My group has recently been split over how much power the churches have in Greyhawk. The DM and myself argue that since it's kinda midevilish and it is known factually that the gods exist the church holds a large amount of power and even if you disagreed with a priest of a temple you would at least still show deference.
Usually they (my group) get a long with authority figures but as soon as there's a disagreement the authority figures are labeled as evil or douchebags. Which would be OK IF the authority figures are actually evil or douchebags.
They are not.
Here's the latest example. One of the PC's is playing a binder. A member of the church of Pelor saw him bind with an aspect (which if you don't know are pretty grotesque) and told the high priest at the local temple.
It's kinda back woodsy so the priest has no idea what a binder is but would like the PC to answer a few questions and have a few spells cast on them to verify not evil.
Everybody completely lost their shit. How dare you! It's you who are evil! Several gifts that had been given to the PC's were thrown to the ground and refused. Other insults were hurled. PC's stormed out.
Now despite their problems with authority I'd say these guys are pretty solid roleplayers.
The DM wants to put the smack down on them with out ending the game.
Would he be wrong in doing that? Does that make sense? Would that church hold such sway?
I think it might be helpful to just assume you're not playing in "Greyhawk, that well defined world that we all know well," and assume that you're playing in your DM's homegrown world that's largely steeped in Greyhawk flavor. Would the church be this way, or that way? Ask the DM, that's what he's there for.
I've seen arguments of this sort about a single NPC. "Hey, you're not playing your NPC correctly, he seemed much more gullible in the last scene, he should be buying my argument!" This is just a naked attempt to influence events of the game by lobbying the DM out of character.
On the topic of reactions in general, remember that institutions are made up of people and their relationships. In a world where a church is a totally overbearing presence, there's still going to be an inquisitor somewhere who goes to jelly under the gaze of his overbearing head maid.
So, could the players have run into a cleric who for whatever reason was defensive, touchy, or angry about the fact that nobody trusts him and is ready to take it out on the players? Of course!
Yes, ask your GM. They would have the setting relevant knowledge on how the Pelor church is perceive and acts. I have not much interest in second guessing your GM's interpretation of setting.
That said, the PHB and DMG for D&D speaks of how great the offense is to ask outright or expose another's alignment. So there is a very real argument to support their umbrage. Basically the high priest is calling one of the party onto the carpet as a grave threat to the community.
And yet we here have no idea about setting normal this is, whether the target is a Pelor worshiper, scope of high priest's jurisdiction within the community, etc. This is a table issue that requires player to GM inquiry.
Weird. Are the players in the group notably anti establishment? Playing in-character and encountering bumpkin priests who aren't up to speed on the latest in scriptural developments shouldn't present a major issue for them.
Then again, legends and tales are full of powerful strangers who take unreasonable umbrage, usually it works out that the locals try to poison them or something and in revenge the strangers cast a terrible curse on the area. Maybe run with that?
Sounds more like 'Player Primadonna Dyndrome'
Sometimes people care more about control, getting their way, etc.. more than they care about roleplay. Its not that they don't roleplay, its that they care more about 'winning'
Also, many players either pretend or do not want to admit their characters are evil and rationalize their evil actions.
Quote from: Bill;682489Also, many players either pretend or do not want to admit their characters are evil and rationalize their evil actions.
"Alignment" = A room full of players bending over backwards to justify how their most heinous actions are
really "Lawful Good," since 1973.
What pretty much every other poster said, by the bye. What kind of freaking primadonnas are these that they think every NPC in the world is going to kiss their asses and be deferential? I would suggest that, the OP's belief notwithstanding, the players' roleplaying credentials are somewhat suspect.
But once again quoting the Viking Hat post,
I run my game, not three hundred pages worth of recycled paper and second-rate art. If I want the religions in my world to be dominant, oppressive forces that no one who doesn't want to be burned at the stake dare publicly gainsay, then that's how they work. The DM should
never have to argue that this is how churches in his gameworld should work; he should
tell people that it's
how they work.
However ... while I'm all for the smackdown being rained down on their collective solipsist heads, the DM should start with an OOC chat. Players of mine (says he), look: this is how my world works. Your PCs would all know this. In specific, this priest has no reason to think, given significant evidence to the contrary, that this PC isn't evil. You all know that priests do, indeed, take steps to verify the truth in these cases. And after all, players of mine, don't you guys pretty much do the same thing? Now understand that, since you don't in real life tell the cop who wants to question you that you're too good to answer his questions and that he should fuck off, the same principle applies here, and your PCs would all know this too.
Now, players of mine, I'm not going to force you to play ball. You can do whatever you want. Please don't be surprised and offended, however, if giving the finger to the authorities who seek to discover whether you're evil or not will provoke consequences. You get one warning; this was it.
That's one of the big disconnects for most "medieval fantasy settings"; it seems that in a lot of D&D-worlds, Kings have the most power, wizard-groups second and churches a distant third. In some campaigns it can seem like they're just organizing bake sales and even the Thieves' guild is more important.
In the Majestic Wilderlands religion is definitely the top dog. This doesn't mean that the setting is dominated by theocracies but rather it is pervasive. So pervasive that it is at the foundation of every culture in the Wilderlands. Culture plus personality determines how I roleplay NPCS
The interesting side effect of this is that setting it up this way has caused religion to fade into the background. The visible infrastructure, churches, shrines, etc, appears to be just one of many aspect of society. But it is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
One of the things I do when roleplaying NPCs who are members of powerful and popular organizations that by and large they are not dicks by the standards of their culture. They are popular for a reason. The alternative is the exception not the rule. Thus that how I roleplay when PCs interact with religous organizations.
In addition unless they actively and deliberately flout the mores of a religion I assume that they are doing the little things that a normal inhabitant would be doing. Abstracting the their daily life so to speak.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682803That's one of the big disconnects for most "medieval fantasy settings"; it seems that in a lot of D&D-worlds, Kings have the most power, wizard-groups second and churches a distant third. In some campaigns it can seem like they're just organizing bake sales and even the Thieves' guild is more important.
Thing is: It's true Multitheism or factual Polytheism. Chruches only are as powerful as their actual power goes. They are STRUCTURALLY divided by their plethora of gods.
Thus they become more like in the Roman Empire: Glorified insurance companies or similiar service providers.
Mages can, at least structurally, unite as much as they want. There can be a Mage's Guild but never a Cleric's guild.
This structure also nicely explains the emergence or reinforcement of Pantheons: a group of clergy might actually use the Pantheon-connection and respect among each other as sort of a cleric's guild to leverage more power in city council meetings. usually they are unable to act because of e. g. Loki and so forth.
It is exactly this power gap and internecine struggle that allows for so much adventure and freedom in D&D-like worlds! Most interest groups have their own foible structurally integrated into themselves.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682803That's one of the big disconnects for most "medieval fantasy settings"; it seems that in a lot of D&D-worlds, Kings have the most power, wizard-groups second and churches a distant third. In some campaigns it can seem like they're just organizing bake sales and even the Thieves' guild is more important.
I think the notable lack of kings, wizards, and thieves' guilds in the real world might have something to do with that.
Quote from: Settembrini;682936Thing is: It's true Multitheism or factual Polytheism. Chruches only are as powerful as their actual power goes. They are STRUCTURALLY divided by their plethora of gods.
Thus they become more like in the Roman Empire: Glorified insurance companies or similiar service providers.
Historically while they had individual shrines and temple, etc. Polythesistic religion had just as firm grip on their cultures as the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches did on Medieval kingdoms. Religion is not just about the structure of church and hierarchy but also about the culture of worship. In many polytheistic cultures the king/overlord/emperor was a sacred position as well as a position of power.
However you do have a point when it pertains to Persian style or Roman style empires. There wasn't an overarching imperial church. Instead the metropole (the imperial heartland) had their religion and the provinces in general kept their religion as long as they respected the metropole's right to rule them. There are exceptions to this (Celtic druids, Roman Jews) but in general true until advent of the monotheistic religions.
Quote from: Settembrini;682936It is exactly this power gap and internecine struggle that allows for so much adventure and freedom in D&D-like worlds! Most interest groups have their own foible structurally integrated into themselves.
I don't see the problem with even a Catholic style church in a D&D world. Structure is not the same as culture. And unified hierarchy will still have many factions. Or it could be a Orthodox style setup with many theoretically co-equal church hierarchies of the same religion.
I do agree with the Pundit that religion would be far more pervasive than what is commonly portrayed in D&D settings.
Quote from: The Traveller;682967I think the notable lack of kings, wizards, and thieves' guilds in the real world might have something to do with that.
Eastern Roman Emperors and the Orthodox Churches
Thieves Guild are just a fantasy version of organized crime which has been present in human civilization for a long time.
As for Wizards Guild yes that it is pure fantasy only because historically magic is wrapped up tightly with religion. And there are many examples of religious and semi-religious organizations based around the acquisition of some form of knowledge or skilled intellectual work.
Quote from: estar;682988Eastern Roman Emperors and the Orthodox Churches
Thieves Guild are just a fantasy version of organized crime which has been present in human civilization for a long time.
As for Wizards Guild yes that it is pure fantasy only because historically magic is wrapped up tightly with religion. And there are many examples of religious and semi-religious organizations based around the acquisition of some form of knowledge or skilled intellectual work.
The point is that nobody cares in the real world if your game includes kings, wizards, and thieves' guild, because they have no bearing on the real world. People do however tend to get excited about religion because it has a very large presence in the lives of many, which is perhaps why a lot of RPGs tread lightly in the area, even ones set in otherwise unlikely worlds. It's called a 'chilling effect'.
We've all observed plenty of antipathy directed at the RPG hobby for religious reasons.
True. Alignment and religion are two topics that guarantee heated debate in RPGs (until someone level headed reminds the group that it's the GM's setting and get over ourselves). America has a fascinating embrace of the "chilling effect" where religion and politics are studiously avoided in a heavily armed society, but hobbies like watching sports or RPGs are argued in excruciating detail.
It's probably why I beeline towards deep dish topics in RPGs when I can get away with it. The frustration of playing it safe all the time gets old. Better to explore topics as well as territory if the players are game, I say.
Quote from: The Traveller;683008The point is that nobody cares in the real world if your game includes kings, wizards, and thieves' guild, because they have no bearing on the real world. People do however tend to get excited about religion because it has a very large presence in the lives of many, which is perhaps why a lot of RPGs tread lightly in the area, even ones set in otherwise unlikely worlds. It's called a 'chilling effect'.
We've all observed plenty of antipathy directed at the RPG hobby for religious reasons.
Yes it can be handled in a clumsy manner. Just about any aspect of roleplaying can generate controversy. The trick to effectively incorporating religion into a game is to be aware of your player's interests and sensibility and abstract things accordingly.
The biggest flaw I see for religion in RPGs is there too much focus on minutiae and/or the divine as powerful monster. The most effective use of religion is when the focus is on how NPCs behave. A form of culture. Doing it this way is not as "In your face" as other approaches and still remains true to the impact religion has in a setting.
It would depend on the exact place/location in Greyhawk (respect for religious institutions would vary between the Bandit Kingdoms, Greyhawk itself, Pomarj and say, the Theocracy of the Pale, in my mind), but as others have said, at the end of the day I strongly urge you guys to not give a shit about "canon" as such: there should be no such thing as "canon" in a fictional sense in a roleplaying campaign. This is YOUR campaign world. The GM ought to be the one roleplaying the world, and therefore, the one answering this question for your particular campaign.
Quote from: RPGPundit;682803That's one of the big disconnects for most "medieval fantasy settings"; it seems that in a lot of D&D-worlds, Kings have the most power, wizard-groups second and churches a distant third. In some campaigns it can seem like they're just organizing bake sales and even the Thieves' guild is more important.
Yes, this is something I've found rather disagreeable, too.
A lot of D&D settings don't have a reincarnation / rebirth cosmology, but instead a "die and you go to..." one. Clerics really are the hotline to the gods, and so is the church. Often its extremely clear too, what happens when you die. Why isn't that motivational?
Clerics are also the dispensers of the best healing spells.
It seems to me that the church should be the #2 power.
@OP - Greyhawk religion is not well defined, but we know there are theocracies like The Pale, Medegia, even Verbobonc, and the general vibe is more medievalesque than eg Forgotten Realms, so yes I'd say the GM was certainly well within his rights to present the church as very powerful. If it was me I'd be happy to play an "outlaw PCs vs the church" game if that's what they want, though.
Quote from: estar;682986Historically while they had individual shrines and temple, etc. Polythesistic religion had just as firm grip on their cultures as the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches did on Medieval kingdoms. Religion is not just about the structure of church and hierarchy but also about the culture of worship. In many polytheistic cultures the king/overlord/emperor was a sacred position as well as a position of power.
That's it, right there. Religion is an integral part of culture, and modern sensibilities lead some designers and GMs to treat organized religion as something entirely separate or optional. Sure, you can transplant it. But it came from a culture somewhere.
Anyone who doubts the secular power of Pagan gods should remember why Socrates was officially sentenced to death, as well as that Romans weren't killing druids only because of the human sacrifices, but also because of the power they wielded over communities.
The one problem with D&D's presentation of gods was always to me - how the hell do the Evil Deities get worshippers? Why would anyone worship Cyric, for example? I admit that settings did somewhat try to explain that, but I always thought that either they should be granting simply more power to their priesthood/cultists (while usually, to keep the mechanical balance somewhat, they don't), or they should be enforced by sheer power.
Quote from: estar;683457Yes it can be handled in a clumsy manner. Just about any aspect of roleplaying can generate controversy. The trick to effectively incorporating religion into a game is to be aware of your player's interests and sensibility and abstract things accordingly.
Meh, I write what I write and do what I do. I have little time for 'transgressionist' wannabe Howard Sterns but I'm not about to be pushed around by the cause du jour or fundies either. When I build a setting it is an uncontrolled extension of my imagination, and people have literally dragged me off the street to play there. If a pervasive pantheon of pagan gods is a problem, go build a time machine and protest hair metal [not aimed at you Estar].
Quote from: Rincewind1;683781The one problem with D&D's presentation of gods was always to me - how the hell do the Evil Deities get worshippers? Why would anyone worship Cyric, for example? I admit that settings did somewhat try to explain that, but I always thought that either they should be granting simply more power to their priesthood/cultists (while usually, to keep the mechanical balance somewhat, they don't), or they should be enforced by sheer power.
Well, there are one of four possible explanations, presuming you don't just dismiss the concept of D&D "Good" vs "Evil" as the arrant bullshit it is:
* Did Hitler think he was evil? Did Stalin? Pol Pot? Almost surely not. Just because we have an OOC system mechanic -- or just because the winners write the histories -- that proclaims someone "evil" doesn't mean that they think of themselves that way.
* The dark gods will have their due. Failure to worship them will bring their anger down on the land, something that has been proven time and time again. The people in the pews might be trembling with fear, but they come nonetheless. We all remember the
last time people stayed away, don't we?
* They attract the losers, the misfits, the powerless, the people with nowhere else to go, those who crave vengeance. The dark gods are
real, everyone knows that. If you can't beat them, worship at the altar of someone who
can.
* Haven't we all seen decades worth of players commit all manner of bestial and violent acts, all in the ostensible name of "Lawful Good?" The light gods, they
preach Good, and Truth, and Honor, and Love, but look at the depredations of their followers! Isn't it just a pack of lies after all? The dark gods, though ... sure, they might be "evil," and there might even be some justice to the charge, but at least they'll never
lie to you. They're honest about who and what they are.
Quote from: Rincewind1;683781Anyone who doubts the secular power of Pagan gods should remember why Socrates was officially sentenced to death, as well as that Romans weren't killing druids only because of the human sacrifices, but also because of the power they wielded over communities.
The one problem with D&D's presentation of gods was always to me - how the hell do the Evil Deities get worshippers? Why would anyone worship Cyric, for example? I admit that settings did somewhat try to explain that, but I always thought that either they should be granting simply more power to their priesthood/cultists (while usually, to keep the mechanical balance somewhat, they don't), or they should be enforced by sheer power.
Ah Cyric. Possibly my least favorite deity ever.
Why is he a God? because he was the writers player character? That's my guess.
Cyric was a 2 bit evil thief. Hardly 'God of Evil' material.
But, there was a reason in the novels why someone would worship Cyric.
You see, Cyric knew he was too lame to warrant worshippers.
So he had a magic book made that forced anyone that read it to worship him.
No one would have otherwise :)
But as for why one would worship an evil god? I suppose if the god gave them actual power it might make sense.
Quote from: Ravenswing;684639* The dark gods will have their due. Failure to worship them will bring their anger down on the land, something that has been proven time and time again. The people in the pews might be trembling with fear, but they come nonetheless. We all remember the last time people stayed away, don't we?
* They attract the losers, the misfits, the powerless, the people with nowhere else to go, those who crave vengeance. The dark gods are real, everyone knows that. If you can't beat them, worship at the altar of someone who can.
* Haven't we all seen decades worth of players commit all manner of bestial and violent acts, all in the ostensible name of "Lawful Good?" The light gods, they preach Good, and Truth, and Honor, and Love, but look at the depredations of their followers! Isn't it just a pack of lies after all? The dark gods, though ... sure, they might be "evil," and there might even be some justice to the charge, but at least they'll never lie to you. They're honest about who and what they are.
I like these reasons quite a bit. Just think of the stories of artists selling their souls to Satan for lifetime fame. If the evil gods
obviously existed, like actually making appearances in the world, a whole lot more people would be doing this.