|
Another Spook post to try to start a discussion (I like doing these, I know).
Deities in RPGs tend to serve as convienent barometers for the characters they're attached to, and arguably the same can be said in real life. One's beliefs in what encompasses eternity are big.
That being said, I've always had a problem with what I call the 'neat pantheon,' and it seems like most RPGs (especially our homebrews) end up that way.
With names redacted (since nobody'd care anyway), here's a summary of mine so you can see the 'holes,' in it:
LG greater goddess of marriage, death, birth, visions and the ocean.
LG greater god of war. (right makes right)
NE greater god of war. (ends justify the means)
CG lesser god of 'trees.'
LN greater god of the earth, farming and law.
CN greater goddess of winds, chaos and the like.
N/LN/CN greater triune deity of magic.
LN(E) intermediate god of revenge.
CE greater goddess of destruction
N intermediate god of trade
N intermediate god of innovation.
N intermediate goddess of navigation.
CE lesser goddess of disease and corruption.
LG lesser god of opposing the undead/solar deity.
Miscellaneous sundry deities of very, very narrow pantheons (genocide of illithids, baking cakes, beating up outerplanar invaders, being a sword that flies through a jungle, etc). Also these are the only ones who live on belief.
Now in the past people have said that I lack a suitable LE deity, I don't have a tyrannical deity, and I really lack an 'undead' deity (even though the disease deity and the destruction deity use undead from time to time) and these absenses make things 'hard' for players (mind the people who say this aren't actually my players) to understand. Theres' also been arguments that the pantheon is highly law oriented on the good-guy side. Also, people have stated that concepts like 'music' or 'thievery' lack real associated deities (the closest is the chaos deity).
The question though isn't about my stuff specifically, its about that concept of holes in the pantheon.
Does a pantheon need a god of thieves, a god of tyranny, or the like? Do the bad guys even really need Evil-Guy deities to worship at all or would fiends serve just as well?
Do you need to have 'adventurer' themed gods to accomodate all tastes? Or is it better to have a small selection of deities and then have players find theologies within them (like for example a cleric starting a charity to honor the navigation goddess as it 'puts people back on course.')
What say all of you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't think a setting needs to have gods written into it at all, unless the story calls for it. Just have players come up with gods their characters worship, and they may or may not actually exist, just like the real-world.
|
|
Not just that, but they have a larger effect on a society beyond the PCs themselves.
The Atmori/Alessian faith (Aedra/Daedra) in Elder Scrolls have a huge effect on not only how the society works, but structures, and how people approach things.
Faith effects people's names, how they build buildings, why they build buildings, how society, law and culture work.
Your barbarian might worship some deity he found in a cave, but when he gets to civilization it kind of plays up what deities are there.
No, you don't need a god for everything, but basic things like thievery and undeath are big in fantasy, so its not a bad thing to add in those in particular, or other ones your players feel like you need. Your players are your critics and audience, may as well give what they say some weight to consider. In particular if this affects them mechanically. It can also be cool to work together with your group to come up with new things, I love adding things to a setting through players ideas and actions. I'm only one man! I can't make a setting that makes everyone happy, and I'm sure not naming every last city on the map in a day. When you have a player work with you to make the minor god of theft who he worshipped back in his hometown, you can add a lot of backstory.
Another thing to think about is how you've attached alignments to gods. In a setting without an alignment system, its probably best not to do that. I usually don't think its a good idea to attach an alignment to a god, because doing so can attach an alignment to their portfolio and domain, and also their followers and everything related to them.
Faith only affects as much as you allow it to in a setting. Being an author is fun like that. Building shape/place pre determined by god of buildings? Sure. Building shape/place determined by climate? Also cool. Building shape/place not mentioned as uniform because its a minute detail to your audience? Still cool.
Another thing is that you don't need faiths in a setting, even if there are gods. I know it sounds crazy, but faiths are entirely optional, and so are deities, and you can have one, the other, both, or even neither! There are a lto of other factors to, like size of both, values to culture(small cult, world wide religion, 100s of small sects?), what the gods do(many gods of nothing, one god of everything, god made it and left, or does he watch over things, or is he secretly the final boss in an epic BBEG fight atop a flying super beast!?)
I wouldn't agree with that approach, since in a game setting gods objectively and provably exist, as demonstrated by the divine powers they grant to clerics.
Divine magic could just be a different type of magic that is poorly understood, and therefore attribiuted to the gods. Or it could be a "you can do it because you believe it" scenario.
Not just that, but they have a larger effect on a society beyond the PCs themselves.
The Atmori/Alessian faith (Aedra/Daedra) in Elder Scrolls have a huge effect on not only how the society works, but structures, and how people approach things.
Faith effects people's names, how they build buildings, why they build buildings, how society, law and culture work.
Your barbarian might worship some deity he found in a cave, but when he gets to civilization it kind of plays up what deities are there.
And these are things that unless it is a part of the story, are in the background and can be hand-waived.
I'm not saying either of you are wrong for wanting to design these things or play them up. I just don't feel it's necessary, unless your players want it.
And, to be frank, Spook, you asked.
|
|
[QUOTE "Ivan Rûski"=I'm not saying either of you are wrong for wanting to design these things or play them up. I just don't feel it's necessary, unless your players want it.
And, to be frank, Spook, you asked
I like the feedback, Ivan! Just because I offer counter points doesn't mean I don't like hearing from you. And the barbarian comment meant just that, barbarian, I should've picked like 'bard' so it'd have less baggage associated with the class name.
Disagreement and debate are fundamental parts of debate. :)
I wouldn't want people who lockstep agree with me. This is all academic to me as my campaign's already pretty well established (I offered my pantheon as example, its already established and has been chugging along for a few campaigns), but I like to see differing opinions and hear their explanations for being different. The echo chamber of one's own head is not really a good thing.
I admit that personally I dislike the 'because you believe' scenario, but I know I'm the minority on that. I dislike it because it reduces deities to stage magicians pawning off their wares, or turns them into squabbling employees, and also represents a sort of theological horror story for the deceased worshippers of a deity who ceases to exist. Since I'm not a huge fan of the 'all believers of the old gods, die!' scenarios, this sort of thing doesn't really rock for me, but might for others. I'm also not huge on apotheosis, which again puts me at outs with what I percieve as most of the fantasy RPG community.
And I generally think attaching alignments to deities is important, but thats my objective morality coming out, also the fact that PF runs on an alignment system. If you're running without alignment, I agree, and wouldn't attach them but if your system has them, you need to think where the gods stand on it.
As to the 'hometown god' thats what I worked into my campaign with the aforementioned gods of narrow portfolios. So he'd be the 'god of thievery in the village you came from or of thieves from that village' and outside would have kind of a narrow (and perhaps more personable) focus.
My minor deities range from crazy (like Running Blue Axe, who is an axe who flies through a jungle screaming his name so people will remember him and has his portfolio be 'being a screaming flying axe') to the majestically huge (A Kaiju sized creature who's portfolio is kicking the ass of extraplanar entities or monsters who show up (like the Tane or folks like the Tarrasque) to various ancestor deities, tree deities and the like.
I personally found the hardest part of my set up is dealing with the monstrous humanoids though.
Your best bet is to study various Earth cultures and you see how the various historical cultures serve up their dieties.
Anthropology is your friend! Of course, when your making a world with physical gods your allowed to ignore some science here and there.
|
I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
I prefer that strength of belief itself gives power to divine characters. Of course, my setting has long been godless, unless someone comes up with a god to explain all the miracles that he does (no gods, just immense willpower and belief).
I admit that personally I dislike the 'because you believe' scenario, but I know I'm the minority on that. I dislike it because it reduces deities to stage magicians pawning off their wares, or turns them into squabbling employees, and also represents a sort of theological horror story for the deceased worshippers of a deity who ceases to exist. Since I'm not a huge fan of the 'all believers of the old gods, die!' scenarios, this sort of thing doesn't really rock for me, but might for others. I'm also not huge on apotheosis, which again puts me at outs with what I percieve as most of the fantasy RPG community.
The reason I really like the "because you believe" thing, is it dovetails so well with gods that are not actively involved in the setting, which for me is the default assumption. Yes, I realize it is not the game-as-written's default assumption, but in my homebrew games it is. I don't like having gods constantly interacting/interfering with the world. I like having a little more in common with our world, where it is a question of if the gods even exist. This, like Hama, ties in with my own religious beliefs. I'm not an atheist, but I am agnostic.
I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of Ivan and Hama: I like lots of deities, I like them to be active and heavily involved in the setting, far far far more so than in reality, and my own homebrew reflects that. (Which I can post if there's an interest.) Heck, just last night I had a session where half the game was one player making a deal with a demigod fae queen, face-to-face.
And I hate settings where divine magic is just "powered by the user's own faith" or "caused by belief in an entity that may or may not be a deity"... heck, I think the divine ambiguity built into the setting's theology was one of the things I hated most about Eberron. The less like the "real world" fantasy reality and mythology is, the better. Cults like that, IMO, should be restricted to arcane, psionic, or other forms of non-divine magic - like the Razmirians in Golarion. At best, their only divine casters should be Oracles, empowered by divine entities wanting to manipulate said cults to their own ends.
Anyway.
I would say that yes, tyrant-kings and conquesting forced-conversion empirical religions are generally a big thing in games, one I personally love. Golarion has Asmodeus and Cheliax, Forgotten Realms has Bane and the Zhentarim, Greyhawk has Hextor, etc. etc. etc. Wanting to play a character like that, especially a divine caster, or run a campaign centered around that kind of villain, you're kind of at a loss as to who your patron should be.
Now if you've got Asmodeus and the other Archdevils running around, you're probably pretty set on that, so no biggie. But if you don't have them, or they can't provide divine magic for some reason, I'd say that's a notable hole in the theology.
Otherwise nice little pantheon you have there!
|
|
I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of Ivan and Hama: I like lots of deities, I like them to be active and heavily involved in the setting, far far far more so than in reality, and my own homebrew reflects that. (Which I can post if there's an interest.) Heck, just last night I had a session where half the game was one player making a deal with a demigod fae queen, face-to-face.
And I hate settings where divine magic is just "powered by the user's own faith" or "caused by belief in an entity that may or may not be a deity"... heck, I think the divine ambiguity built into the setting's theology was one of the things I hated most about Eberron. The less like the "real world" fantasy reality and mythology is, the better. Cults like that, IMO, should be restricted to arcane, psionic, or other forms of non-divine magic - like the Razmirians in Golarion. At best, their only divine casters should be Oracles, empowered by divine entities wanting to manipulate said cults to their own ends.
Anyway.
I would say that yes, tyrant-kings and conquesting forced-conversion empirical religions are generally a big thing in games, one I personally love. Golarion has Asmodeus and Cheliax, Forgotten Realms has Bane and the Zhentarim, Greyhawk has Hextor, etc. etc. etc. Wanting to play a character like that, especially a divine caster, or run a campaign centered around that kind of villain, you're kind of at a loss as to who your patron should be.
Now if you've got Asmodeus and the other Archdevils running around, you're probably pretty set on that, so no biggie. But if you don't have them, or they can't provide divine magic for some reason, I'd say that's a notable hole in the theology.
Otherwise nice little pantheon you have there!
Thanks!
I'd love to see your, or other folks' pantheons (admittedly I think filing the names off and referring to them by their jobs and/or alignments (I know not everyone uses them) might be useful for us to really focus in on what the gods in the setting /do/).
And yeah I do have the fiends running around with various cults, as well as small non-deity sponsored faiths. I've also got heretics. And the heretics I think are fun. My dark war god works as the patron of the evil militaristic empire (being NE he has to pull triple duty for the LE militarists and the CE crazy ones, which fits his character as the 'ends justify the means' deity).
The ocean goddess for example has a thing where the faithful bury their dead in the ocean. I can expound on why if needs demand, but I don't want to get too far into 'let me tell you all about my campaign world!' DM territory. There are heretical cults in her religion who for reasons of 'expediency' and 'keeping up with the times (since not everyone lives on the coast and the faith has to have death pilgrimages to take teh corpses to the ocean)' do things like bury the dead in lakes or rivers with the minor drawback that undead so interred can be reanimated, unlike bodies buried in the ocean which don't (and yeah my campaign world has no salt-water lacedons, sea bozes or the like, and the zombie pirates are boned if they get immersed in open ocean water).
I do admit, Asmodeus makes more sense to me then Bane. Asmodeus at least has a selling point (ORDER!) as opposed to Bane (STRONGEST RULE!).
A country might defend and desire Order, they might be less disposed to just obeying the strongest.
Yeah, that works.
And sure, here's mine. Long story short, all deities in my setting - referred to in-game as "Avatars" - are subservient to one of five Aspects, over-deities that compose the disparate parts of a singular creator entity which divided upon the universe's genesis. So technically each of those five Aspects is the leader of a single "religion", while each Avatar is a particular sect or denomination of said religion.
NG Avatar of mercy, healing, and medicine
CG Avatar of love, romance, devotion, and beauty
NG Avatar of protection, shelter, civilization, and culture
NG Avatar of redemption, salvation, tactics, and defense
LG Avatar of sacrifice, martyrdom, and loyalty
LG Avatar of crusades, knighthood, and lost causes
Avatars of Order:
LN Avatar of retribution, vengeance, bounties, and mercenaries
LG Avatar of justice, law, prosecution, and reparation
LG Avatar of duty, labor, productivity, and alcohol
LN Avatar of resolve, security, organization, and soldiers
LE Avatar of tyranny, conquest, structure, and rulership by force
LN Avatar of honor, contracts, oaths, and nobility
Avatars of Chaos:
CN Avatar of change, death, cycles, and wanderers
CN Avatar of storms, destruction, and natural disasters
CN Avatar of war, bloodshed, boasting, and victory
CG Avatar of luck, unpredictability, messengers, and mysteries
CN Avatar of discord, strife, confusion, and nonsense
CE Avatar of mayhem, devastation, and apocalypse
CN Avatar of renewal, metamorphosis, skepticism, and tolerance
CN Avatar of the wilderness, the hunt, and feral beasts and animals
Avatars of Evil:
LE Avatar of pride, vanity, conspiracies, and information
CE Avatar of lust, indulgence, betrayal, and succubi
NE Avatar of envy, strife, plagiarism, and harpies
LE Avatar of greed, hoarding, taxation, and wealth
LE Avatar of torment, suffering, transformations, and mad science
NE Avatar of hatred, prejudice, genocide, and pyromania
NE Avatar of sloth, apathy, decay, and entropy
CE Avatar of murder, assassins, poison, and traps
CE Avatar of gluttony, waste, and oblivion
CE Avatar of wrath, destruction, and catastrophe
NE Avatar of lies, deception, illusions, and anonymity
CE Avatar of insanity, sociopathy, and fear
Avatars of Creation:
TN Avatar of water, oceans, sailing, and dwarves
LG Avatar of craftsmanship, art, nobility, and spiders
TN Avatar of air, freedom, and flight
TN Avatar of earth, imprisonment, secrets, and the subterranean world
NG Avatar of knowledge, history, and transhumanism/transmortality
TN Avatar of winter, cold, and survival of the fittest
TN Avatar of magic, omens, and curiosity
LN Avatar of birth, death, reincarnation, and the afterlife
LN Avatar of shadows, theft, darkness, and void
TN Avatar of fire, passion, inspiration, and summer
NE Avatar of occult, dark magic, rituals, and dreams
I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of Ivan and Hama: I like lots of deities, I like them to be active and heavily involved in the setting, far far far more so than in reality, and my own homebrew reflects that. (Which I can post if there's an interest.) Heck, just last night I had a session where half the game was one player making a deal with a demigod fae queen, face-to-face.
And I hate settings where divine magic is just "powered by the user's own faith" or "caused by belief in an entity that may or may not be a deity"... heck, I think the divine ambiguity built into the setting's theology was one of the things I hated most about Eberron. The less like the "real world" fantasy reality and mythology is, the better. Cults like that, IMO, should be restricted to arcane, psionic, or other forms of non-divine magic - like the Razmirians in Golarion. At best, their only divine casters should be Oracles, empowered by divine entities wanting to manipulate said cults to their own ends.
Anyway.
I would say that yes, tyrant-kings and conquesting forced-conversion empirical religions are generally a big thing in games, one I personally love. Golarion has Asmodeus and Cheliax, Forgotten Realms has Bane and the Zhentarim, Greyhawk has Hextor, etc. etc. etc. Wanting to play a character like that, especially a divine caster, or run a campaign centered around that kind of villain, you're kind of at a loss as to who your patron should be.
Now if you've got Asmodeus and the other Archdevils running around, you're probably pretty set on that, so no biggie. But if you don't have them, or they can't provide divine magic for some reason, I'd say that's a notable hole in the theology.
Otherwise nice little pantheon you have there!
I would love to see your homebrew. I'm working on mine.
Edit: Ninja'd
|
|
Thats a pretty huge list. I'm impressed.
I do like how they're sort of arranged into houses or sub-religions. How do they interact? Like do other avatar-groups look down on other groups, work them into their own myths? I admit I sometimes feel bad that everyone in my campaign world worships the same gods.
Also your post made me think of another thing I feel like I could make a whole post over.
The CG Love/Romance god/dess.
She always seems to show up. I'm guessing yours is female? I don't think I've ever seen a love god in a DM made cosmology (mine included) and outside of my own pantheon I don't think I've ever seen a non-chaotic or hell lawful alignment on one.
I've seen a few Lawful ones but they tend to be more about marriage and family rather than just love on its own. I dunno, it's always seemed to fit. And yeah she's female.
There's some that have alliances, associations, etc. with those both in and outside their own Aspect, usually due to close alignments, similarity in dogma or sphere, or shared histories. Many have overlapping stories, yes. And so on. I'm still in the process of detailing some of them, but I've got a three- to five-paragraph writeup for all the ones I have done in detail, usually one paragraph of which is devoted to their relationships with the other Avatars - notable allies and major opponents.
I'd love to see your, or other folks' pantheons (admittedly I think filing the names off and referring to them by their jobs and/or alignments
I always begin with a god of origin if I have to have one. Other gods and characters depend on the mythos I'm creating. In one setting I have 108 gods, one for each realm(Most of which are unwritten until they appear, allowing a lot of flexibility). In another the lord of creation delegated his task to others(the creation of fate, death, nature, sea, and so on.) And in another there is only one god who left the plane in order to give his worshippers all the freedom in the world. In another setting there were too gods of creation treated as one, and the whole plotline was built around killing one of them on behest of the other(who would then take his half of the name... there can only be one!)
I really like world building, but like I said, I like working with the players and creating a world together. Much good feelings to be had when its a group project, but I suppose that depends on who your with.
Keeping in mind that in Pathfinder deities should have 5 domains, you could have 7 deities and cover all the domains. Don't forget that a deity will always have the domains of his alignment.
So that's it. You only need 7 deities.
Only 7? really? Huh. Sub domains too?
The way my campaign works, the gods are like kami; there's one for everything. However, a Cleric of the god of the letter w might not be useful (except to grant the rune domain), so I don't bother stating up most of them. I really only bother stating the "big players," the ones who do all the moving and shaking.
But that's just my setting, so do whatever you want.
|
Only 7? really? Huh. Sub domains too?Keeping in mind that in Pathfinder deities should have 5 domains, you could have 7 deities and cover all the domains. Don't forget that a deity will always have the domains of his alignment.
So that's it. You only need 7 deities.
Well, yeah. If you give them acces to all the subdomains related to their domains you'd need only 7 deities. (Except that it doesn't really work for the alignment domains) Otherwise, you could recalculate to allow for those too. I might do the math later.
|
|
I suspect your problem might be that you've been molded or driven to be a militant atheist. (which is a form of atheism I try to avoid as it's adherents can get more preachy than the worst of Sunday School) Or you still need to learn that separation of game life from real life. (Which isn't always as easy as it sounds) It's actually easier to create gods as an atheist, as you don't have a ton of Fundamentalist baggage suggesting you're commiting a sin of idolatry in doing so.I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
Not really. Not militant, i just don't the concept of religion palatable, and, seriously, when you think that holy books are ridiculous (except for the common sense parts which i really like and support), you just can't fathom the idea of an omnipotent being watching over us. It just seems silly to me.
Now if it were Q, i wouldn't mind John DeLancie meddling in my affairs from time to time :DI also have no problem separating life from game, the problem i have is that i completely lack understanding for the importance or meaning of religion and as such, my gods are usually one dimensional, stupid and pointless, and churches are similar. So i turned to the way that works for me.
There are no gods. If they ever existed, they are either gone or dormant, or don't give a damn about us. All divine power comes from something (i call it divine out of habit), a source of energy, not unlike the arcane magic, but fundamentally different in some ways.
While one needs a sharp mind and utmost focus to channel arcane powers through their bodies, one needs an incredibly strong sense of belief, a sense of self and willpower to channel divine powers to do their bidding.
Some in my setting interpret that as will of the gods and form churches that actively worship (non existent) gods. Others believe differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
I have trouble including atheists in my games, in probably has to do with the fact fantasy pantheons are one of the things I like best about gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have trouble including atheists in my games, in probably has to do with the fact fantasy pantheons are one of the things I like best about gaming.I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
I don't have trouble including either in my games! Am I sane or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atheists existing in settings where the gods can be proven to exist is a strange kind of madness.
Now, agnostics who believe there are gods but refuse to follow them, that's a different matter. Got those in PF, FR, every wizard who thinks they are a god in their own head.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I have trouble including atheists in my games, in probably has to do with the fact fantasy pantheons are one of the things I like best about gaming.I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
Is this supposed to be a snarky way of saying that you feel insulted by me in some way?
I still hate the way atheists are treated in most settings. Oh, you don't worship a god? Here, have the wall where your soul will forever be stuck and slowly dissolving until it disappears. Or, Pharasma will forever condemn you too. You know, because you wouldn't lick a god's boot.
If you live in a setting that has gods who are active, of course you know that there are gods. But you have every right not to worship them, and they have no right to punish you for that.
I liked the Golarion take on atheists.
I liked the Golarion take on atheists.
** spoiler omitted **
I actually really dislike it when things like that happen. Its like an author didn't realize that might actually be offensive or something... Doesn't happen in my settings, that's all that's important I guess.
I just wish there was a better term than "atheist" that could be used. I agree with Aelryth that in a setting where the existence of gods is proven, atheism - as the term is used in the real world - is utterly illogical. Technically so is agnosticism, since the existence of deity/ies isn't a "maybe" or "unknown" when, to paraphrase Order of the Stick, someone can just plane shift over to check it out.
Apatheism or misotheism would be more accurate.
Is this supposed to be a snarky way of saying that you feel insulted by me in some way?I have trouble including atheists in my games, in probably has to do with the fact fantasy pantheons are one of the things I like best about gaming.I have trouble including gods in my games. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm an atheist, and that i can't separate that from stuff i do.
Or it could be nothing more than exactly what it says - he likes fantasy deities and pantheons and therefore includes them in his settings and, again because deities are provable, doesn't include atheism as a (common) belief in his games.
Nothing snarky about it IMO. If you're getting that riled already it's probably time to take a step back from the thread and cool off.
I just wish there was a better term than "atheist" that could be used.
Heretic? Or blasphemer?
Heretic's unfortunately already been used - it tends to refer in-game to those who claim to worship a deity but espouse extreme or fringe beliefs that estrange them from the rest of the church, or are otherwise outcast from the religion. Think there's an archetype or two (cleric or inquisitor, I think) already covering those that use that name.
Blasphemer works for the ones that actively dislike and speak/work against the gods (the misotheists) but not so much for the ones that just don't care and do their own thing without much attention given to any dogma, positive or negative (the apatheists).
Heretic's unfortunately already been used - it tends to refer in-game to those who claim to worship a deity but espouse extreme or fringe beliefs that estrange them from the rest of the church, or are otherwise outcast from the religion. Think there's an archetype or two (cleric or inquisitor, I think) already covering those that use that name.
I am aware, just think it is still applicable. It could have multiple meanings, and those who are strong proponents of a particular faith tend to throw the word around a lot. The archetype is for Inquisitors, btw.
Gonna jump back to a previous post for a second as I just thought of something.
I agree with Aelryth that in a setting where the existence of gods is proven, atheism - as the term is used in the real world - is utterly illogical. Technically so is agnosticism, since the existence of deity/ies isn't a "maybe" or "unknown" when, to paraphrase Order of the Stick, someone can just plane shift over to check it out.
Don't know if you are familiar with The Dresden Files or not, but there is a character in that series who has more or less had God's (well, the angels anyways) existence proven to him, but still considers himself to be agnostic. He merely believes that there is no way to prove it is actually God and the angels he works with, and they could merely be extremely powerful beings, possibly aliens. So, yeah, it's possible for there to be agnostics and even atheists in a setting with active gods. They would just be the type of people who get the same looks we give people wearing tin foil hats and claiming the government is sucking information out of our brains via satellite.
I'm very familiar with Dresden, and as cool of a character as Sanya is I agree with Harry that he's a little... off in that department. =)
Though I suppose your point stands, so does mine - anyone living with that kind of mindset in that kind of world is, by definition, illogical. And as Sanya proves, being logical is not a requirement to be a good or interesting character.
I should clarify. I have no issues against that kind of character as a concept, and wouldn't object to having one like that played at my table, provided the player was understanding that they are indeed basically playing a divine tinfoil-hatter.
What I dislike is worlds where that is the norm, and the expectation. Hence my earlier comments, particularly the Eberron example. I just like my fantasy divine natures being less questionable or unknown than they are in reality. That's just my play/worldbuilding preference.
Re: Heretic - that's where we get into issues of the same word being used repeatedly to mean different things ;) D&D/PF have enough of that going on as is >_> Example: alchemist (someone with ranks in Craft: Alchemy) versus Alchemist (someone with levels in the Alchemist class).
The main pantheon in my game world is Lawful. It consists of only three gods, but dozens of saints. The gods cover Order, Knowledge and Necessity. It has a very catholic feel to it. The saints cover all the detailed fiddly bits in religion. For example there are saints of Justice, Contracts (including marriage), Charity, Healing (Hospitallers), Trade, etc.
There are several other pantheons and individual deities which the Church of Law interacts with. They tolerate, prohibit or proscribe church members from worshipping other religions / gods. Every peasant, lawful or otherwise, worships the neutral goddess of agriculture / fertility. The Church tolerates her, for obvious reasons. They prohibit church members from worshipping some gods (i.e. the god of luck) but don't act against those gods. They proscribe, and attempt to destroy, some sects (i.e. Demon worshippers).
The Lawful Church involves multiple alignments and has all the politics and rivalry that this entails. There are really nasty, occasionally violent, arguments between the adherents of different saints (who have their own religious orders). There is a church hierarchy that tries to maintain the Church as a whole despite the internal bickering. It's great roleplaying material.
There is a neutral, Elvin in origin, pantheon which has numerous gods related to nature as well as civilization (including the goddess of agriculture / fertility. They range in alignment as well, NG to NE.
The Lawful Dwarfin pantheon are the real sticklers for harmony and cooperation inside their ranks but are insular and "clannish".
And there are fairly numerous sects of demon worshippers who tend to be hidden, isolated, and mutually hostile.
And a few isolated deities who don't exist in a pantheon (i.e. the Queen of the Northern Ice who is worshipped by Frost Giants).
And, yes, there are people who refuse to worship any gods. There isn't a specific term for them due to the existence of multiple pantheons / gods. Non-believer might be accurate in terms of a given pantheon / gods worship, but isn't really reflective of there over all lack of worship. Non religious might be a good term. Outside of mental illness however there isn't anybody who says "they don't exist".
I don't like heretic or blasphemer, because they have negative connotations. I gues non-worshiper would be ok.
But anybody who 'goes against the grain' or 'marches to a different drummer' is going to suffer negative treatment from the society around him. Nobody is going to accept an 'atheist' in a world full of gods, who run around healing people.
-However the whole 'gods aren't really gods merely powerful being' is a sort of different school of philosophy. What you are is not really an atheist, because you are not denying the existence of Pelor, or Vecna, rather you are objecting to their power. In a way the character is more arguing over semantics than displaying a lack of faith. I could easily imagine a cleric of a Neutral god losing faith due to his patrons 'lack' of virtue, and refusal to interfere for the good in the affiars of mortals.
I don't like heretic or blasphemer, because they have negative connotations. I gues non-worshiper would be ok.But anybody who 'goes against the grain' or 'marches to a different drummer' is going to suffer negative treatment from the society around him. Nobody is going to accept an 'atheist' in a world full of gods, who run around healing people.
-However the whole 'gods aren't really gods merely powerful being' is a sort of different school of philosophy. What you are is not really an atheist, because you are not denying the existence of Pelor, or Vecna, rather you are objecting to their power. In a way the character is more arguing over semantics than displaying a lack of faith. I could easily imagine a cleric of a Neutral god losing faith due to his patrons 'lack' of virtue, and refusal to interfere for the good in the affiars of mortals.
It is semantics to a point. The character could believe that while the beings that are known widely as gods exist, there are no TRUE gods. Again, this goes into tin-foil hat territtory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But anybody who 'goes against the grain' or 'marches to a different drummer' is going to suffer negative treatment from the society around him. Nobody is going to accept an 'atheist' in a world full of gods, who run around healing people.
To quote Discworld:
"We get that in here some nights, when someone's had a few. Cosmic speculation about whether the gods exist. Next thing, there's a bolt of lightning through the door with a note wrapped round it saying, "Yes, we do" and a pair of sandals with smoke coming out."
|
|
I don't like heretic or blasphemer, because they have negative connotations. I gues non-worshiper would be ok.But anybody who 'goes against the grain' or 'marches to a different drummer' is going to suffer negative treatment from the society around him. Nobody is going to accept an 'atheist' in a world full of gods, who run around healing people.
-However the whole 'gods aren't really gods merely powerful being' is a sort of different school of philosophy. What you are is not really an atheist, because you are not denying the existence of Pelor, or Vecna, rather you are objecting to their power. In a way the character is more arguing over semantics than displaying a lack of faith. I could easily imagine a cleric of a Neutral god losing faith due to his patrons 'lack' of virtue, and refusal to interfere for the good in the affiars of mortals.
The point is, that it's not fair. Oh, so you have these immensely powerful beings. Why the hell should i worship them if i don't want to?
Because your soul will dissolve when you die, if you don't. Screw that. I'd rather dissolve then lick the boot of a powerful outsider.I think that every setting till today has been written a little offensively towards atheists and agnostics.
|
|
In a fantasy world, do you ABSOLUTELY NEED gods? No. Not a single one.
I would tend to imagine that most citizens of a world like Golarion would be at best faithful adherents to a specific religion (after all, clerics perform little miracles every day here, so God XYZ must be real) and at worst potentially polytheistic/polydeistic. But as this is a homebrew system, go wild and do what you want to do. Have a world without a LE deity, or any deities at all!
Just for fun I'm listing some examples of how I see fantasy game citizens behaving, based on one character's life thus far. (Feel free to skip the next post if you find this TL;DRish.)
Example of faith due to 'repeated exposure':
The character Nymian Harthing worships Angradd, who is not a normal god for a half-orc/former human to be worshiping. This is due to repeated healings and miraculous other works performed by the party cleric, whom Nym sees as a literal father figure. If the party cleric's religion and faith lie with Angradd, Nym sees it as a good thing to worship a god he knows is real and not likely to want to harm him. (Zon-Kuthon's a different story altogether; Nym knows he's real too, but the dude's Seriously Uncool about the whole accidental redeeming powers of love sort of un-corrupting one of his high level clerics. Oops.)
Example of faith due to solely the influence of the gods on the world:
Nym was raised in a household where all gods were called upon, save for some of the truly nasty ones. Because, you know, they're all real, and perhaps we can stave off some of the bad fortune by revering in at least a token way even the gods of evil. Offerings left at the shrine of Urgathoa were said to ward off disease/illness; Nym is the 9th of 10 children, and he was used to illness in his siblings quite a bit. Kids get sick, a poorly ventilated and badly heated one-room house multiplies germs, etc.
Anyway, that's my two 'pinch, as they say in Korvosa.
The point is, that it's not fair. Oh, so you have these immensely powerful beings. Why the hell should i worship them if i don't want to?
Because your soul will dissolve when you die, if you don't. Screw that. I'd rather dissolve then lick the boot of a powerful outsider.
I think that every setting till today has been written a little offensively towards atheists and agnostics.
So, life is not fair. Check. You do not have to worship gods if you don't want to. Check. If you do not your soul is fair game for whatever evil slime wants it and you like it that way. Check. Settings have religion. Check. OK, good to go.
Fantasy settings involve (often) magic that some people find offensive too. They also often involve "real" deities (which offends some deeply religious people and, apparently, atheists) demons, devils, etc.
I do not believe in the gods in my campaign setting. Or magic. Or the demons therein. But I have no problem with them in a game setting. In a science fiction rpg I have no problem accepting things like faster than light drive and artificial intelligence either. Both of which may, or may not ever be real.
If you have trouble playing a game because of your religious beliefs, or the lack off same, you are taking the game way too seriously. As always it's imho, my 2 cp.
So, life is not fair.
That's never been a proper explanation for anything, if anything it only serves to make people react aggressively.
Anyways, I obviously don't have a problem with religion in a setting. I use them when I make my own even if I don't care for religion that much. I also like to vary how involved gods are, how many, and how much they actually care and how they care about the people in a setting. Some gods are tyrant kings, some are subtle, and others long left. Lots of choices and chances to be creative and make a story or two!
The point is, that it's not fair. Oh, so you have these immensely powerful beings. Why the hell should i worship them if i don't want to?
Because your soul will dissolve when you die, if you don't. Screw that. I'd rather dissolve then lick the boot of a powerful outsider.
I think that every setting till today has been written a little offensively towards atheists and agnostics.
Claiming that gods don't exist is not the same as not worshipping them. That's the point. In a world where Gods are a verifiable fact, atheism is kinda silly, but nothing is forcing you to worship said gods.
And if those gods turn out to be prissy little brats that punish you in the afterlife? Well, kitten 'em!
(It is also worth noting that while a lot of fantasy settings have gods as a matter of fact, the nature of the afterlife rarely is. If a priest is telling you that you'll be ever so doomed if you don't worship his particular deity? He just might be trying to scam you out of your hard earned coppers.)
So, life is not fair.
That's never been a proper explanation for anything, if anything it only serves to make people react aggressively.
I don't consider it an "explanation" so much as a fact. How it makes people react is up to them.
Anyways, I obviously don't have a problem with religion in a setting. I use them when I make my own even if I don't care for religion that much. I also like to vary how involved gods are, how many, and how much they actually care and how they care about the people in a setting. Some gods are tyrant kings, some are subtle, and others long left. Lots of choices and chances to be creative and make a story or two!
Exactly. And you could make a setting without gods or, at least, real gods (although in a magic intensive setting that might, or might not, be a bit more difficult). I just think you would be missing out on quite a bit of role playing potential. Nor would I let my rl feelings about religion interfere in running the setting / playing in it.