A discussion on how to design faiths for a campaign setting and how to effectively RP a character who follows a particular faith in that setting, however, should be okay as long as the discussion stays within the bounds of the campaign setting (ie: no making fictional faiths that are little more than thinly-veiled attacks on a real world religion).
-In what I understand you are seeking to express, again, it seems fine. You are simply wanting to use actual religions in a context of comparison to the D&D stuff what you are looking to write.
-Other people, purposefully or accidentally, can such a thread locked, however, for starting extraneous, off-topic religious/political debate/argument.
-Other people, purposefully or accidentally, can such a thread locked, however, for starting extraneous, off-topic religious/political debate/argument.
Oh, just be positive, LK. That'll never happen! :D
I've been thinking of compiling a sort of primer to help players roleplay religion more thoroughly, likely to be posted in the Character development section. Mainly, it would cover the items and concepts that all religions share, the questions a religion seeks to answer, and seven fundamental theological choices that shape a person's belief.
I'd avoid trying to define what all religions share and seek to answer...........at least not in so many words.
-I have seen lots of crazy things over the years here. Things that make me shake my head, roll my eyes, do both at the same time, and all of that stuff.
I'm sure you have. I was just teasing. ;)
I'd avoid trying to define what all religions share and seek to answer...........at least not in so many words.
Actually, there are at least nine things that all religions share.
1. All religions have authoritative writings, like the Bible or The Kama Sutra.
2. All religions have a code of moral standards or ethics.
3. All religions have a mode of individual expression, the most common form being prayer.
4. All religions have community involvement. People meet at the temple and worship together and such
5. All religions have a concept of the Holy or the Divine. In other words, they have a divine figure or figures that is at the center of their belief system.
6. All religions have sacred stories they use to communicate their beliefs.
7. All religions have rituals they use to celebrate events or to provide a visual aid for the faithful.
8. All religions use art to communicate. Holy symbols are the best example, but also the stained glass windows of Christian cathedrals, or the calligraphy on the walls of Muslem mosques.
9. All religions have a doctrine, or a system of beliefs that defines their practices. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say that priests cannot get married, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that only unmarrried males may become priests.
Other things all religions share include a sacred space, like a church, temple or mosque, a leader (the Pope being one of the most prominent real-world examples), and different eschelons of power and responsibility (like the heirarchy in the Catholic Church of priest, bishop, Cardinal and Pope).
As my World Religions professor said, "All religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different!"
Actually, there are at least nine things that all religions share.
As my World Religions professor said, "All religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different!"
Oh, I'm totally with you. And I haven't even read the list yet but I'm prolly gonna be copying it down here for personal reference.
I was just pointing out that not everyone is going to like what your professor said, that's all. Since definitively asserting the nine qualities, etc. isn't your stated goal, a softer word choice, while not as precise, might avoid a few potential entanglements.Just a thought, though. I'll def be interested in the reading. This is totally one of my favorite parts of all this nerd stuff. :P Go Zo!
Actually, there are at least nine things that all religions share.
1. All religions have authoritative writings, like the Bible or The Kama Sutra.
2. All religions have a code of moral standards or ethics.
3. All religions have a mode of individual expression, the most common form being prayer.
4. All religions have community involvement. People meet at the temple and worship together and such
5. All religions have a concept of the Holy or the Divine. In other words, they have a divine figure or figures that is at the center of their belief system.
6. All religions have sacred stories they use to communicate their beliefs.
7. All religions have rituals they use to celebrate events or to provide a visual aid for the faithful.
8. All religions use art to communicate. Holy symbols are the best example, but also the stained glass windows of Christian cathedrals, or the calligraphy on the walls of Muslem mosques.
9. All religions have a doctrine, or a system of beliefs that defines their practices. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say that priests cannot get married, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that only unmarrried males may become priests.
Other things all religions share include a sacred space, like a church, temple or mosque, a leader (the Pope being one of the most prominent real-world examples), and different eschelons of power and responsibility (like the heirarchy in the Catholic Church of priest, bishop, Cardinal and Pope).
As my World Religions professor said, "All religions are superficially the same but fundamentally different!"
I'd actually say they tend to have most, if not all of these. Written religion is actually only a Eurasian thing. Doctrine can also get a bit weird in some faiths, such as Hinduism, where literally anything can, and does, go depending on who you talk to and where they're from. There's a fair sized chunk of the population in India that thinks Christ is just another exarch. Granted, Hinduism is strange in general as a religion. Not strange in a bad way, just different from most other organized faiths.
Am I allowed to post a project of this nature on these boards, or is that against board rules?
On the topic of Faith in DnD: even those who know their God exists must have Faith. Some have to have Faith in the existence of such a Being, yes, but even those who know of the existence of such a Being must have Faith that that Being will do what they hope said Being will do. Instead of, you know, killing them off for some reason. Faith is always involved.
The difference between worship in D&D and real life isn't a matter of how fervent it is. We have people in the real world who honestly believe in things like gods (monotheistic or polytheistic). The difference is that in the D&D world the gods actually exist. Depending on the writer the deities may be active or distant, but their hand in the affairs of the multiverse is undeniable, as opposed to the claims in real life which are and always have been, in my experience, refutable.
In the real world there is a lot of, shall we say 'mortal', influence on the churches. Instead of having historic events standing as testament to the deity's will, we have ambiguous scripture and contrivances such as the Sacred Magisterium*. While some people in the real world believe without a shred of real evidence to support their claims, in the D&D world there would be ample proof to support the existence of gods, and therefore there wouldn't be postulations but rather passing on of solid scripture reflecting the actual words of deities.
* the establishment that the Holy Spirit will not allow the church to err in its interpretations or teachings of the holy scripture.
In short, there are no 'atheists' in D&D. There are non-religious types, but theological debates are never going to be about the validity of the establishment. As such there isn't any undermining of faith on the basis of skepticism. Nor would there be conflict within the church with regard to the interpretations of a teaching, at least not to the scale where there would be schisms in the establishment. This is because deities leave no uncertainty with their will. The dogma of their clergy is clear and concise.
This may not sound like it would have a huge effect on actual roleplaying, but it should. There would be definite dates for the character to know if they are inducted into a religious order. There would be documented records in a church's vaults regarding dangerous cults and how the deity commands them to be handled. Gods who exist are not going to be overly distant if they value their followers; and gods without followers have no power.
Obviously miracles aren't going to happen every day, but blessings and prayers will hold tangible meaning.
And yes, your dismissive attitude is a bit offensive, but I'm not going to take it personally or anything. That would be silly.
I think you've captured the issue in a nutshell, Wychlorne. One little quibble though. Dogma and ethics are two different things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it would be the moral standards that the god demands would be infallible, coming from the mouth of the deity himself, while dogma has more to do with the church is structured and how it behaves. I don't know if a god would bother to declare that women were barred from his priesthood (unless it was a god of misogyny.)
This. Nicely put, Zousha.
I have about as much Faith in mankind as you do in the church, Wychlorne. If you tell someone to go do something, and they do it totally wrong, it's really not your fault, now is it?
I would stay away from this and let the DM's fall as they may... this is flame bait...
This may be the first and only time I ever say this: HATER is correct. ;)
Let's try to keep discussion away from real life opinions on religion, especially if those opinions may offend those who practice that particular faith. General discussion of the concepts of religion or of fantasy religion are alright, so long as they aren't used to make any deliberate jabs at real world religion.
This may be the first and only time I ever say this: HATER is correct. ;)
Let's try to keep discussion away from real life opinions on religion, especially if those opinions may offend those who practice that particular faith. General discussion of the concepts of religion or of fantasy religion are alright, so long as they aren't used to make any deliberate jabs at real world religion.
Again, I apologize if I offended anyone (or trampled on the forum's rules). My point remains, however, that we can't measure the religion or faith of a fantasy world in which there are active deities by the standards of our current world, in which the existence of god(s) is held in question by a great many, and the veracity of scripture isn't left to logical [this is where people like me would say fallacies; others may say... end-arounds] to validate (see my prior statement about the Sacred Magisterium). There would be no interpretation or separate sects in a church in this fantasy world because the word of the deity is clear and salient. More to the point, the existence and power of the god(s) wouldn't be in question.
Therefore the pious party paladin ought to be invoking the name of his or her patron with the respect of other party members, rather than them roleplaying any of their own possible disdain for metaphysical discourse; and the paladin ought to roleplay his character as sincerely believing in the tenets of the deity's faith. A cleric of Pelor isn't going to threaten the shopkeep to give them a discount. The paladin of St. Cuthbert isn't going to frolic with bar wenches with a questionable sense of justice.
Maybe I've just been scarred by some of the people who occasionally join my group, but these are roleplaying aspects that seem more like pitfalls to them, and these are the things I think about when in pain at their lack of sense of roleplaying.
One cannot simply teleport to Mount Olympus and see Zeus for real
Well maybe YOU can't... um.. I mean... Good point Z_O!!
Actually, there are at least nine things that all religions share.
1. All religions have authoritative writings, like the Bible or The Kama Sutra.
I'm sure I could think of counterexamples to most of your nine things. For instance, the Bible is less authoritative in Christianity than the Qur'an is in Islam, more authoritative than the Gita or the Upanishads in Hinduism, and they in turn are more authoritative than any particular Buddhist writings. (And that's ignoring variations within each of those religions.) (I think I'd have to say that a religion has some form of communally prescribed devotional ritual/practice as a matter of definition, but that's about it.)
Meanwhile, the Greek or Norse religions have no authoritative writings that I'm aware of.
A lot of fantasy religions look to me like cribs from real-world monotheisms, adjusted slightly to take account of the existence of other gods. You shouldn't end up with a situation in which Pelor has one organised church with its own body of doctrine and scriptures, while Moradin has another and Erathis a third.
Greek religion, as far as we can tell, had a lot of hymns, festivals, rituals, and sacrifices. Hymns largely consist of telling stories about gods, possibly with some ethical advice to the worshippers added. There probably wasn't a fixed canon of stories - they probably had local variations playing up the god's link with the local shrines and festivals. Look at the Homeric hymns, or Homer, for inspiration.
Being a priest wasn't a vocation; it was more like being the chairman of the local golf club. The priest was someone who made sacrifices when required, to whichever god required them. There were people who were dedicated to particular temples. But not all were.
Some givens, and some questions:
1) The gods exist. But do they necessarily show up all the time? If some enterprising individual climbs on Bahamut's altar, shouts 'all gods are bastards', and pisses on the sacrifice, do they expect a lightning bolt to incinerate them? Or are the gods largely uninvolved?
In the latter case, expect to see a lot of people who while believing theoretically that there are such things as gods, don't have faith in the gods. Just because a god exists and has opinions on morality doesn't mean that the god is paying attention to the errant cleric who is more interested in women and young men and drink. Sure the cleric may intend to reform on his or her death bed. A rogue may no more believe that the gods are just and look out for their worshippers than she believes that the king looks out for his subjects. A paladin's associates might regard him in the same way as if he had an unrequited crush on the Queen.
2) The Player's Handbook requires that clerics and paladins have one patron deity. (I don't know about other divine classes.) There could still be priests who sacrifice to Erathis on the anniversary of the founding of the city, and then sacrifice to Pelor for the harvest, and then to Melora for good hunting over the winter, and then to the Raven Queen at a funeral. They just don't have invocations in the same way as clerics do.
Likewise, each cult might be differently organised. Bahamut might have a central organised religion. Erathis might have a different organised religion in each 'nation' or city. Pelor's priests might not have any overarching organisation above the administration of each temple.
3) Religions probably don't bother much with dogma. Questions about the nature of reality are probably left to philosophers. Some philosophers might be priests or clerics. Some won't be at all religious. If philosophers are persecuted as impious, it will be for questioning the city's cults and the moral teachings of the gods (general), not for metaphysical theories.
> the beginning that divine beings do exist, and they can be seen in the
> flesh if one so desires, whereas real religions don't work like that.
This is not necessarily true. Most of the official settings do work that way, but Eberron doesn't; the existence (or nonexistence) of gods there is just as unprovable as in the real world.
> Actually, there are at least nine things that all religions share.
I'd also say "not necessarily" to this one. They *usually* will, but it's not a given that all of these will exist in a given case. (That said, it would be strange if more than one or two were missing.) On the other hand, when you're dealing with a fictional/fantasy religion, all bets are off - many of those traits suddenly become very optional indeed.
There would be no interpretation or separate sects in a church in this fantasy world because the word of the deity is clear and salient. More to the point, the existence and power of the god(s) wouldn't be in question.
QUOTE]
As one of the other posters mentioned, Eberron is a game setting where the dieties are more opaque. But, as a character, you would have to be pretty nuts to utterly deny their existence, if for no other reason than people are tossing around divine power in the form of spells all the time. The power obviously comes from somewhere.
Birthright was another campaign world with less transparent dieties. There were in fact many different sects to each diety. And while this was convenient as a game mechanic so players could control their own little church, there was, as I remember, a lot of reference to these sects having significant disagreements and interpretations of their diety's wishes, enough to cause real conflict. This was one of the things that made religion far more interesting for me in that world.
A lot of fantasy religions look to me like cribs from real-world monotheisms, adjusted slightly to take account of the existence of other gods. You shouldn't end up with a situation in which Pelor has one organised church with its own body of doctrine and scriptures, while Moradin has another and Erathis a third.
It's actually interesting that you post this when you did. Thursday was actually the anniversary (roughly two and a half millennia) of the origin of this thought process. Nebuchadnezzar II sacked Jerusalem, leading to the Babylonian Captivity. For the first time in the history of mankind, the conquered religious group did not look to their god and say, "Well, their god is stronger than you." In fact, the Isrealites didn't even acknowledge the Babylonian gods. They instead look at G-d and said, "You must be displeased with us."
> the dieties are more opaque. But, as a character, you would have to be
> pretty nuts to utterly deny their existence, if for no other reason than
> people are tossing around divine power in the form of spells all the time.
> The power obviously comes from somewhere.
There's no evidence it comes from gods, though. Followers of (say) the Sovereign Host certainly claim it does, but the Blood of Vol faith rejects gods and its clerics and other divine spellcasters draw their power from self-worship. Clerics of the Lord of Blades certainly aren't worshipping a god, but they wield divine power too.
Where does it actually come from? It's uncertain, and that's what makes faith into faith in that setting. The only real constant is that one must have sufficiently strong belief in whatever it is one is drawing power in the name of.
There are non-religious types, but theological debates are never going to be about the validity of the establishment. As such there isn't any undermining of faith on the basis of skepticism. Nor would there be conflict within the church with regard to the interpretations of a teaching, at least not to the scale where there would be schisms in the establishment. This is because deities leave no uncertainty with their will. The dogma of their clergy is clear and concise.
I disagree, not completely, but on some of the details. While the existence of the gods is something that most people will not quesiton, their influence is not universal. The gods do not physically manifest in their temples on every given holy day, nor do they audibly speak their scriptures to each of their followers. Most people would probably live their lives never seeing a deity.
The words of the gods will most likely still be passed through mortals in the form of visions and inpiration. The scriptures of any given god may still be written by dozens of authors and may not even be fully compiled into a single cannon. I read a book, Lady of the Moon, i think, in which a priestess had interpreted the scriptures of her goddess very differently. True, this heresy was inspired by Shar, but it shows that the words of D&D deities can (as can all writings, i would tend to say) be interpreted in many ways. The gods won't physically step in and say, "No, i meant this..."
Alternatively, even if a person does see the deities firsthand, they might question the absolute authority of divinity. For example, in the FRCS, it is common knowledge that mortals have ascended to godhood. That fact casts doubt upon whether deities merit worship. Divine magic, perhaps the only "proof" a common person might see, can be brought into question as well, since wizards can produce similar effects. If one has not seen the deities, all of this could be attributed to a widespread conspiracy involving all priesthoods of all faiths... but i shall not get into that. ;)
Since my question has been answered, and since the thread is getting longer than I had expected, I humbly request that an ORC please lock the thread.
Thank you all.
;)