The Church of St. Cuthbert (Greyhawk) has the Chapeaux, the Stars, and the Billets.  Chapeaux focus on recruiting new worshipers of St. Cuthbert.  Stars focus on doctrinal purity.  Billets focus on ministering to and protecting the faithful.  I'm not a Greyhawk expert, so I'm not sure if there is a spirit of cooperation or a spirit of competition between the various orders.

Quote from: RPGPundit;446356Over in the real world there was certainly a time when pretty well everyone believed the gods were absolutely real. And yet in those times, there were still schisms.

The gods in our own history tended not to resolve schisms, except for once in a while bringing down chosen prophets.  They either didn't care about the variety of modes of worship of them, or they felt that to be a "true" believer you had to come to the true and non-heretical faith for yourself.

I don't see anything, again, in a fantasy world that is necessarily bound to be different.

RPGPundit

Bold is my emphasis..... really ? this is really a valid point ?
Believing gods are real and actually getting magical powers from that belief are very different.
If everyone believes but there is no actual proof then schisms are totally inevitable.

The gods in our own history didn't resolve schisms..... um no they didn't owing largely to their non-existance.
When someone worshipped Shiva in the wrong way Shiva didn't show up and give them a kicking. When someone said Zeus was more important that Apollo, Apollo didn't get all upset by it and have a hissy fit. Now if you look at the actual myths of Apollo and Zeus then that is exactly what they would have done but as they are metaphysical entities that exist only in as much as they allow us to examine elements of our own psyches and personalities ..... not so much physical manifestation.

I'm sure Pundit thought of a smart angle to this perception that gods really existed in antiquity and how it could give us ideas for rpg settings and how it works with sectarian dynamics. I just can't see it right now though.

ETA: Is it something about the Greeks and others always dealing with an intermediary (priests and oracles) and the absence of a bible? Meaning that they couldn't have a very strong orthodoxy in the first place?

For instance: Artemis in city A might feel different to Artemis in city B but the overall consensus is that "it's still the same goddess" and it even work with deities from different culture like Egyptian gods for instance. I find this impulse to find deity analogies radically different to the Judeo Christian mindset in many ways. The liturgy and doctrine become secondary to a perceived primal essence for each god.

I'm not sure I get that right but I'd suppose that in a polytheist mindset there had to be a god for every significant phenomenon of life. How could the people over there not have a god of war? Of course they must have one! They have a twisted way to honor Ares but they are faithful in their own way. Oh they were struck by an earthquake? See I told you their way to honor the gods were screwy!

So it's like in the case of a polytheist game setting there shouldn't be such a thing as orthodoxy right? All local cults and stuff. That's even more work for the GM than a monotheistic setting. You'd better make that fun to your players otherwise that's going to be wasted time though.

I don't use sects in my games where the gods are very involved and close to the world.  Here the issue is more rivalries and trouble within a pantheon, such as the crazy high school known as Olympus.

I do use schisms in settings where the gods rarely manifest and where the heretics somehow can tap into power just as the orthodox.

Quote from: boulet;446557I'm sure Pundit thought of a smart angle to this perception that gods really existed in antiquity and how it could give us ideas for rpg settings and how it works with sectarian dynamics. I just can't see it right now though.

ETA: Is it something about the Greeks and others always dealing with an intermediary (priests and oracles) and the absence of a bible? Meaning that they couldn't have a very strong orthodoxy in the first place?

For instance: Artemis in city A might feel different to Artemis in city B but the overall consensus is that "it's still the same goddess" and it even work with deities from different culture like Egyptian gods for instance. I find this impulse to find deity analogies radically different to the Judeo Christian mindset in many ways. The liturgy and doctrine become secondary to a perceived primal essence for each god.

I'm not sure I get that right but I'd suppose that in a polytheist mindset there had to be a god for every significant phenomenon of life. How could the people over there not have a god of war? Of course they must have one! They have a twisted way to honor Ares but they are faithful in their own way. Oh they were struck by an earthquake? See I told you their way to honor the gods were screwy!

So it's like in the case of a polytheist game setting there shouldn't be such a thing as orthodoxy right? All local cults and stuff. That's even more work for the GM than a monotheistic setting. You'd better make that fun to your players otherwise that's going to be wasted time though.

That is fine but if Ares is actually REAL then he might well have an opinion. So these guys over here worship him like this these guys like that but if one of the guys moves too far well Ares is just going to stop making them magical and so in the next meeting of the global Ares followers club one bunch of guys won;t be able to summon magic armour and smote their opponents any more.

And if God are real then that Earthquake may well be a bit of devine retribution or at least he didn't care enough to protect you from it.

And where you have sects actually fighting each other .... well then most gods will favour one side, actually maybe not Ares as maybe the best outcome for him is everyone to be at War all the time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446536Bold is my emphasis..... really ? this is really a valid point ?
Believing gods are real and actually getting magical powers from that belief are very different.
If everyone believes but there is no actual proof then schisms are totally inevitable.

The gods in our own history didn't resolve schisms..... um no they didn't owing largely to their non-existance.
When someone worshipped Shiva in the wrong way Shiva didn't show up and give them a kicking. When someone said Zeus was more important that Apollo, Apollo didn't get all upset by it and have a hissy fit. Now if you look at the actual myths of Apollo and Zeus then that is exactly what they would have done but as they are metaphysical entities that exist only in as much as they allow us to examine elements of our own psyches and personalities ..... not so much physical manifestation.

My point was that for most of history the vast majority of humankind believed these gods to be absolutely literally real, and had no deep conundrums over the fact that said gods didn't physically show up on a constant basis to set right the unbelievers; that was supposed to be peoples' job, not the gods.
And there's no reason why this same model can't parse over to a fantasy world; you are assuming that because the fantasy world presumes gods to be real in it and grant real powers that this means that they will automatically be "micromanagers" of all their religions, clearly highlighting the One True and Approved Way.  I'm saying, there's absolutely no reason this needs to be so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;446865My point was that for most of history the vast majority of humankind believed these gods to be absolutely literally real, and had no deep conundrums over the fact that said gods didn't physically show up on a constant basis to set right the unbelievers; that was supposed to be peoples' job, not the gods.

Absolutely. Worshippers also applied the wisdom of hindsight. If a faith had a schism and one side was ground into the dust by the opposing believers, then that was obviously the god expressing his will.

We even have examples in the Hindu faith where deities incarnate themselves as humans for a cycle of the wheel in order to rectify or change some important issue in the world.

QuoteAnd there's no reason why this same model can't parse over to a fantasy world; you are assuming that because the fantasy world presumes gods to be real in it and grant real powers that this means that they will automatically be "micromanagers" of all their religions, clearly highlighting the One True and Approved Way.  I'm saying, there's absolutely no reason this needs to be so.

Indeed. Why would a deity have any interest what its worshippers are doing, provided it is fed mana, treated with respect, or simply left alone to pursue its own desires without pesky mortals impinging on its quality free time. Do deities even comprehend they have worshippers or any responsibility towards them? Are they by nature amoral due to their power and scope?

I include hot elf sects with priestesses in most of my games.

ba-dum.

Anyway, Pundit's initial point is well taken. If you wanted to rationalize homogenous sectuality in fantasy worlds, though, you could do it by way of the supernatural powers: human internecine warfare is effectively quashed by the gods revoking clerical abilities or whatever from those on the wrong side of every schism.

I don't see gods leaving priests without spells, especially big chunks of them, over an issue of dogma. If they did, there's lots of other gods who would happily jump in and offer spells to those same priests. If gods get power based on worship, they aren't going to risk that.

Quote from: Pete Nash;446886Absolutely. Worshippers also applied the wisdom of hindsight. If a faith had a schism and one side was ground into the dust by the opposing believers, then that was obviously the god expressing his will.

We even have examples in the Hindu faith where deities incarnate themselves as humans for a cycle of the wheel in order to rectify or change some important issue in the world.

Avatara, yes. Its where the D&D concept of Divine Avatar comes from. Only in hinduism the Avatar needs to be born, grow up, and live as a mortal, not just suddenly appear full-grown out of nowhere with supreme power.

QuoteIndeed. Why would a deity have any interest what its worshippers are doing, provided it is fed mana, treated with respect, or simply left alone to pursue its own desires without pesky mortals impinging on its quality free time. Do deities even comprehend they have worshippers or any responsibility towards them? Are they by nature amoral due to their power and scope?

Well put.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;445968In my own homebrew campaign, everyone essentially recognizes the same gods (there existence is just hard to dismiss since they intervene and grant spells). All the faiths are essentially different interpretations of the pantheon (some place more importance on certain deities, others view the same deity differently). The sects are wildly different enough to sometimes feel like different religions.

That's a lot like the setup for my upcoming Chronicles of Amherth campaign setting for Labyrinth Lord. The main difference is that on Amherth, the ability to cast spells (magic user or cleric) is rooted in genetics. Since religion is more prevalent than magic, most of these "latent" spellcasters tend to become clerics. And it explains how each person can interpret the wants and needs of his or her god in vastly different ways. After all, if you start slaying followers of a rival sect and your god does nothing to punish you, you must be acting according to his will.

Pete

If I was running a game with a monothestic religion, different sects would be a given.

Given most game worlds have polythestic religions, sects within the faithful come up less reguraly than "false religions" (druids, wizards, and charlatans pretending to be clerics).

Quote from: RPGPundit;446910Avatara, yes. Its where the D&D concept of Divine Avatar comes from. Only in hinduism the Avatar needs to be born, grow up, and live as a mortal, not just suddenly appear full-grown out of nowhere with supreme power.

I must admit of late that I've had an urge to write a Mahabharata book for BRP or MRQ2. I think I could squeeze a lot of gaming goodness out of the setting, though sadly it probably wouldn't be that popular outside of a core niche.

Kings, heroes, honour, war, castes, proper polytheism, duels, impossible challenges, devastating astras and an opportunity to weave in pre-destiny into character creation. Lots of potential!

Quote from: Pete Nash;446977I must admit of late that I've had an urge to write a Mahabharata book for BRP or MRQ2. I think I could squeeze a lot of gaming goodness out of the setting, though sadly it probably wouldn't be that popular outside of a core niche.

Kings, heroes, honour, war, castes, proper polytheism, duels, impossible challenges, devastating astras and an opportunity to weave in pre-destiny into character creation. Lots of potential!

I wouldn't say it's my #1 choice for a MRQII "mythic historical" setting book (that would be Arabian Adventures, which sounded pretty damn unlikely last time I asked).

But I'd buy it, and run it, in a heartbeat. Make it PoD or a ransom or whatever, I'll be there. With money.

Sometimes I use a monothestic religion based on Atenism, divided into sects centered around angelic/saintly patrons inspired by other Egyptian gods.

I like players to create their own new religions whole-cloth. But I usually create or borrow a handful of colorful religions for the players to start with, and to give the setting some flavor. The players can add some of their own sectarian ideas (based on background, prophetic vision, etc), either at character generation or developing during play.

While this can lead to dogmatic paradox, schism or whatnot I think it also gives players some investment in the success of their characters faith.