belief has power. And whether that power is based on believing some objective truth is something that can be demonstrated at least via circumstantial evidence -- for instance, if you believe your religion is right and contradicts the other religions, then do the believers of other those religions also have divine powers? The answer's probably yes, unless you want a very limited world. In which case, the evidence leans toward the idea that its belief that gives people power. And, incidentally, you end up with a situation not that far off from our real world, where all kinds of religions believe all kinds of crazy and contradictory things, it's just they all have super powers. In that world, religions will either have to accept polytheism, or rationalize it away within their own framework. For instance, something similar to how the Catholic Church tried to explain away pagan myths and legends -- the wizards and druids and so on were either saints, or drew from the power of the Devil.
Since his god answers his prayers? Yes I would say the cleric/paladin does know his god exists.
Belief = Faith, not required in a world where deities and demons are real and interact with the mortals.
Yes, it's exactly like what the catholic church did, and then it's exactly like current year Seattle where everybody gets to be a paladin and have none of the restrictions.
This is why you need to build your world top to bottom, start with the pantheon and do not make anything that contradicts it.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129217Since his god answers his prayers? Yes I would say the cleric/paladin does know his god exists.
There's another theory that fits the evidence, therefore your conclusion is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129214I am firmly in the camp of atheist wizards and religious paladins. The idea that someone who understands the inner workings of the multiverse can look at so-called gods and think "these are just very powerful wizards" makes perfect sense to me. There's also nothing in D&D or similar fantasy games dictating that gods have to take an active role in the world. That might be the case in specific settings but not an essential component of a fantasy world.
The fact that powerful beings exist and call themselves "gods" doesn't mean "therefore they are (truly) gods". For all I know those are just demons trying tempt me away from "the one true god(dess)" who has yet to reveal him/herself. Can these beings obliterate me or ruin my life? So can a wizard. Damn these demon-mages sure are petty.
Now, an atheist paladin, on the other hand, is just absurd. Even if you want to reduce "paladins" to some generic "champion" status (and I think you could) I think it makes more sense to just make a separate "champion" (or perhaps mystical warrior) class rather than generalize paladins just to fit a square peg in a round hole. Paladins embody a very specific archetype and role, and have very specific abilities that fit that archetype and role (lay on hands, smite evil), but might not necessarily fit a more generic champion or mystical warrior concept.
Granted, you could also make a universal "champion" class and make "paladins" a specific tradition within that general class. But if that's the case then you should stop calling the baseline class "paladin", cuz that's just simply not what a paladin is. A paladin is a specific type of champion that's supposed to be pious and channel the power of their gods, and should get at least a few specialized (non-generic) abilities to fit that role. But letting "paladins" be atheistic just to allow them to fit some generic "champion" role is just messing with the concept of what a paladin is supposed to be.
Now that does make sense and has internal consistency. Meaning it wouldn't break immersion. Yes Atheist Wizards and Religious Clerics/Paladins is something I could buy into.
Which, contrary to what some seem to think, it's my whole argument against Atheist Paladins, it just doesn't fit with the class as it's built.
Quote from: Pat;1129218There's another theory that fits the evidence, therefore your conclusion is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
With your brain from the 21st century, not the brain of someone stuck in a middle ages world. Metagaming again.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129220With your brain from the 21st century, not the brain of someone stuck in a middle ages world. Metagaming again.
What middle ages world? With maybe one exception (and it's not a D&D-umbral world), every major fantasy setting is 99.44% modern, with a thin veneer of the medieval or ancient slapped on top. RPGs are more about accessibility and relatability, than
Otto of the Silver Hand or
The Mermaid's Children.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129195If you know such beings exist you don't need to believe jack shit. Plus Faith (religious faith) is the belief lacking evidence or even in the face of evidence against.
Just because you may
know that a particularly powerful being exists -that does not mean that you
believe them to be a god/gods.
Quote from: SHARK;1129201...
Well, the fact that there are so many people that play in Forgotten Realms that somehow have the impression that the gods aren't god at all, but just assholes that are super powerful and dole out power to who worships them and so on is just ridiculous....
It's only possible because the of way D&D designers have set up the settings pantheon to be utterly ridiculous itself.
Scientology is a more rigorous and foundational system upon which to base one's beliefs that the pantheon of Faerun.
Religious pantheons in D&D are a prime examples of fictional "religions" created by irreligious people based upon how they
think religious people believe/act.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129178Unfortunately in DnD you have such entities crossing your path.
In the old days they used to have Gods statted up in their own Monster Manual.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129223In the old days they used to have Gods statted up in their own Monster Manual.
I had that book, the super illegal version
Quote from: Jaeger;1129222Religious pantheons in D&D are a prime examples of fictional "religions" created by irreligious people based upon how they think religious people believe/act.
Even stranger, they're fictional religions that supposed to be a specific type of religion (polytheism), but are based on what irreligious people think know about an entirely different religious paradigm (monotheism).
People sometimes call it henotheism, but it's not. It's polytheism as imagined by people who have a poor grasp of monotheism.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129107Atheism is the lack of faith in god/gods, not the assertion that they do not exist. If you know they do exist you can't be neither agnostic nor atheistic in regards to them. Look above your response, What Altheus is saying.
OED
atheist
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129223In the old days they used to have Gods statted up in their own Monster Manual.
What loot does God drop? Probably fishes and loaves. :(
Quote from: Gagarth;1129227OED
atheist
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
faith
noun
noun: faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
h
Similar:
trust
belief
confidence
conviction
credence
reliance
dependence
optimism
hopefulness
hope
expectation
h
Antonym:
mistrust
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Please take note that you want to prove me wrong by just changing faith for one of it's synonyms.
Quote from: Orphan81;1129198It's clear to me you're a believer, and that very much effects your own perception right now. You're trying to impose your own beliefs and views on the setting. If I came to England Circa 900 with a Thompson Sub machine gun, a tablet, and antibiotics, you bet your ass the people there would assume I was a great sorcerer and these were my magic spells. The most educated, however, would be able to look at, and understand it was a type of Technology.
I think that's completely ridiculous. Personally, I think everyone would understand immediately that they are technology. But even besides that, the idea that magic and technology are distinct things is a projection of your worldview. How are antibiotics any different than any substance ground up by an alchemist or some old lady? If you believe that such and such root is an effective cure, then why should bread mold being an effective cure make it magic? If you give a medieval person antibiotics and explain to them what they are and that they're not really magic, they aren't going to denounce all of their folk remedies and religion, put on a fedora and start pwning Christians on reddit. They're going to ask you how to make it, or for you to give them more of it.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129222It's only possible because the of way D&D designers have set up the settings pantheon to be utterly ridiculous itself.
Scientology is a more rigorous and foundational system upon which to base one's beliefs that the pantheon of Faerun.
Well of course Scientology is more rigorous and foundational, it is based on Science!
QuoteReligious pantheons in D&D are a prime examples of fictional "religions" created by irreligious people based upon how they think religious people believe/act.
I am not sure that is right. I get the impression that Ed Greenwood knew what he was writing up and then the people who came in after especially us dear readers dont appreciate the context of living in such a world.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129228What loot does God drop? Probably fishes and loaves. :(
Well buckets of XP for a start. Just be careful of them respawning!
Quote from: Shasarak;1129233Well of course Scientology is more rigorous and foundational, it is based on Science!
Especially the part about Xenu and aliens being chained to volcanoes on earth and then blown up to pieces with nukes 75 million years ago!
I'm pretty sure it's sarcasm but I couldn't resist
Quote from: Jaeger;1129222Just because you may know that a particularly powerful being exists -that does not mean that you believe them to be a god/gods.
It's only possible because the of way D&D designers have set up the settings pantheon to be utterly ridiculous itself.
Scientology is a more rigorous and foundational system upon which to base one's beliefs that the pantheon of Faerun.
Religious pantheons in D&D are a prime examples of fictional "religions" created by irreligious people based upon how they think religious people believe/act.
Greetings!
*Laughing* That's so fucking true, Jaeger! I agree entirely.:D I have for a long time felt the same way. The designer's whole envisioning of religions, and how religious people think, believe, and view the divine, and the world as well, is often mind-boggling, and gives me fits. There was a time I would get really exercised about how stupid their presentations of religion was, before gradually just giving up entirely on them having any kind of genuine skill and solid philosophical and theological imagination. Irreligious people is damned right, my friend. Their stupidity and gross simplicity and over-simplification, and just WTF isms of how they design religions and present religious faith can get obnoxious.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK;1129241Greetings!
*Laughing* That's so fucking true, Jaeger! I agree entirely.:D I have for a long time felt the same way. The designer's whole envisioning of religions, and how religious people think, believe, and view the divine, and the world as well, is often mind-boggling, and gives me fits. There was a time I would get really exercised about how stupid their presentations of religion was, before gradually just giving up entirely on them having any kind of genuine skill and solid philosophical and theological imagination. Irreligious people is damned right, my friend. Their stupidity and gross simplicity and over-simplification, and just WTF isms of how they design religions and present religious faith can get obnoxious.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It's not the irreligious part that makes it bad tho, it's the lack of empathy and imagination.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129209Now those are games I would love to hear more about! The first is close to my preconception of the gods/demons requiring worship/sacrifice as sustenance or risk dying.
And the second just sounds so... Unique, in the best way possible.
Thanks, the first campaign involved high elves that sailed into the world on ships woven of starlight to fight their eternal foes the trolls who had raised up an island pentegram with five volcanos. The high elves are not properly atheists, it's just that they believe themselves to be gods and everyone else is just a pretender. The demons are the bound gods of the trolls trapped in the hell spikes far above the earth in the great darkness beyond the stars. For each hell spike there is a hell seed which can be awakened by a single drop of blood and bring hell raining down from the heavens.
In the second campaign, the gods were gesalt beings forged by covenants writen on their flesh in liquid fire. Vast hosts of people merged into singular beings, not content to worship gods but desiring to be fully part of their gods. And these made war in the heavens on the primal elementals, the titans and won a great victory casting the burning ones into one heap which is called the sun and the air, earth, and water into another. They walked upon this earth and created man to break it up and tear it down and leach the very life from the bones of the earth. But the titans gave birth to creatures of their own which seek to destroy men and restore their creators. Then the gods rose from the earth and set watch in godsholm to watch and wait for the last sparks of life to pass from the earth. In time, some elves became corrupted and made alliance with men to elevate themselves above their kin and the races were sundered. In the lands where the gods walk is the great road which is soft under foot and hard under hoof and wagon wheel. It runs straight and true, flat and level over rivers and through mountain ranges a thousand miles square it marks the boundaries of the high kingdom where the gods are still worshiped and godsholm is ever visible in the night sky.
I have no comment on Pathfinder - I'm only barely familiar with it.
But the religion and atheism within game-worlds can be fascinating stuff. I approve a variety of approaches. The standard pseudo-polytheist in D&D is boring mostly because it's a backdrop that isn't explored.
I've had some pretty interesting characters in the HarnWorld setting - which has a polytheist set of religions with a little more flavor baked into them. There are real schisms even within churches ostensibly devoted to a single god. Priests have powers, but those are seen as a product of their devotion, and the gods don't take an active hand in running the churches. So, for example, I had an Agrikan priest who publicly was part of the primary church -- but was secretly devoted to a splinter sect, The Order of Eight Demons. He had genuine faith and devotion to a god often seen as the evil god, and was ruthless himself but also had some key ethical values.
From the view that powers come from devotion and organization, rather than from the god directly, it's possible to have splinter sects.
I don't have a problem with atheist paladins. Stuff that's more peculiar rather than the boring standard can be good. The original paladins were the peer of Charlemagne's court -- including a spell-casting enchanter. The original D&D paladin was purely Christian-themed, which was peculiar since the setting didn't include Christianity. I don't see paladins as inherently being religious first and foremost -- I see them as being heroic and chivalric knights. I think a sneaky, underhanded paladin of a trickster god / animist cult would be more against the mold -- despite genuine faith in their deity -- compared to a heroic and chivalric knight who isn't religious.
I could see a few approaches to a non-religious paladin. One would be a paladin devoted to a non-religious cause that granted powers, but didn't have a deity or religion associated. Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, they are imbued with powers and given a purpose -- but there is no conception of a deity or organized religion behind that power.
Alternately, I could picture a world with deities, where a deity selects a champion and imbues them with powers -- even though the person themselves doesn't have any devotion to or faith in the deity. This is similar but distinct, because the deity is putting trust and faith in that person, rather than demanding obedience and service. I think that sort of a character could be interesting.
The problem is the word "paladin". That's why I prefer "champion" and the champion can exist for most any god. That was the cool part of multi-classing. As a champion of a trickster god, my PC would be a cleric-thief and away we went.
As for atheism in fantasy, that's cool in settings with no gods who interact with the setting. I've had PCs who rejected the gods in a setting, but it gets odd when the cleric keeps chucking out spells.
In Planescape, there was the Sign of One where you could worship yourself as a god. I had a super fun with a Gully Dwarf Cleric who KNEW he was the only true god in the universe and even convinced monsters to back off because the universe would end if he ever died. So much fun. I prayed to myself and got spells every day! What more proof of my divinity would you need?
As for Paizo, don't expect anything sensible or non-agenda driven from that crapass company.
Also find standard D&D religion really boring. It actually lacks so many aspects of real life religion that makes it interesting. All of the various beliefs, the schisms, the relationships with non-believers, the rituals, the holidays, religious canons, taboos and prohibitions. Religion is so much more than worshipping a fire god to fire powers. Morality is so much more than the alignment axis. In some ways, the certainty that is assumed in D&D religion makes it less interesting. Having mystery as a part of religion allows for a lot of interesting interactions. People of different religions can debate what is the truth, different priests within the same religion can argue what the will of god(s) is, etc.
How can such mystery exist in a world where priests have supernatural powers? Well, I suppose for one thing, most priests shouldn't have supernatural powers. A priest is an expert, not the cleric class. A cleric is more like a saint, a legendary individual who is granted powers by their deity. Or are they?
Paladins and clerics both should have religions, but not necessarily deities. They must be devoted to some supernatural force or principle which grants them supernatural abilities. It shouldn't have to be a polytheistic god, but it should be something. The essence of role playing a paladin or cleric isn't the powers, it is the devotion to something higher than themselves.
Can someone be an atheist in such a world? I don't know, it depends on how one defines atheism. Obviously, supernatural beings exist. A atheist in real life could view an alien with vast knowledge and abilities beyond any human, though there would be no special requirement to worship that creature. With standard religion, a deity isn't just something more powerful than ourselves, it is a being with moral significance not merely great knowledge or abilities. In pagan religions there were being of great power, titans or giants for example, who rivaled the gods but were unworthy of worship. Could someone like in a D&D setting and extend this thinking to all of the deities?
I think with fantasy world religions, we need to be careful not to assume that the people who live in that world don't have access to the player's handbook. For them, magic and religion should both be wondrous and mysterious.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129180In your game you can houserule whatever, but, according to the mechanics of the game there are churches to worship the gods, why?
And clerics and paladins need to follow a code or loose their divine powers.
It's not that clear in all cases. For over a decade, the D&D Eberron setting has featured a world where nobody--not even powerful outsiders (e.g., solars)--have actually seen the gods' faces or heard the gods voices. Still, divine magic is present in the faithful...even those that follow very different interpretations of what their deity "wants" them to do. They don't lose their powers for going rogue (though the mortal institutions of their religions are likely to censure them).
Quote from: Shasarak;1129233I am not sure that is right. I get the impression that Ed Greenwood knew what he was writing up and then the people who came in after especially us dear readers dont appreciate the context of living in such a world.
I don't get that impression at all. Religions involve creation stories, myths, dogma, practices, and so forth. If we go back to the gray box, there's basically no religion at all, just a listing of gods. We do eventually get some of that, in the context of things like the Avatar Trilogy and the specialty priests of Forgotten Realms Adventures, but they're still focused on the gods as singular entities worshiped individually as little pseudo-monotheistic deities, and not on a coherent pantheon or an overarching religion. And even if we blame the lack of religion in the FRCS on Grubb, and go back further to all those Dragon magazine articles Greenwood wrote, there's still an almost complete absence of anything divine. Greenwood loved writing about warriors and magic, not gods and miracles.
One thing that could be really useful, from a game standpoint, is defining the limits of gods, at least from the perspective of the PCs. What are the limits of their knowledge, when it comes to things like commune? What exactly does contact other plane put you in touch with? What can I learn from summoning a demon? The DM can leave the ultimate questions uncertain or unknowable, but it helps to define how they interface with the game mechanics. This can vary from campaign to campaign.
It's also useful to have some idea how religion works, overall. How often do gods meddle, and what remedies do people have? The default is to assume intervention is rare, but that's just modern prejudices. I can imagine a really fun game based on something like Homer, where the gods intervene constantly. The trick would be to quantify it, so the players can notice the signs and respond effectively, not to treat it as a deus ex machina (despite the name) they have no control over. Maybe they're mostly interested in name-level characters, and their hand can be deduced by omens, which might be divinable by spells, proficiencies, or seers. Also, how does appeasement work, what can people expect from their patrons, and so on. Think about it both at the PC and the campaign level, so the players know what they can do, and have some idea how to interpret the examples they run across.
Quote from: Vidgrip;1129169This is one of the reasons I really enjoy Fantasy AGE. There are no mechanics that rely on active gods and no character class for cleric, much less paladin. That is possible because it has no default setting with active gods. There can still be religions in a GM's setting and of course those religions require clerics as administrators and may have holy warriors to defend them. But if any of those people want magic, they have to learn the same spells that the wizards use. Even that does not preclude real and active gods if you want to add them. They simply aren't required in a system that has good, flexible mechanics.
If you choose a setting with real and active gods you should certainly validate it with clerics and paladins who properly honor those gods, so I understand why people are disappointed in the new Golarion.
Nail, Head ETC. This is one of the reasons I absolutely adore Fantasy AGE. DnD 3.5 and its derivatives have this problem where the game comes with all sorts of baked-in assumptions about your world which cannot be corrected without gutting and re-writing core classes.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129195If you know such beings exist you don't need to believe jack shit. Plus Faith (religious faith) is the belief lacking evidence or even in the face of evidence against.
No. Faith is belief in something based on an authority judged to be trustworthy, but without knowledge that
compels the mind's assent.
The GURPS Fantasy setting Banestorm has always been interesting in that it has medival Catholcism and Islam complete with internal factions and disputes but the setting itself is largely agnostic. There are demons though the way the races are set up as having homeworlds they were torn from by the banestorm indicates demons are probably in the same boat and may even be from the same world as centaurs, chimeras, and satyrs came from. The fourth edition softens the agnosticism in light of things like the Blessed advantage but at the root of it, nobody gets magic from their diety. Priests are an educated class and those with the talent might learn some spells if their order approves of such things but magic is magic.
In D&D they just game you the pantheons. The rest was up to the DM to make of it whatever they wanted. Its presented blank for a reason. Sadly way too many missed the point.
As for atheists. That one is actually kind of easy. The person follows a demon or some other entity that while not a god, does grant clerical power. Thats actually fairly common in D&D with this or that cutist clerics. Why not cultist paladins?
Also in AD&D the gods themselves actially did not grant most of a clerics power. They used tiers if intermediaries and only got hands on when a cleric accessed the top end magic.
Or you might have like in BX where power could come just from conviction, inner virtue or lack thereof, etc.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1129273No.
Faith is belief in something based on an authority judged to be trustworthy, but without knowledge that compels the mind's assent.
faith
noun
noun: faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
h
Similar:
trust
belief
confidence
conviction
credence
reliance
dependence
optimism
hopefulness
hope
expectation
h
Antonym:
mistrust
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Please take note that you want to prove me wrong by just changing faith for one of it's synonyms.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129283Please take note that you want to prove me wrong by just changing faith for one of it's synonyms.
What I was objecting to in your statement was the 'without evidence or even against evidence' part of the definition. In the traditional Christian understanding of faith, there is plenty of evidence for God and His self-revelation in Christ … it's just not sufficient to compel the assent of the mind, as opposed to direct experience or self-evident chains of logic.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1129287What I was objecting to in your statement was the 'without evidence or even against evidence' part of the definition. In the traditional Christian understanding of faith, there is plenty of evidence for God and His self-revelation in Christ ... it's just not sufficient to compel the assent of the mind, as opposed to direct experience or self-evident chains of logic.
ev·i·dence
noun
noun: evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
h
Similar:
proof
confirmation
verification
substantiation
corroboration
affirmation
authentication
attestation
documentation
support for
backing for
reinforcement for
grounds for
Law
information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
"without evidence, they can't bring a charge"
h
Similar:
proof
confirmation
verification
substantiation
corroboration
affirmation
authentication
attestation
documentation
support for
backing for
reinforcement for
grounds for
testimony
statement
sworn statement
declaration
avowal
plea
submission
claim
contention
charge
allegation
deposition
representation
affidavit
asseveration
averment
signs or indications of something.
plural noun: evidences
"there was no obvious evidence of a break-in"
h
Similar:
signs
indications
pointers
marks
traces
suggestions
hints
manifestation
verb
verb: evidence; 3rd person present: evidences; past tense: evidenced; past participle: evidenced; gerund or present participle: evidencing
be or show evidence of.
"that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"
Without citing the Bible and saying it's true because the Bible says so give me any evidence that is evidence.
Religious Faith is the belief in the absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
And this is relevant to gaming because:
In a world where the gods/demons intervene and interact to the extent of giving people powers and/or directly no religious faith is necessary.
Quote from: arcanuum;1129049So I have been interested in Golarion as of late. However I noticed that the cool campaign setting for the Inner Sea Region is no longer available. Then I remember how the 1st edition of Pathfinder had inbred ogre rapists, Fantasy Romani Travellers, Slavery and a whole bunch of pulp fantasy ideas. Sadly Pathfinder has added in Atheist Paladins (who are actually agnostic paladins but let's forget that because REEEEEE Religion is bad. Even in fantasy worlds.) Anywhoosit, I hoped to find out more of what happened to your favorite parts of Golarion and therefore Pathfinder.
I bought the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting for 3.5 when it came out, and I thought it was pretty good. Paizo was doing some interesting stuff. But I found myself turning against much of it because they'd throw in whatever crap was popular on the Internet.
At this point, the only thing from Paizo I have any interest in is Starfinder (a friend is running one of the adventure paths).
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129291And this is relevant to gaming because:
In a world where the gods/demons intervene and interact to the extent of giving people powers and/or directly no religious faith is necessary.
That such powers manifest does not necessarily mean that the source of such powers is what the users claim, or is necessarily trustworthy, benevolent, or worthy of worship--and even if all those things are true, that doesn't mean that people can't deny it. Even taken purely as narrative, the Gospels demonstrate as much.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1129259Can someone be an atheist in such a world? I don't know, it depends on how one defines atheism. Obviously, supernatural beings exist. A atheist in real life could view an alien with vast knowledge and abilities beyond any human, though there would be no special requirement to worship that creature. With standard religion, a deity isn't just something more powerful than ourselves, it is a being with moral significance not merely great knowledge or abilities. In pagan religions there were being of great power, titans or giants for example, who rivaled the gods but were unworthy of worship. Could someone like in a D&D setting and extend this thinking to all of the deities?
The former reminds me of my long-time Call of Cthulhu character Henrik -- who saw cultists and horrible supernatural beings, and it ended up reinforcing his Catholic faith, even though he wasn't very religious previously. He didn't see anything that corresponded with Catholic religion -- no power of the cross or such. However, he was convinced that the world was bigger than his imagination -- and if these powerful beings existed, it was less of a stretch to imagine that there was something even more powerful than them. That evil existed in the world isn't something new -- he had fought in WWI and seen thousands die from bombs and poison gas.
Despite *seeing* powerful immoral beings that were invading the world, he *believed* that there was a greater moral framework over them.
I think an atheist not worshipping the gods would be similar. That powerful beings exist doesn't mean that they should be worshipped.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1129259I think with fantasy world religions, we need to be careful not to assume that the people who live in that world don't have access to the player's handbook. For them, magic and religion should both be wondrous and mysterious.
In general, I think a person growing up in a fantasy world would know much *more* about their own world than someone who just read a book about it. Even if the characters don't have access to a Player's Handbook per se, they will have had years to learn about things. They will have had a cousin who works for a wizard, and their friend's grandfather was a paladin, and so forth.
In my experience, it can ring hollow if the players play-act as if magic and religion are wondrous and mysterious to them, when it's actually just cut-and-dried rules from the Player's Handbook. If as a GM I want magic and religion to be wondrous and mysterious in my campaign, I prefer to abandon the Player's Handbook, and instead have wondrous and mysterious things happen in the game.
The way it works on Tekumel is that all spellcasters are clerics and all spells are clerical spells. Ther are no secular magic-users. But that's not because of divine power, it's just an institutional thing: the temples and the temple schools are the only places where magic is researched and taught. If you want to learn, you're going to have to join a priesthood.
That (jealously guarded) institutional monopoly aside, there is nothing intrinsically or mechanically religious about magic use on Tekumel. Casting requires mental training and sorcerous knowledge, but ultimately it's just a matter of tapping interplanar energy and forming it to create desired effects. No gods are involved in the process, nor is "faith" or "belief." Just like you don't need religious faith (or actual divine intervention) to drive a car or use a GPS.
Quote from: Pat;1129225Even stranger, they're fictional religions that supposed to be a specific type of religion (polytheism), but are based on what irreligious people think know about an entirely different religious paradigm (monotheism).
People sometimes call it henotheism, but it's not. It's polytheism as imagined by people who have a poor grasp of monotheism.
You are correct, it is actually even worse than I originally stated.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129233Well of course Scientology is more rigorous and foundational, it is based on Science!.
Of course it is. Says so right on the front of their book... LOLZ!
Quote from: Shasarak;1129233...I get the impression that Ed Greenwood knew what he was writing up and then the people who came in after especially us dear readers dont appreciate the context of living in such a world.
After reading Ed Greenwoods recent writings over on EN world, I believe that he was just making shit up that sounded cool. When it comes to religion he doesn't have a clue.
FR gets a big pass because it was one of the first settings that fired young gamers imaginations. I think that what many as young gamers didn't appreciate the context of; was that when looked at from an actual world building perspective FR really isn't very good.
But the inertia of nostalgia is very powerful in the RPG hobby, and WOTC dare not take an axe to the forgotten realms lest they incite wide scale consumer rebellion.
Quote from: Pat;1129267One thing that could be really useful, from a game standpoint, is defining the limits of gods, at least from the perspective of the PCs. What are the limits of their knowledge, when it comes to things like commune? What exactly does contact other plane put you in touch with? What can I learn from summoning a demon? The DM can leave the ultimate questions uncertain or unknowable, but it helps to define how they interface with the game mechanics. This can vary from campaign to campaign.
It's also useful to have some idea how religion works, overall. How often do gods meddle, and what remedies do people have? The default is to assume intervention is rare, but that's just modern prejudices. I can imagine a really fun game based on something like Homer, where the gods intervene constantly. The trick would be to quantify it, so the players can notice the signs and respond effectively, not to treat it as a deus ex machina (despite the name) they have no control over. Maybe they're mostly interested in name-level characters, and their hand can be deduced by omens, which might be divinable by spells, proficiencies, or seers. Also, how does appeasement work, what can people expect from their patrons, and so on. Think about it both at the PC and the campaign level, so the players know what they can do, and have some idea how to interpret the examples they run across.
These are all things that 99% of D&D settings get wrong.
But should be some of the the first questions answered when building a fantasy religion.
Quote from: Omega;1129276In D&D they just game you the pantheons. The rest was up to the DM to make of it whatever they wanted. Its presented blank for a reason. Sadly way too many missed the point.
The fact that these are only cookie-cutter gods based around what non-polytheist irreligious people think polytheistic gods are like or about is precisely the problem with D&D gods. Having a template for some generic fire god that people apparently devote entire temples to cuz they like fire, or something, doesn't really help me cuz actual polytheistic gods in real life religions aren't just some separate entity with an exclusive club centered around a very specific element, but part of a greater pantheon of interrelated gods that most people worship collectively, rather than as completely separate gods with their own unique independent and competing religions. You may find examples of cults devoted to a single god from time to time, but those are typically mystery religions that serve some specialized purpose rather than representing the norm of how polytheistic religions work or how worship of gods operates.
In real life polytheistic religions each god typically represents more than just ONE specific element (that people are extremely devoted to in exclusion of all others for no apparent reason), but rather an entire host of different things (such as fire + metalwork + creation + teaching/passing on knowledge, etc.) that might be tangentially related but often have some transcendental or symbolic meaning. And people from different parts of the world--and sometimes even different lands within the same general region--often worship different gods or pantheons with different believe structures, rather than just worship the same 15 or so cookie-cutter gods the world over, in their own cookie-cutter temples devoted to just one god operating as competing religions rather than as part of a greater pantheon.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1129291Without citing the Bible and saying it's true because the Bible says so give me any evidence that is evidence.
Religious Faith is the belief in the absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
And this is relevant to gaming because:
In a world where the gods/demons intervene and interact to the extent of giving people powers and/or directly no religious faith is necessary.
Religious faith transcends the concept of evidence and its not about believing things for the sake of believing them, but because (presumably) they serve some higher purpose in the lives of human beings (whether that purpose is real or merely imagined). Whether or not there's evidence for them is completely irrelevant to the religious person's mind. This is something that's more important to how atheists argue against religious ideas in the internet than to how religious people actually view the world. You're reducing the notion of faith to some technical definition in the dictionary and applying it almost prescriptively when the purpose of dictionaries is to provide descriptive definitions based on common usage, rather than to enforce some sort of fixed notion of what these concepts mean.
Religious faith in the real world, outside of the dictionary, is not about "belief in the absence of evidence". Its about adhering to some transcendental truth that helps guide people's lives and give them hope or helps them achieve some type of understanding of their place in the world, or the true nature of reality, etc. Merely having concrete evidence of the existence of some being purporting to be a "god" is not enough on its own to dispel the need for "faith", because what people have "faith" on is not the existence of that god, but in that god's teachings and whatever that god supposedly represents. And having proof positive that whatever being claiming themselves to be a "god" actually does exist does not prove that whatever they're selling or whatever that god represents for people is also true. That part takes faith, and that faith is the actual foundational principle of a religion, not whether some being purporting to be a god actually exists.
Religions aren't about gods, they're about believe
systems. And having evidence that some supremely powerful being exists is not evidence that the systems of belief surrounding them are worth anything, nor does it mean that people will automatically believe in those teachings, transcendental truths, etc., without question. All of that transcends evidence of the existence of gods.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129311.
In real life polytheistic religions each god typically represents more than just ONE specific element (that people are extremely devoted to in exclusion of all others for no apparent reason), but rather an entire host of different things (such as fire + metalwork + creation + teaching/passing on knowledge, etc.) that might be tangentially related but often have some transcendental or symbolic meaning. And people from different parts of the world--and sometimes even different lands within the same general region--often worship different gods or pantheons with different believe structures, rather than just worship the same 15 or so cookie-cutter gods the world over, in their own cookie-cutter temples devoted to just one god operating as competing religions rather than as part of a greater pantheon.
We possibly agree, not Sure. I know I have had some difficulty with the Tekumel pantheon for some of these reasons, but you may be overstating your case if you are suggesting polytheistic religions necessarily work "this way" and not "that way." I agree that the deities in pantheons rarely seem to be totally one-trick ponies, they usually have more going on, but it's certainly possible to have pantheon where no one deity offers "full-service" spiritual comfort, and people need recourse to whole pantheon to satisfy their spiritual needs.
Look at the Olympians. Sure, some Greek deities, especially the cthonic (and/or foreign) ones that give rise to mystery cults like say, Bacchus, or Demeter come pretty close to full-service deities. But the Olympians? No, you can't say "I'm an Ares guy, he's got everything I need and screw the others." No, Ares is not going to satisfy all your needs, sometimes your going to need the rest of the pantheon
Some people are sure getting worked up about how fictional beings are handled in a fictional setting.
I really don't care if someone is an atheist on Golarion. That's their business. The Athar PF planescape were atheist. And the wizards of netheril were atheists. But, I would not allow anyone to be a cleric or paladin that is an atheist, that's where they get their power.
And I personally don't think faith=belief. Faith is your ability to act on a belief. You can believe in a god and have no faith. Although modern dictionaries butchered the word to death, so I understand why people think otherwise the last 150 years.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129315Some people are sure getting worked up about how fictional beings are handled in a fictional setting.
Welcome to the internet!
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129315Some people are sure getting worked up about how fictional beings are handled in a fictional setting.
Fair enough, this is all fictional. But to me, and I think for many of the posters here, religion in an rpg setting is important. You want something that seems like it should feel real for both the pcs and the npcs. It should be a big motivator for the good guys and the bad guys. To me anyway.
And although I have no experience of forgotten realms, I do have both the LbB Gods demigod and heroes, and the hardcover Deities and Demigods, and you know what? They are the only dnd books I found I had no use for. Both seemed so lame. "Hey, I'm the orc god. What's my schtick? Well I'm totally the orc'iest. I'm so orcie it hurts." Oh yeah? Well I'm the gnome god. I'm the gnomiest. I'm so gnomy it hurts."
Just didn't do it for me. For some reason unconvincing religion really weakens a setting.
EDITED to add: not to mention "Hey, I'm Artemis. I was worshipped on the planet Earth. Which isn't here. Why the hell do I show up? I dunno, but here's my stat block. You know, in case we go at it mano a mano."
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129317Welcome to the internet!
Thank you, random citizen! :D
Quote from: Zirunel;1129318Fair enough, this is all fictional. But to me, and I think for many of the posters here, religion in an rpg setting is important. You want something that seems like it should feel real for both the pcs and the npcs. It should be a big motivator for the good guys and the bad guys. To me anyway.
Absolutely! I'm just saying that there is more than one way to flay a heretic in these situations. It doesn't have to be gods needing worshipers as food, being objective or subjective presences in the setting, being assholes who dole out powers or punishments on mercurial whims, or any other tropes in order to get there. All it has to be is internally consistent.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129309After reading Ed Greenwoods recent writings over on EN world, I believe that he was just making shit up that sounded cool. When it comes to religion he doesn't have a clue.
That is what I said, he understands religion completely.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129311The fact that these are only cookie-cutter gods based around what non-polytheist irreligious people think polytheistic gods are like or about is precisely the problem with D&D gods. Having a template for some generic fire god that people apparently devote entire temples to cuz they like fire, or something, doesn't really help me cuz actual polytheistic gods in real life religions aren't just some separate entity with an exclusive club centered around a very specific element, but part of a greater pantheon of interrelated gods that most people worship collectively, rather than as completely separate gods with their own unique independent and competing religions. You may find examples of cults devoted to a single god from time to time, but those are typically mystery religions that serve some specialized purpose rather than representing the norm of how polytheistic religions work or how worship of gods operates.
In real life polytheistic religions each god typically represents more than just ONE specific element (that people are extremely devoted to in exclusion of all others for no apparent reason), but rather an entire host of different things (such as fire + metalwork + creation + teaching/passing on knowledge, etc.) that might be tangentially related but often have some transcendental or symbolic meaning. And people from different parts of the world--and sometimes even different lands within the same general region--often worship different gods or pantheons with different believe structures, rather than just worship the same 15 or so cookie-cutter gods the world over, in their own cookie-cutter temples devoted to just one god operating as competing religions rather than as part of a greater pantheon.
Religious faith transcends the concept of evidence and its not about believing things for the sake of believing them, but because (presumably) they serve some higher purpose in the lives of human beings (whether that purpose is real or merely imagined). Whether or not there's evidence for them is completely irrelevant to the religious person's mind. This is something that's more important to how atheists argue against religious ideas in the internet than to how religious people actually view the world. You're reducing the notion of faith to some technical definition in the dictionary and applying it almost prescriptively when the purpose of dictionaries is to provide descriptive definitions based on common usage, rather than to enforce some sort of fixed notion of what these concepts mean.
Religious faith in the real world, outside of the dictionary, is not about "belief in the absence of evidence". Its about adhering to some transcendental truth that helps guide people's lives and give them hope or helps them achieve some type of understanding of their place in the world, or the true nature of reality, etc. Merely having concrete evidence of the existence of some being purporting to be a "god" is not enough on its own to dispel the need for "faith", because what people have "faith" on is not the existence of that god, but in that god's teachings and whatever that god supposedly represents. And having proof positive that whatever being claiming themselves to be a "god" actually does exist does not prove that whatever they're selling or whatever that god represents for people is also true. That part takes faith, and that faith is the actual foundational principle of a religion, not whether some being purporting to be a god actually exists.
Religions aren't about gods, they're about believe systems. And having evidence that some supremely powerful being exists is not evidence that the systems of belief surrounding them are worth anything, nor does it mean that people will automatically believe in those teachings, transcendental truths, etc., without question. All of that transcends evidence of the existence of gods.
This is problem with D&D's and PF's theology in a nutshell. It isn't a functional theology to begin with.
For example, D&D says the genies are supposedly powerful enough to challenge the gods. However, this doesn't make sense since the gods are apparently beyond game statistics. (At least if you aren't counting epic rules or
Immortal Handbook, in which case the genies can't possibly hope to stand a chance.)
PF has this nonsensical story where the gods are the parents of the titans, when the opposite was true in Greek myth. This completely undermines the moral message of the titanomachy, which was about the overthrowing of a tyrannical regime in favor of a new one and not a failed rebellion by spoiled brats!
Not to mention my frustration with the whole concept of leveling, which I don't believe supports mythic play very well. Mostly because leveling is a game abstraction meant to represent character growth and isn't used outside of gaming (unless you count that stupid LitRPG genre). The leveling mechanic breaks down eventually, as seen with both Epic (exemplified by
Immortal's Handbook) and PF's Mythic rules.
In fact, by the standards of real mythology a typical D&D party are essentially mythic heroes because slaying giant monsters on a regular basis was reserved for mythic heroes. Mythology, legend, and folklore don't have leveling systems!
It wouldn't be possible to run the labors of Heracles because their order doesn't follow the challenge ratings of the D&D equivalents of those monsters.
So I guess it's a good thing I decided to use Mythras Classic Fantasy instead of 5e.
You can create complex religions for your campaign...but then you need significant player buy-in to play religious PCs.
If you want players to remember (or even be aware of) feast days, chants, holidays, myths etc, then these things have to matter to the campaign. Knowing about these things must provide tangible benefit to the PCs, and dumping that burden on the poor sucker playing the Cleric isn't a good plan.
Religion is a big deal in the Fading Suns RPG. As such, I always had the PCs run into various religious elements and when they did, I would tell the players, of course your PCs know about this, here let me give you broad overview of what's up, now back into the game. Over time, some (not all) players integrated the various religious bits into their characters' interactions with the setting. BUT the only reason the players paid attention was because religion was very important to the NPCs and thus, the PCs had to interact with that.
But I wouldn't want to tackle complex religion in setting with lots of gods and religions. I've had a hard enough time with Mazes & Minotaurs getting the players to remember the differences between even a handful of Greek gods and religion is pretty homogeneous as all the gods are in the same pantheon.
In my OD&D game, I have three religions of Man (Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic) and I have them defined in broad strokes. Enough for the Cleric players to feel unique, but not to much to burden anyone. Because each of the religions are starkly different, its easier on the players. And as a further value-add to player buy-in, I provide benefits for non-clerics to become acolytes of the major cults. The net result is 50% of non-clerics are devout worshipers which makes the investment in learning and the learning curve worthwhile for the table.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1129353You can create complex religions for your campaign...but then you need significant player buy-in to play religious PCs.
If you want players to remember (or even be aware of) feast days, chants, holidays, myths etc...
Memorizing holidays isn't why people roleplay, and no other class is bogged down with those kind of irrelevancies. No player of a magic-user is expected to memorize the names of the 30 foundational tomes of wizardry, for instance.
When it comes to clerics, too many players and DMs take the wrong approach. Wipe away all the boring details, and focus on the fun parts that actually come up in the game, instead. D&D's classic Hammer Horror vampire-hunting Bishop Turpin is a good start -- even things like your religion are abstracted away in favor of stuff like blasting hordes of skeletons.
Another game with an intriguing approach is Exalted (which I know little about, so I may be mangling) -- the Zenith caste are the priests of the setting, but again the actual religion is poorly defined in the writeups I've seen. Instead, it focuses more on the active, dynamic aspect -- they are supposed to charismatic prophets. That's an important aspect that can be fun to roleplay, and which D&D often neglects. Clerics shouldn't be dull magistrates, parish priests, or confessors; they should be active, purposeful, and driven. Have zany beliefs and crazy visions.
Leave the stuff like holidays as flavor. Don't spell them out, and for Tarterus' sake don't make another of those tiresome calendars. Instead, bring them in as flavor, when needed. Want a holy day for an adventure? Poof! It's a holy day. Does your cleric need something to do in the downtime between adventures? Make up some observance. Try to be consistent with those details once established, but don't worry too much about it.
Following up Spinachcat's and Pat's posts...
Yeah, I wouldn't even bother naming every god in the world, cuz like I mentioned in my last post the specific gods people worshiped in real life religions could sometimes vary from land to land, giving way to too much variability. Sometimes these were essentially variations of the same gods, other times they might be unique to certain places--perhaps carryovers from older cultures that settled those lands but were conquered by migrating warrior cultures that became more dominant.
Instead I would focus on providing a general idea of what types of pantheons and religions exist in the different major cultural groups in the setting, naming only the major gods of each.
Maybe the barbarians of the north worship warlike gods who defeated the frost giants that used dominate the frozen mountains according to legend, and now demand constant conflict as tribute, ensuring that only the strongest tribes survive in such harsh cold climates. While the barbarians of the southern jungles worship animal spirits that teach them how to survive in the jungle--the Jaguar could be the spirit of hunting, stealth and misdirection, while Crocodile could be the spirit of protection, resilience and survival, etc.
People from the central civilized lands of the world might worship gods more similar to the Greeks or Romans, while those of the eastern lands might be more similar to Mesopotamian gods, and the barbarians of the surrounding eastern desert might worship Jinns, and the Jinns might be classed by elements, geographic features or environmental phenomena, like oasis jinns, desert sand jinns, fire jinns, dust storm jinns, etc.
This gives me a general idea of what things are like and interesting stuff to throw at players (venturing into the desert? Get ready to pay tribute to some Jinn!) without getting into the details of everything there is.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1129273No.
Faith is belief in something based on an authority judged to be trustworthy, but without knowledge that compels the mind's assent.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1129317Welcome to the internet!
Quote from: Zirunel;1129318Fair enough, this is all fictional. But to me, and I think for many of the posters here, religion in an rpg setting is important. You want something that seems like it should feel real for both the pcs and the npcs. It should be a big motivator for the good guys and the bad guys. To me anyway.
And although I have no experience of forgotten realms, I do have both the LbB Gods demigod and heroes, and the hardcover Deities and Demigods, and you know what? They are the only dnd books I found I had no use for. Both seemed so lame. "Hey, I'm the orc god. What's my schtick? Well I'm totally the orc'iest. I'm so orcie it hurts." Oh yeah? Well I'm the gnome god. I'm the gnomiest. I'm so gnomy it hurts."
Just didn't do it for me. For some reason unconvincing religion really weakens a setting.
EDITED to add: not to mention "Hey, I'm Artemis. I was worshipped on the planet Earth. Which isn't here. Why the hell do I show up? I dunno, but here's my stat block. You know, in case we go at it mano a mano."
It's cool that you want to play that way. I do not want to simulate real world religions and their problems in anyway. I am very happy playing without schisms. I like playing in a world where the clerics are very clear on what their deity wants. And the church of Torm has no internal religious problems. Doesn't bother me in the least. It makes sense to me that internally the churches won't have the problems and debates over theological matters like in the real world since the god would just settle it himself. Cool that you want that. But I am happy without it.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129367Yeah, I wouldn't even bother naming every god in the world, cuz like I mentioned in my last post the specific gods people worshiped in real life religions could sometimes vary from land to land, giving way to too much variability. Sometimes these were essentially variations of the same gods, other times they might be unique to certain places--perhaps carryovers from older cultures that settled those lands but were conquered by migrating warrior cultures that became more dominant.
Of course, that's based on the presumption of a real-world-like arrangement where every culture has its own gods, which may or may not actually exist. But there's also the option of a setting where the gods are real and have at least some minimal level of communication with humanity, such that every culture knows of the same gods. Different cultures may call them by different names or emphasize the worship of one god (who is more in line with their cultural values) over another (who isn't a good fit).
The Elder Scrolls computer games are a good example of this kind of arrangement - for the most part, everyone worships the same Nine gods, although there are some deviations - the Dunmer of Morrowind have their own separate Tribunal of three ascended gods, the Thalmor insist that Talos/Tiber Septim is not a god at all, and so on. And then there are the daedra princes who, again, are recognized by pretty much everyone and have their own daedra cults separate from the worship of the Nine. But, if you add up all the gods and daedra princes, you end up with about two dozen specific deities, which is not an unreasonable number of names to come up with, even if the god mainly known as "Akatosh" is called "Auri-El" in ancient elvish texts, and "Alkosh" by the Khajiit.
Quote from: nDervish;1129372Of course, that's based on the presumption of a real-world-like arrangement where every culture has its own gods, which may or may not actually exist. But there's also the option of a setting where the gods are real and have at least some minimal level of communication with humanity, such that every culture knows of the same gods. Different cultures may call them by different names or emphasize the worship of one god (who is more in line with their cultural values) over another (who isn't a good fit).
The Elder Scrolls computer games are a good example of this kind of arrangement - for the most part, everyone worships the same Nine gods, although there are some deviations - the Dunmer of Morrowind have their own separate Tribunal of three ascended gods, the Thalmor insist that Talos/Tiber Septim is not a god at all, and so on. And then there are the daedra princes who, again, are recognized by pretty much everyone and have their own daedra cults separate from the worship of the Nine. But, if you add up all the gods and daedra princes, you end up with about two dozen specific deities, which is not an unreasonable number of names to come up with, even if the god mainly known as "Akatosh" is called "Auri-El" in ancient elvish texts, and "Alkosh" by the Khajiit.
Yeah, but the difference is that, while perhaps limited or narrow in scope, Elder Scrolls at least has a consistent theology. They have a set of common acceptable gods everyone worships across the single Empire in the world. Then they also have the unacceptable Daedric Princes, who at best have questionable motives and morality. And Dunmer have their own ancestral gods, which adds flavor and cultural distinctiveness. It's not just a bunch of random gods competing for worship because... reasons.
And having multiple pantheons doesn't discount the possibility that they might all be real, and maybe even take an active role in shaping events or grants favors to their worshipers. They would just tend to focus on cultures and regions where they're worshiped, rather than extending beyond their spheres of control.
Quote from: Zirunel;1129318Fair enough, this is all fictional. But to me, and I think for many of the posters here, religion in an rpg setting is important. You want something that seems like it should feel real for both the pcs and the npcs. It should be a big motivator for the good guys and the bad guys. To me anyway.
And although I have no experience of forgotten realms, I do have both the LbB Gods demigod and heroes, and the hardcover Deities and Demigods, and you know what? They are the only dnd books I found I had no use for. Both seemed so lame. "Hey, I'm the orc god. What's my schtick? Well I'm totally the orc'iest. I'm so orcie it hurts." Oh yeah? Well I'm the gnome god. I'm the gnomiest. I'm so gnomy it hurts."
Just didn't do it for me. For some reason unconvincing religion really weakens a setting.
EDITED to add: not to mention "Hey, I'm Artemis. I was worshipped on the planet Earth. Which isn't here. Why the hell do I show up? I dunno, but here's my stat block. You know, in case we go at it mano a mano."
It should feel real for PCs and NPCs, otherwise it breaks immersion by...
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129328Absolutely! I'm just saying that there is more than one way to flay a heretic in these situations. It doesn't have to be gods needing worshipers as food, being objective or subjective presences in the setting, being assholes who dole out powers or punishments on mercurial whims, or any other tropes in order to get there. All it has to be is internally consistent.
NOT Being internally consistent, which is IMHO something an atheist/agnostic cleric/paladin is guilty off by how the class is constructed.
I can house rule it to make it so, but the books have to be internally consistent, because if not then I need to houserule even more, not only the stuff I like that isn't there or the stuff I don't like that is... But also the immersion breaking stuff.
Which is why my Cleric/Paladin in a non monotheistic setting must make sure to be in the good graces of the deity, because it's how much favor he has managed to accrue that determines how powerful he is, and the deity needs the worship as food.
In a monotheistic setting with
"The One True God tm" this becomes easier since automatically all wizards become suspects of pacts with
"The Enemy tm" plus the closer you get to IRL Earth the easier is to sell faith as the thing that makes the Cleric/Paladin powerhouses.
Look, Bugle. I get it. Divine empowerment without specific devotion is pineapple on your pizza. Or beans in your chili, whatever the food thing that applies in your case is. Maybe water-chestnuts, I don't know.
I even agree that some settings demand this sort of cosmology. I even mentioned it previously in reference to Discworld and American Gods.
Take Forgotten Realms, for example. Being an atheist in that setting is all kinds of a bad idea. Not only do gods need their bowl of Manna-Prayer Hymnios in the morning or they get all cranky, but if you die as an atheist you get turned into mortar in a big ol' wall at the end of reality. OUCH. Not only that, but because the goddess of magic is also the body of magic itself, even the most scholarly and jaded of wizards won't risk being an atheist or magic might stop working for EVERYTHING if she starves. Ouch again.
What I am saying is that this is not universal. No houserules are needed because outside of setting conceits/tropes it doesn't break any rules. It isn't even universal in D&D since it is explicitly called out in 3rd edition as an option to be devoted to cause or philosophy instead of an actual god. It is not new, revolutionary, or game breaking.
If gods in a setting do not need worshipers as batteries for their existence or if the god/champion relationship is something other than a vending machine where you put prayers in and get spells out, then a bunch of other options open up.
You only need one of two things in order to be a cleric/paladin/theurge/thaumaturge; either sufficient devotion to tap into power on your own or a divine patron willing to empower you.
Everything else is arguing about toppings on pizza. And I'd rather talk about what kinds of pizza we like rather than get told that the Italian style flatbread & toppings on our plate isn't pizza because of some semantic dictionary copy paste.
If we have a cleric without god or religion, then why call that person a cleric at all? Why call it divine magic? Just make them another kind of wizard. It's like a black mage or a white mage. Some wizards are good at casting spells to blow things up, some wizards are good at casting healing spells. There we go, secular clerics. Because if you remove religion from the cleric, they aren't really clerics anymore, they are just a set of powers that the character can use and so it might as well be another kind of wizardry.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129331That is what I said, he understands religion completely.
LOL If someone thinks that religion is no more than "...making shit up that sounded cool." then they merely demonstrate that they do not really understand religion at all. Which is why D&D pantheons and Mr. Greenwoods attempts to make in-game religions come off as pure drivel to those of us that do.
...
Quote from: ShieldWife;1129399If we have a cleric without god or religion, then why call that person a cleric at all? Why call it divine magic? Just make them another kind of wizard. It's like a black mage or a white mage. Some wizards are good at casting spells to blow things up, some wizards are good at casting healing spells. There we go, secular clerics. Because if you remove religion from the cleric, they aren't really clerics anymore, they are just a set of powers that the character can use and so it might as well be another kind of wizardry.
That is functionally what D&D Clerics are - just another type of magic user. They use exactly the same spell list.
I am a big proponent of Divine Miracles being handled different systematically than Magic in any RPG. Otherwise, what's the point?
Quote from: ShieldWife;1129399If we have a cleric without god or religion, then why call that person a cleric at all? Why call it divine magic? Just make them another kind of wizard. It's like a black mage or a white mage. Some wizards are good at casting spells to blow things up, some wizards are good at casting healing spells. There we go, secular clerics. Because if you remove religion from the cleric, they aren't really clerics anymore, they are just a set of powers that the character can use and so it might as well be another kind of wizardry.
A number of games have a divide between spirit magic and hermetic magic -- like RuneQuest and Shadowrun as well as many others. Spirit magic isn't divine, but it is distinct from the hermetic book-learning magic that wizards use. Both can be distinct from divine magic, but sometimes there's a blending between spirit magic and divine magic.
I could easily picture a setting where non-priest shamans use the same kind of magic as priests.
Along related lines, in the real world, there is often a grey area between a priest and a non-religious scholar or functionary. There are shamans, monks/nuns, witch doctors, kabbalists, and others who blur the lines between religious priests and secular sorcerers.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129403LOL If someone thinks that religion is no more than "...making shit up that sounded cool." then they merely demonstrate that they do not really understand religion at all. Which is why D&D pantheons and Mr. Greenwoods attempts to make in-game religions come off as pure drivel to those of us that do.
I have seen far too many religions to believe that making up shit that sounds cool is any different to what really happened except maybe Greenwood used less psychodelics for his ideas.
Quote from: Pat;1129362Leave the stuff like holidays as flavor. Don't spell them out, and for Tarterus' sake don't make another of those tiresome calendars. Instead, bring them in as flavor, when needed. Want a holy day for an adventure? Poof! It's a holy day. Does your cleric need something to do in the downtime between adventures? Make up some observance. Try to be consistent with those details once established, but don't worry too much about it.
I find this really depends on the campaign. Your advice works for most D&D fantasy, but running Primeval Thule I did find I needed to work through the calendar; it's in the arctic so day length varies from 0 to 24 hours and the passing of the seasons is of critical importance, with major events such as first sunrise each having their own festival. I had to have it all straight for the players to grok what was going on and engage with the setting long term.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1129399If we have a cleric without god or religion, then why call that person a cleric at all? Why call it divine magic? Just make them another kind of wizard. It's like a black mage or a white mage. Some wizards are good at casting spells to blow things up, some wizards are good at casting healing spells. There we go, secular clerics. Because if you remove religion from the cleric, they aren't really clerics anymore, they are just a set of powers that the character can use and so it might as well be another kind of wizardry.
Lets see... in order for this to work we need clerical powers that are distinct from wizardry in setting, divine/spiritual sources of that power, but the game is to justify characters who can wield these powers without worship of an actual god? Sounds like fun, lets play!
- Sometimes, a different type of wizard might be all a cleric is. The cleric might argue, but then again other people might argue back at them. Like the Witcher example mentioned above. Sure, the wizards think that the priests are just engaging in self hypnosis to manipulate chaos, but is it true? Might be that they are trancing to become one with some other entity and drive their abilities. The entity might notice or might not, but clerics might be the cosmological equivalent of fleas to these nigh infinite beings. Followers getting smote might just be getting scratched out of irritation than from any perceived wrong doing.
- Then you can have a setting where a cleric has all the trappings of a Ba'al Shem. They know how to invoke divine names and create divine charms, but you get one or two that treats it just like any other craft and not as a religious calling. Or in a bardic sense, Angels really like hymns. A lot. A well performed hymn will get an angel to manifest a themed miracle out of appreciation, but the song would work as well for any given soprano as it would for a talented priest. That would be a closely guarded secret of a religion, though. Can't have any singer off the street learn that miracles can be had for the price of a song! Manipulation of the Symphony could be something else in theme. Subtly change the music of the spheres to create miracles, where wizards deal with more material powers.
- An individual god might say to a champion "You shall do my wonders" and regardless of whether that adventurer is part of their official fan club, that person might say yes to that. Maybe it is because there is nobody else available that has the mettle to do the task needed. Maybe that person is to be an example that nobody is above the authority of that god. Maybe the god wants to grant that person power to convert them to be one of the faithful.
- Maybe being empowered as a cleric in a given setting is irrevocable. Once chosen, there is no going back. If the person goes rogue, then other faithful might be tasked to hunt them down, but that particular caster remains an apostate. Gods would have to make sure they are picking the right person, but fate is fickle and humans aren't always as strong as you want them to be. A particular cleric could be spending a glorified retirement just sitting about, charging for salvation and letting lesser priests to the actual ceremony work, but since the con is keeping the status quo, nobody really cares.
- Maybe there is conflict between the ascetic tradition that develops powers practically identical to the gifts of the gods, but worships nothing in particular. Enlightenment brings its own power, but temples and more jealous gods call them witches and sorcerers. Especially if the power that these devotees tap feels more Infernal than Heavenly in nature.
- In another setting maybe only wizards have spells of any kind, but anybody who has the conviction that matches Heaven's purpose can be blessed to champion the virtues involved, regardless of whether that crusader is ever seen in a church. Once so blessed they have abilities that mirror what we are used to seeing out of paladins. In a setting like that most power and blessings might be seen in cities of the faithful where there are churches and temples, but occasionally there are others chosen to go be the sword and shield of civilization out in the wild.
- Could be that the gods are actually dead, every single one of them. They all murdered each other in a massive war, but the angels and saints remain, trying to make sure the power that radiates from the empty thrones are used by worthy souls. There is nobody to direct prayers too and the servitors that remain aren't as infallible as they would like to think. And if you get a Saint who decides that power belongs entirely in the hands of mortals from now on, there might be a black market in divine empowerment.
- Clerics might just be wizards who pull their power from outside of the world. They arrange themselves into religions and bind themselves to entities on occasion, but though their powers are distinct, they themselves have only their dogma to assure them that they are actually servants of divine beings.
- In a world with a divine bureaucracy the title of Cleric might be literal. Just somebody who filled out the right paperwork, sat through the right waiting periods, got everything stamped and signed and licensed and now has a job. Keep doing that job and your licence won't be revoked. You can be every bit of a secular Dawkins-esque asshole that you want, so long as you don't step so out of line that you get fired. Temples might not be necessary to the order of things, but don't go fucking up the government of Heaven or Hell.
- Assuming you wanted to get dark about things, a character might be able to become a Cleric by catching, killing, and ritualistically eating angels. Somebody might be able to convince themselves that they are good and virtuous because they only eat FALLEN angels, but that doesn't mean that the real thing looks kindly on them. However, fallen angels might treat these god eaters as rabid hounds... dangerous, but useful if you point them in the right direction.
- In a WH40K vein, the God in question is just a corpse being fed a slurry of psychic sacrifices and the ones that survive go out into the world able to draw on the power of a glorified battery with a church watching their every move to make sure they keep to acceptable behavior. There is always the possibility of escape, though...
- Back in the days of Rogue Trader you had the idea of the Star Children. People with pieces of the Emperor's soul in them who could work miracles and fight demons on their own terms.
- To turn things around on their heads, maybe humans used to BE gods! Clerics then become those who are awakening to their own divinity while the Church is comprised mostly of dogmatic wizards in an illuminati level conspiracy designed to keep them in power and the rest of us in place. You might still have heroic wizards and villainous clerics, but divinity has been beaten down and it is up to clerics to restore it.
- Ancestors might have managed to stick around rather than fade into the mystery of the afterlife. If enough of them managed to stay around, they might be able to help out their ancestors out of a sense of filial loyalty instead of a dynamic of worship. Same powers, not wizards, just granddad trying to keep the family alive. They turn undead because Great Uncle Methuselah says GET BACK IN YOUR TOMB, SO HELP ME. What the hell are you doing, sucking the blood of our allied clans, your mother is literally rolling over in her grave because of you!
- Clerics could be wielding a power that has its own goal and purpose, but whether or not it is intelligent is up for debate. It infuses the world and keeps devils in Hell (a literal underworld), but can also be used by people who devote themselves to its purpose, even if it isn't a god that has the capability to respond to worship. It just clings to like minded souls like iron filaments to a magnet. The more those souls do things that correspond to the attributes of this force, the more power they can wield.
- Now that I think about it, doesn't Pundit have a setting where a cleric is just somebody who knows how to properly petition G.O.D., the nigh-insane AI that controls the Long Sun setting? Mechanically they are clerics and are basically in theme as people who do the will of G.O.D., but in setting you might just have somebody who knows what they are doing and treats the job like trying to keep a senile CEO in line while milking all the benefits as possible.
So there you go. A bunch of scenarios where you can have characters that are functionally identical to clerics or paladins, but can run a wide variety of points of view, from Zealot to Atheist and even on occasion all the way over to Maltheist!
You can even still set up paladins that can only be Lawful Good champions of virtue without them having to pray regularly to their Crystal Dragon Jesus. Unless the paladin has ritualistically implanted a shard of the CDJ into their body and then praying to it keeps it from exploding, but that is another scenario altogether.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129403That is functionally what D&D Clerics are - just another type of magic user. They use exactly the same spell list.
I am a big proponent of Divine Miracles being handled different systematically than Magic in any RPG. Otherwise, what's the point?
I don't really mind cuz the idea of "arcane" and "divine" magic as separate things, and that "clerics heal/wizards destroy" is largely a game convention anyways. Most real life mystical traditions have a heavy spiritual component. The Hermetic traditions from which fantasy wizards draw heavy inspiration from possess strong theological elements, call upon angels in their rituals and believe in the notion of an ultimate reality referred to as God, the All, or the One.
It's only in D&D, with its reliance on character classes to define character abilities and the need to impose niche protections to ensure those classes remain relevant that we need separate "divine" (clerics heal) and "arcane" (wizards destroy) magic.
Additionally, from a strictly mechanical point of view it's more efficient to have just one universal magic system that defines how magic works in the game in general. Then have multiple mystical traditions that use that core system as a base, but modify what types of magic practitioners have access to, plus any special trappings they're subject to when using magic. That way the mechanics that players must learn and use during play remain consistent, and (presumably) so does the power level of the magic involved.
Quote from: jhkim;1129407A number of games have a divide between spirit magic and hermetic magic -- like RuneQuest and Shadowrun as well as many others. Spirit magic isn't divine, but it is distinct from the hermetic book-learning magic that wizards use. Both can be distinct from divine magic, but sometimes there's a blending between spirit magic and divine magic.
I could easily picture a setting where non-priest shamans use the same kind of magic as priests.
Along related lines, in the real world, there is often a grey area between a priest and a non-religious scholar or functionary. There are shamans, monks/nuns, witch doctors, kabbalists, and others who blur the lines between religious priests and secular sorcerers.
Hermetic and shaman magic in Shadowrun is not fundamentally different from each other, though, but rather more a matter of style and outlook. Both types of mages have access to fundamentally the same type of magic for purposes of the game mechanics. It's just that shamanism tends to emphasize spirit summoning, while hermetic mages tend to emphasize proper spellcasting. But both traditions may gain access to spirit summoning and spellcasting.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129411I have seen far too many religions to believe that making up shit that sounds cool is any different to what really happened except maybe Greenwood used less psychodelics for his ideas.
And therein lies the problem.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129417I don't really mind cuz the idea of "arcane" and "divine" magic as separate things, and that "clerics heal/wizards destroy" is largely a game convention anyways. Most real life mystical traditions have a heavy spiritual component. The Hermetic traditions from which fantasy wizards draw heavy inspiration from possess strong theological elements, call upon angels in their rituals and believe in the notion of an ultimate reality referred to as God, the All, or the One.[
It's only in D&D, with its reliance on character classes to define character abilities and the need to impose niche protections to ensure those classes remain relevant that we need separate "divine" (clerics heal) and "arcane" (wizards destroy) magic.
This is really, really true. Many many magic users in myth or folklore at least acknowledge that somebody else is often doing the heavy lifting for them. Even Dr. Strange recognizes that the entities in his spells are real beings that will eventually come calling for their bill.
QuoteAdditionally, from a strictly mechanical point of view it's more efficient to have just one universal magic system that defines how magic works in the game in general. Then have multiple mystical traditions that use that core system as a base, but modify what types of magic practitioners have access to, plus any special trappings they're subject to when using magic. That way the mechanics that players must learn and use during play remain consistent, and (presumably) so does the power level of the magic involved.
Which is why I think that classes (if you are going to have them) should allow wide variations on a theme instead of being locked down to one particular type. Just like it isn't fun if the only type of Fighter you can be is a heavy armored pole-arm wielder, if being a cleric leaves no room for sectarian conflict, heresy, or any other ineffable mysteries, then the class is just a straight jacket to one style and one style only.
Clerics are slightly martial theurges who work wonders with divine themes. They can be good, bad, holy, or profane. Paladins are completely martial champions of virtue and honor who wield powers of light and goodness. They may be ( and most often are ) powered by Something Else, but most often that power is possible to use more by conviction than training.
Outside of that, I say explore options, conflict, and the drama that can rise up from them if you want to. Or if you don't want to, don't.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1129418And therein lies the problem.
Considering some of the shit that Greenwood makes clear is perfectly fine in the Really Real Toril, he might have had too many. Seriously, just... just lay off the casual incest and borderline pedophilia, will you, Ed?
The best take I have seen on Religion was the Book of the Righteousness from Green Ronin. It is a 3E book yet it details holy days, ranks of the clergy, sayings along with Myths of the Gods presented in the book. I find the whol atheist angle in a world where the avatar of gods can be seen and interact with their worshipers bullshit. I can understand not wanting to bend the knee to any god or disliking religion. When god XYZ can send his herald to help defeat an opposing gods other avatar. Then going "nah fake must be swamp gas". It's as bad as Eclipse Phase rpg with their take on how all organized religions except Islam don't survive the transistion to a post-human world. All religions would collapse when it is shown that a soul can be shipped from one body or another. No heaven, hell or any godly intermediary is needed.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129411I have seen far too many religions to believe that making up shit that sounds cool is any different to what really happened except maybe Greenwood used less psychodelics for his ideas.
If you believe that
all religions are made up nonsense, then you are unable to distinguish actual relevant differences between various religions.
And are therefore incapable of recognizing the difference between Greenwoods Forgotten Realms claptrap, and an RPG setting belief system made by someone who actually understands religion.
Quote from: Jaeger;1129431If you believe that all religions are made up nonsense, then you are unable to distinguish actual relevant differences between various religions.
And are therefore incapable of recognizing the difference between Greenwoods Forgotten Realms claptrap, and an RPG setting belief system made by someone who actually understands religion.
Well of course I am not saying
your religion is made up nonsense. That one was definitely made up by someone who actually understood religion.
Quote from: Manic Modron;1129426Considering some of the shit that Greenwood makes clear is perfectly fine in the Really Real Toril, he might have had too many. Seriously, just... just lay off the casual incest and borderline pedophilia, will you, Ed?
Tutankhamun married his half-sister Ankhesenamun. But then again he was a God so I guess casual incest is allowed in that situation.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129432Well of course I am not saying your religion is made up nonsense. That one was definitely made up by someone who actually understood religion.
Mlady *tips hat*
Quote from: Shasarak;1129432Well of course I am not saying your religion is made up nonsense. That one was definitely made up by someone who actually understood religion.
LOLZ. Please.
You mean no such thing.
You do better when you unashamedly stick to your guns.
Quote from: Shasarak;1129233Well of course Scientology is more rigorous and foundational, it is based on Science!
I am not sure that is right. I get the impression that Ed Greenwood knew what he was writing up and then the people who came in after especially us dear readers dont appreciate the context of living in such a world.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1129287What I was objecting to in your statement was the 'without evidence or even against evidence' part of the definition. In the traditional Christian understanding of faith, there is plenty of evidence for God and His self-revelation in Christ ... it's just not sufficient to compel the assent of the mind, as opposed to direct experience or self-evident chains of logic.
Where is this type of thinking acceptable outside of religion. What field of study?
Quote from: Arnwolf666;1129507Where is this type of thinking acceptable outside of religion. What field of study?
Sociology.
badum-tss.mp3
Quote from: Jaeger;1129493LOLZ. Please.
You mean no such thing.
You do better when you unashamedly stick to your guns.
Sigh.
Personally, I always liked Cayden Cailean from Pathfinder, simply because it was the most absurd origin for a deity I'd seen outside of actual mythology. "Common sellsword gets completely shitfaced, wanders into magic MacGuffin that either turns you into a god or turns you into dust, and succeeds at it, staggering out three days later"?
Come on, I laughed for five minutes straight when I first read it in the sourcebook :)
Quote from: Arnwolf666;1129507Where is this type of thinking acceptable outside of religion. What field of study?
History comes to mind.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1129556Personally, I always liked Cayden Cailean from Pathfinder, simply because it was the most absurd origin for a deity I'd seen outside of actual mythology. "Common sellsword gets completely shitfaced, wanders into magic MacGuffin that either turns you into a god or turns you into dust, and succeeds at it, staggering out three days later"?
Come on, I laughed for five minutes straight when I first read it in the sourcebook :)
Agreed!
A God's origin like that needs to be kept.
Besides, what would a paladin of Cayden Cailean do? Get non-believers randomly drunk and then fight them?
Quote from: jeff37923;1129573Agreed!
A God's origin like that needs to be kept.
Besides, what would a paladin of Cayden Cailean do? Get non-believers randomly drunk and then fight them?
Nitpick: Cayden Cailean doesn't have paladins, being chaotic good (you have to be within one step of your god's alignment). There's a variant class which is kinda like a half assed paladin in one of the peripheral PF Golarion sourcebooks, but I think it's kinda crap myself.
But yeah, Cayden Cailean's faithful do a lot of drinking (though they abhor full on alcoholism and will happily get someone suffering from such into the medieval equivalent of AA if needed).
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1129660Nitpick: Cayden Cailean doesn't have paladins, being chaotic good (you have to be within one step of your god's alignment). There's a variant class which is kinda like a half assed paladin in one of the peripheral PF Golarion sourcebooks, but I think it's kinda crap myself.
But yeah, Cayden Cailean's faithful do a lot of drinking (though they abhor full on alcoholism and will happily get someone suffering from such into the medieval equivalent of AA if needed).
I'm joking.
Then again, I have to admit that I only owned the first edition of
Pathfinder that came out and not later editions or
Pathfinder 2.
Quote from: jhkim;1129407A number of games have a divide between spirit magic and hermetic magic -- like RuneQuest and Shadowrun as well as many others. Spirit magic isn't divine, but it is distinct from the hermetic book-learning magic that wizards use. Both can be distinct from divine magic, but sometimes there's a blending between spirit magic and divine magic.
I could easily picture a setting where non-priest shamans use the same kind of magic as priests.
Along related lines, in the real world, there is often a grey area between a priest and a non-religious scholar or functionary. There are shamans, monks/nuns, witch doctors, kabbalists, and others who blur the lines between religious priests and secular sorcerers.
Why would you make a distinction between Shamans and Clerics? A rose by any other name...
QuoteYou can't be agnostic about beings you KNOW exist, because the agnostic says : "I don't KNOW if god/gods exist" It's a claim about knowledge not faith.
But how can you know? All aspects of divine magic and intervence are merely clues, not really hard proof.
And even assuming that there is no reason to treat beings granting such power as gods.
TBH considering classic philosophical division between theism and atheism - neither of D&D gods is really The God - theism is all about.
QuoteIMHO the only reason churches would exist in such a universe is because the deities need the worshiping, it's their food, without it they grow weak and eventually die. Granted this is nowhere to be found (to my knowledge) in the official lore.
It's straight up in for instance Forgotten Realms lore.
But even without it demands - beings we call gods in fantasy can organize cults to promote their agenda among mortals, even without need for a good meal.
QuoteI think the idea here, and I've seen it creep into D&D as well, is that the Paladin is somehow self-powered and that his power comes from belief in a cause. 5e specifies that it is a "paladin's quest" and his "oath" that makes him a paladin. There is a very fast and loose use of religious terminology ("holy", "evil", "divine" etc) but also examples given of paladins who are not at all tied to anything like a monotheistic faith, or in fact ANY faith. IMO, this is a product of trying to retain all the "cool classes" while also turning them into general categories. You end up with obvious nonsense like "atheist paladins".
AFAIK this is basically classical D&D paladin. He is not empowered by gods, but by combination of pantheistic cosmic powers of Law and Good which are ABOVE beings we call gods in D&D.
Absolute adherence to cosmic principles empowers paladin, and in this case truly he does not need to be cultist of any specific deity.
QuoteI find that D&D 5E paladin concept disturbing because if you buy into that, you could pretty successfully argue that the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were paladins.
Well - yes. They were 5e paladins of vengeance bound by holy oaths to punish enemies of their faith and land.
QuoteImagine if you will Richard Dawkins walking and Jesus comes down from the heavens, performs all sorts of miracles in such a way as to leaving no doubt it's not a trick. Would you expect Dawkins to still not believing Jesus exists? He might have a bad opinion of him sure, but his existence? That would have been proven without a doubt.
And Dawkins would need exactly zero faith to think Jesus is real.
Putting aside question about personal experience being serious source of any knowledge (hint: it is not) - just because Dawkins see bearded man breaking known laws of physics does not mean this being is The God in classic theistic perspective.
Q from Star Trek are basically omnipotent in our dimension and they can easily play all sort of Gods here... so what then?
Quoteaccording to the mechanics of the game there are churches to worship the gods, why?
And clerics and paladins need to follow a code or loose their divine powers.
Because powerful ancient wizards pretending to be gods are sociopathic megalomaniacs who likes to force mortals to do their biddings of course.
QuoteHow can you doubt what you see with your own eyes?
That's basically me any time I watch news in TV. It's very easy. Own eyes means nothing. Senses are not reliable.