Who is the holy patron of tyrants?
What do that means, philosopically, since we know Domination is a natural part of the human (and perhaps orcs, drows, dragons, and maybe halflings and elves)?
Who gets the blame for oppresors? Luck? Fate? Khyber?
And, as a setting design choice:
Why? Why not bring a tyrant god?
Is it good for the setting? Is it a flaw?
Do tyrants consider themselves "evil tyrants"? I sincerely doubt that. They are supposed to be noble rulers, or saviors of their homeland, or the only ones fit to preserve it or bring it to glory in the face of the evil opposition. Those who consider themselves honourable and bringers of cruel but necessary(to their minds at least) justice might worship Dol Arrah or Aureon. Militarists would probably worship Dol Dorn the mighty instead of The "cowardly" Mockery. And so we have people like Cardinal Krozen or Warlord Adal, who rule with an iron fist but actually worship religions of good.
What do that means, philosopically, since we know Domination is a natural part of the human (and perhaps orcs, drows, dragons, and maybe halflings and elves)?
Who gets the blame for oppresors? Luck? Fate? Khyber?
What does it mean, philosophically, for our society? Are there any tyrant deities that are actually worshipped? So many tyrants have walked the Earth after all, and the majority considered themselves followers of good-aligned religions.
(BTW, what do you mean maybe halflings and elves?)
Why is there such a need for a deity like that? What does it offer and who would worship it(especially since in Eberron the existence of divine powers is a matter of faith instead of pure fact)?
In Eberron, individual and social perspective matter a lot in religion. Conquerors have a cause and that's why they march. Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn are probably the biggest targets of worship among your typical humanoid warlord, but the purpose of the war might be related to something else entirely.
Now, to answer one of the questions raised by the OP, I'd say the lack of a god of oppression is a good thing. In Eberron, there really doesn't seem to be monolithically evil religions; nobody's going to conquer Khorvaire in the name of Bane the Iron-Handed. They may, though, seek to conquer it with the blessing and aid of the Dark Six.
Thinking about it, it's even harder for a monolithically evil religion to get itself together in Eberron, seeing, as said earlier, that there is no solid proof of the deities' existence. In the Realms, though,l avatars and chosen and whatnot are wandering about the world. It's kinda hard to argue against the existence of gods when the avatar of the god you say doesn't exist is skipping down the street.
Hell, thinking about it, one of the reasons the Silver Flame is so popular, and grew so quickly, is because there IS a physical piece of evidence; the Silver Flame.
Gothmog, any comments? It seems your original post was as a result of "travel shock" from transitioning from the Realms to Eberron.
As for Bane himself, I see him less as "The God of Tyrants" and more like the Old Testament-style Baals of the various tribes... he is a deity of power, of might, of defending the tribe, clan, nation albeit at tremendous personal sacrifice of its members. Mercy is something unknown to the Banite, although they are not wantonly cruel.
Bane's appeal is that he is ruthless in dealing with threats, troublemakers, and anarchs. In times of great crisis, people turn to Bane--and when times are easy, they turn away to softer gods.
just my two cents.
There isn't just Bane. There is also Hextor in Greyhawk, or Melkor/Morgoth in Middle Earth, or Takhisis in Dragonlance. Tyrants-Gods are a staple in fantasy. So one of the doubts was why the designers of the game considered leaving it outside of Eberron.
The other one is how it affects it IC the game: During the Last War, my bet was that there were times when Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn weren't enough, and the feelings and prayers were more appropiate for Tiamat, or some of the Rajahs, than to the Host.
Yes I do think that the Cults of the Dragon Below recruited a lot of members with all sorts of emotional conditions from the war like unshakable and/or unending hatred, anger, fear, loss, depression, frustration, erectile dysfunction, phantom limb syndrome and in general post war trauma.
PS: That does answer your question, it just isn't worded as an answer to your problem.
PSS: Hacking through a cult of any decent size that favors dark sacrifice to restore lost limbs as it's primary recruiting draw is both funny and sad.
Haha. Using the "corpses are peaceful" line of thinking?
No. To stop the war, there needs to be 1 nation. No more nationalism. No nation is better then the other. Only Gallifar is better. For there to be 1 nation all chaos needs to be destroyed at its roots. Discipline is required. Punishment needs to be harsh. Mercy will not bring peace. The mighty need to rule over the weak. In short, Bane without being an open god of tyrany. The Lords of Dust are openly evil, but they are also all about deceit and they are well aware few creatures of Eberron (except the insane) are going to admit to themselves they are evil, let alone doing so towards the public.
There isn't just Bane. There is also Hextor in Greyhawk, or Melkor/Morgoth in Middle Earth, or Takhisis in Dragonlance. Tyrants-Gods are a staple in fantasy. So one of the doubts was why the designers of the game considered leaving it outside of Eberron.
Because the gods in Eberron have always been presented in a manner quite different from those of other settings.
The gods of Eberron are distant. We don't know for certain they exist. And if they do, we know that they can be invoked by people who's actions don't always fit the core creed of the deity, as long as there is faith. So you can easily have a tyrant who conquers in the name of the Silver Flame, believing that only under his iron rule can evil be truly eliminated. You can have a general who believes that Dol Arrah is responsible for his victories, despite the fact that these have been brutal massacres; Dol Arrah is the patron of strategists, and surely it is she who tells him what must be done - his victory alone is proof of his righteousness. You can have the king who believes that Aureon has set him the task of imposing a universal order - bringing civilization to all.
Of course, the Host is rarely worshipped by individual deity. One of the common soldier faiths - notably, the faith of the Swords of Karrn in Stormreach - is that of the Faces of War, which reveres Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, AND the Mockery - holding that in war you have your place for honor, treachery, and simple skill and strength.
But in general, the goal was to make the faiths of Eberron a little more like religion in OUR world. We don't know for certain if gods exist - but we fight one another in their names, even when our religions are based on principles of peace. And as others have said, very few people who do evil consider their actions to BE evil. They're bringing order, or bringing their civilization or true faith to barbarians and infidels. They are wiping out a blight on their nation. They are going to bring prosperity to their people. We didn't really want Eberron to BE a realm of black and white good guys and bad guys. Remember, this is the place where the 5N monarch who wants to go back to war is the good-aligned one and the peacemaker is an evil vampire.
Beyond all this, because we don't know if the gods exist, being an agnostic or atheist is a perfectly valid choice. The man who KNOWS his actions are evil may be an athiest because he believes that if the gods truly existed they'd strike him down for his actions - as they don't, he's clearly free to carry out whatever atrocities he wants.
So... why no god of tyrants in Eberron? Because unlike the your-alignment-has-to-match-that-of-your-god settings, or settings where you'd expect the good god to come down and smack the king who massacres innocents in his name, in Eberron nothing stops that brutal killer from believing that Dol Arrah blesses his victory. We have deities of battle, of leadership, of civilization, all good rationales for conquest. If that's not enough, we have greed, death, destruction, and change in the Dark Six... and as the Faces of War show, you can mix and match Host and Six to get the combo of values you want. Boldrei demands that you protect your community - well, by wiping out ethnic group X, I AM protecting my community. It's what she would want. Trust me, I'm a cleric.
With all that said, if you want a tyrant god - by all means, go with the Lords of Dust! The Rage of War and his prakhutu Mordakhesh are an excellent choice for warmongering conquerors. And we've left lots of slots open precisely so you could add a new Overlord in who's specifically about domination and tyranny. The Overlords are all about embodying unpleasant concepts and feeding from having those things spread across the world, and unlike deities, they have a tangible presence. If you want your brutal warlord serving a godlike being and getting aid from demonic forces because of it, you're certainly looking at the Lords of Dust.
Boldrei demands that you protect your community - well, by wiping out ethnic group X, I AM protecting my community. It's what she would want. Trust me, I'm a cleric.
Win.
Why am I hearing 'Trust me, I'm a cleric' being said by Bill Murray, a la Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters?
because it's awesome?
@thread: beyond the points about how gods work in eberron, lets look at good aligned gods in faerun. Specifically, Torm. It is extremely easy to see the church of Torm doing tyranty things to establish/keep order. Hell, they walled off a forest, resulting in the elf population there being whiped out by werewolves.
The church of a lawful good deity.
I'd say more than eberron needing a god of tyranny, other settings need something like the traveller.
Tyrants-Gods are a staple in fantasy. So one of the doubts was why the designers of the game considered leaving it outside of Eberron.
Touching on this point again...
One reason to leave it out was BECAUSE it was a staple in fantasy. Part of the point of creating Eberron in the first place was to provide a foundation for stories that don't easily fit into other settings. There's nothing WRONG with gods walking the earth. It lets you have stories like the Time of Troubles, which simply wouldn't work in Eberron. It lets you have an ultimate champion of light fight an ultimate champion of darkness. These things aren't BAD. But if that's the story you want to tell... you could already tell it in Forgotten Realms. You didn't need a new setting for that.
On the other hand, there's stories that don't work so well in a world where the gods are known and present. The corrupt archheirophant doesn't make quite as much sense when you KNOW the god is there handing him the power to do what he does. It's hard to have an athiest in a world in which a god physically showed up and smashed your house yesterday. Schisms in a faith aren't quite so meaningful when you should be able to ask the dety "Say, which of us is right here?" You CAN tell stories of gods usurping one another's portfolios. But you can't tell stories about humans zealously fighting a crusade that clashes on many levels with the basic principles of their faith in a world where the god should show up to sort it out.
You mention Morgoth, Takhisis, Bane. All of these beings have the potential to step into the world and act in it; their followers are serving them personally for hope of future reward. You need your evil god because the evil god is the SOURCE of evil. In Eberron... you can't blame it on a god, and some of the works things have been done in the belief that they were noble acts, not as an effort to conquer for a dark god. Tyrant or hero, the soldier who fights for Dol Arrah does it because he believes in the pricniples she embodies - not because he thinks she's going to show up to shake his hand after the battle.
But again... if that's what you WANT... if you want an army of demons and madmen brutally conquering the innocent... that's where you've got Mordakhesh and the Rage of War. They AREN'T gods. There's no question as to whether or not they exist. They are powerful supernatural beings who draw strength from strife and conquest, and who might very well reward those who serve them. So Rak Tulkhesh can serve the same purpose as Morgoth. But he's a not a god.
This is one thing people sometimes forget when looking at the Silver Flame. I see a lot of people who want to cast the SF as intolerant, overzealous witch-hunters. The thing to remember is this: The core principle of the CotSF is "Protect the innocent from supernatural threats." In contrast to our world, Eberron is a world FILLED with supernatural threats. Dopplegangers, rakshasa, vampires, lycanthropes, Inspired, evil mystics... they are all out there. We typically think of a "witch hunt" as baseless persecution. But again, here the Lords of Dust DO have agents throughout the world. The Quori may be manipulating your dreams or mind-seeding your sister. Supernatural evil is a very real and dangerous thing, and the templars of the Silver Flame are often out-matched by the things they go up against. So the CotSF CAN harbor corruption, intolerance, and all that. No one's perfect. But it also includes people who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the weak and defenseless from these things. They are an army dedicated to defending ALL of civilization from the darkness. This is why you didn't have all SF followers leaving their nations to fight for Thrane in the Last War. Because Thrane vs Breland is a political battle that is secondary to their religious duty. The Thrane templar and Brelish Flame cleric can face each other in battle - but if a demon emerged on the battlefield, they would set the other conflict aside to bring it down.
Random threadjacking. I'm just saying.
Tyrants-Gods are a staple in fantasy. So one of the doubts was why the designers of the game considered leaving it outside of Eberron.
Touching on this point again...
One reason to leave it out was BECAUSE it was a staple in fantasy. Part of the point of creating Eberron in the first place was to provide a foundation for stories that don't easily fit into other settings. There's nothing WRONG with gods walking the earth. It lets you have stories like the Time of Troubles, which simply wouldn't work in Eberron. It lets you have an ultimate champion of light fight an ultimate champion of darkness. These things aren't BAD. But if that's the story you want to tell... you could already tell it in Forgotten Realms. You didn't need a new setting for that.
On the other hand, there's stories that don't work so well in a world where the gods are known and present. The corrupt archheirophant doesn't make quite as much sense when you KNOW the god is there handing him the power to do what he does. It's hard to have an athiest in a world in which a god physically showed up and smashed your house yesterday. Schisms in a faith aren't quite so meaningful when you should be able to ask the dety "Say, which of us is right here?" You CAN tell stories of gods usurping one another's portfolios. But you can't tell stories about humans zealously fighting a crusade that clashes on many levels with the basic principles of their faith in a world where the god should show up to sort it out.
You mention Morgoth, Takhisis, Bane. All of these beings have the potential to step into the world and act in it; their followers are serving them personally for hope of future reward. You need your evil god because the evil god is the SOURCE of evil. In Eberron... you can't blame it on a god, and some of the works things have been done in the belief that they were noble acts, not as an effort to conquer for a dark god. Tyrant or hero, the soldier who fights for Dol Arrah does it because he believes in the pricniples she embodies - not because he thinks she's going to show up to shake his hand after the battle.
But again... if that's what you WANT... if you want an army of demons and madmen brutally conquering the innocent... that's where you've got Mordakhesh and the Rage of War. They AREN'T gods. There's no question as to whether or not they exist. They are powerful supernatural beings who draw strength from strife and conquest, and who might very well reward those who serve them. So Rak Tulkhesh can serve the same purpose as Morgoth. But he's a not a god.
This is one thing people sometimes forget when looking at the Silver Flame. I see a lot of people who want to cast the SF as intolerant, overzealous witch-hunters. The thing to remember is this: The core principle of the CotSF is "Protect the innocent from supernatural threats." In contrast to our world, Eberron is a world FILLED with supernatural threats. Dopplegangers, rakshasa, vampires, lycanthropes, Inspired, evil mystics... they are all out there. We typically think of a "witch hunt" as baseless persecution. But again, here the Lords of Dust DO have agents throughout the world. The Quori may be manipulating your dreams or mind-seeding your sister. Supernatural evil is a very real and dangerous thing, and the templars of the Silver Flame are often out-matched by the things they go up against. So the CotSF CAN harbor corruption, intolerance, and all that. No one's perfect. But it also includes people who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the weak and defenseless from these things. They are an army dedicated to defending ALL of civilization from the darkness. This is why you didn't have all SF followers leaving their nations to fight for Thrane in the Last War. Because Thrane vs Breland is a political battle that is secondary to their religious duty. The Thrane templar and Brelish Flame cleric can face each other in battle - but if a demon emerged on the battlefield, they would set the other conflict aside to bring it down.
Random threadjacking. I'm just saying.
awesome post.
point of clarification: Morgoth was not really a god. He was closer to an archangel in abrahamic religions. One who eventually became corrupted and evil.
But again... if that's what you WANT... if you want an army of demons and madmen brutally conquering the innocent... that's where you've got Mordakhesh and the Rage of War. They AREN'T gods.
Well, by what standard? I think that by almost any consideration except the contemporary "Capable of absolutely anything and possessing perfect, limitless knowledge," the rajahs are gods. Beings which wield that level of power, if inserted into most Earth religions (again, excluding modern monotheism), would be gods - unless they were simply designated as "Just like a god, but different group," like the Greek titans.
I bring this up because in Eberron, unlike the other D&D worlds, there's no obvious divinity - at least not in the form of the Sovereigns and Six. Some people have what is called divine magic, but that demonstrates nothing. It doesn't prove that gods exist - only that people of faith use similar power. There's no way demonstrate the existence of Dol Dorn or The Shadow. But the Rage of War? Yeah, he's real.
As far as the average Joe is concerned, a being like a rajah is a god. If such a being were released, it's obvious existence might inspire a wholly new brand of religious devotion in some people. A soldier might worship Dol Dorn, Dol Arrah, and the Mockery, but once Rage of War is around, he might reconsider.
As such, I think it's more likely that one of Eberron's superbeings is more likely to inspire a massive war than is a "real god."
Well, by what standard? I think that by almost any consideration except the contemporary "Capable of absolutely anything and possessing perfect, limitless knowledge," the rajahs are gods.
And as one of the followers of the Host, I'd maintain that they are powerful monsters. They can be fought. They can be defeated. The Rage of War may possess the ability to influence his immediate area, but as a follower of the Host, I believe that the Sovereigns are omnipresent - that Onatar is there with every smith, that no war is fought without Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, and even the Mockery looking down upon it. Perhaps they do nothing but watch. Perhaps they guide and inspire. But they are there. The true gods are wth us at every moment, and they can never be fought, bound, or defeated.
Can I PROVE that? No. But that's the belief that lies beneath the host. The Sovereigns define reality. The Overlords just live in it.
Meanwhile, many of the other faiths don't even have gods, in the conventional sense. The Silver Flame doesn't worship a deity. It beliefs that there is a source of divine energy which can be used to protect the innocent against things like the Overlords. Not a god - a source of energy. The Blood of Vol believes that the only thing that matters is finding and harnessing your own immortal spark - that if there are gods, they're apparently no better than the Overlords. The Undying Court worship their own ancestors.
The SH are the main "God" folks, and for them, it IS about omnipresence and a certain level of omniscience - things the Overlords don't possess.
...unless they were simply designated as "Just like a god, but different group," like the Greek titans.
The thing is that here, the point is that the Greek gods and the Titans are essentially the same, the Titansare simply refered to by a different name. The Overlords and the Sovereigns have nothing in common whatsoever. One can be concretely proven to exist; the other is known only by faith. One has great power but can still only influence a limited area; the other is believed by the faithful to have influence throughout the world. One can be challenged by a feathered serpent and a paladin with a magic sword; how would you begin to do that with a Sovereign? The closest you can get is Dorius building a library to challenge Aureon - not something that would make much of an impression on an Overlord.
The "same thing, different name" distinction comes into play when you start dealing with Quori, Angels, Demons, Devils, and the like. Because Overlords are, in essence, extremely powerful outsiders. We're even said that you could use Orcus as an Overlord. Now, in many D&D settings, "gods" DO fall into this category - a "god" is just a 35th level being. In Eberron, gods are held to a higher standard. The fact that you can potentially beat it up is a sign that it's not a god - it's a big angel.
So I'm just saying that in any setting with incarnate gods, I'd agree. In Eberron, the people who worship gods have a different idea of what "god" means.
With that said... Might there be people or even entire cultures that worship Overlords? Absolutely. That's a whole subcategory of Cult of the Dragon Below. I'm just saying that for purposes of setting design, I reserve "god" for "unknowable being who may or may not exist" - and keep anything that can be physically encountered and whose influence covers a limited area as "Immortal/Primordial/Whatever". If, for some reason, I wanted to use stats given for a god (such as Bahamut) in Eberron, I wouldn't make him a Sovereign; I'd treat him as an uber-outsider, who might believe that he was a servant of one of the higher unknowable powers.
Now, in many D&D settings, "gods" DO fall into this category - a "god" is just a 35th level being. In Eberron, gods are held to a higher standard. The fact that you can potentially beat it up is a sign that it's not a god - it's a big angel.
So I'm just saying that in any setting with incarnate gods, I'd agree. In Eberron, the people who worship gods have a different idea of what "god" means.
I'm not exactly arguing the opposite for Eberron. I understand the categorical definition for an Eberron deity, yet the subtle differences between "omnipotent" and "level 35" are probably lost on a farmer or soldier. To almost every creature in Eberron, any intelligent creature at that tier possesses godlike power and more or less is a god. It's fine to claim that such beings can be beaten up, but to your typical man on the street, one might as well claim Balinor can be beaten up. Many/most of Eberron's creatures at that level of power are outsiders that reincarnate if destroyed, giving them even more credibility as "gods."
It's fine for Eberron's most learned scholars and theologians to "know" that a 40th-level reincarnating uber demon isn't a god, but they might need some luck explaining that to people who witness it destroying Throneport on its own. Whether or not such beings (good or evil) are technically gods doesn't matter, because to many people they will seem like gods when they act in the world.
The mythology of the Sovereigns supports the idea that gods can behave like material beings with stories like the **** of Arawai and the gift-giving of the Traveler, even if these are widely understood by lay worshippers as allegorical. When a rajah shows to bring destruction or a radiant idol falls to build a new church, they make an impression.
The fact that you can potentially beat it up is a sign that it's not a god - it's a big angel.
*applause*
It works, too; if you want to meet and kill gods, don't come to Eberron. If you (maybe?) want to avoid divine meddling, Eberron is your place.
Now, in many D&D settings, "gods" DO fall into this category - a "god" is just a 35th level being. In Eberron, gods are held to a higher standard. The fact that you can potentially beat it up is a sign that it's not a god - it's a big angel.
So I'm just saying that in any setting with incarnate gods, I'd agree. In Eberron, the people who worship gods have a different idea of what "god" means.
I'm not exactly arguing the opposite for Eberron. I understand the categorical definition for an Eberron deity, yet the subtle differences between "omnipotent" and "level 35" are probably lost on a farmer or soldier. To almost every creature in Eberron, any intelligent creature at that tier possesses godlike power and more or less is a god. It's fine to claim that such beings can be beaten up, but to your typical man on the street, one might as well claim Balinor can be beaten up. Many/most of Eberron's creatures at that level of power are outsiders that reincarnate if destroyed, giving them even more credibility as "gods."
It's fine for Eberron's most learned scholars and theologians to "know" that a 40th-level reincarnating uber demon isn't a god, but they might need some luck explaining that to people who witness it destroying Throneport on its own. Whether or not such beings (good or evil) are technically gods doesn't matter, because to many people they will seem like gods when they act in the world.
But they don't. If common people are actual aware of the Overlords' existence thay are also aware thet they are imprisoned. What kind of deity would endure such a fate? Would it not be more logical to worship the flame that binds them, the gods whose presence is everywhere in the world(unlike them)or the divinity within(see how the couatls used their divinity and defeated the demonic overlords)?
Furthermore, their blatantly evil nature, far darker and hostile to the mortal races than the worse of the Six, wouldn't exactly be an asset in drawing followers.
I'm not exactly arguing the opposite for Eberron. I understand the categorical definition for an Eberron deity, yet the subtle differences between "omnipotent" and "level 35" are probably lost on a farmer or soldier.
But again, the difference is that as terrifying as that level 35 is, the farmer doesn't believe that it's making his crops grow RIGHT NOW, and the soldier doesn't believe it's guiding his hand in battle. Both of these things ARE thought to be true of the Sovereigns.
Now, could the Overlords inspire this sort of belief? Sure. They can and do - hence, again, the existence of cults dedicated to them. The Rage of War becomes stronger when people within a certain vicinity fight, and if released will inspire conflict. The main thing there is "If released" and "vicinity". The subtle differences may be lost on the farmer, but there's that very unsubtle difference of "I don't have to worry about this because it's stuck under a rock in the Demon Wastes."
Those who live within their sphere of influence - tribes of the Demon Wastes, for example - won't see this distinction. They have no concept that "The influence of my mighty lord stops at the Labyrinth." While the people south generally don't realize that the threat exists.
Then you have the middle ground - the Shadow in the Flame. It's influence goes further than any other Overlord, precisely because it's piggybacking the Flame. It CAN reach across the world. So is IT considered to be a god by a follower of the Sovereigns? Still not really. It was bound not by Dol Arrah herself in epic struggle, but by an ex-paladin OF Dol Arrah... A slight knock down the mythic scale. And it can tempt from the Flame... but it's still bound by the Flame. If you told a Vassal "Oh, Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn imprisoned the Devourer the other day - he's out of circulation" he'd laugh and say "Tell that to the storm we had this morning." Yes, there are myths like the **** of Arawai (which is notably god on god action). Heck, there are, in fact, myths of gods fighting demons at the dawn of time, which gets titan action on. But to the SH, the gods define reality. The Devourer is in every storm. Without Arawai, there would be no harvest. The fact that these things persist is proof that the Sovereigns persist as well. An Overlord may be a spirit of fear and doubt; it may draw strength from these things, and if released spread them over a vast area. But it's not the soul cause of fear and doubt; it's strengthened by the fear and doubt that occurs naturally.
I understand the point of "If it was here in my face right now, could I prove it's not a god?" No, of course I couldn't. Just like a radiant idol. Which is why both have cults. But it's also why both have CULTS and not globespanning religions.
Oh, there is a side point there we haven't thrown out yet... the reason the faith of the Sovereigns is as widespread as it is. The reason you have cultures that have never had contact worshipping gods with the same portfolios and almost the same names. The concept that while it is possible for anyone of sufficient faith to channel divine power in Eberron, it's EASIER if you're following one of the basic religions. If you have a god with a name like "Orayon", a lord of law and lore, with a holy symbol a Vassal might vaguely recognize, you're more likely to get your prayers answered than if you pray to, say, your shoe (or more to the point, the Rage of War). You can even mix and match - have "Dorayon", who's law and sun and honor in battle, sometimes depicted as a fire-breathing blue dragon; when you look to the Rusheme gods, you have some overlap.
Some would (and do) say that this proves the existence of the Sovereigns. Others would simply say that it may be the mass faith effect - someone started it, and it's easier because they've created a lens in the collective unconscious, and the more people who worship my shoe the easier it will get. You can start a religion about anything in Eberron, but most never go anywhere, and most don't generate divine magic. You have to really, REALLY believe in that shoe to get your prayers answered (and the Vassal would say it's the Traveler laughing up its sleeve at you who actually answers your prayer, amused to watch your shoe cult spread; another scholar would argue that you're still really worshipping travel Sovereign Kol Korran, it's more difficult because you won't use his name). Hence the reason there's so many more SH clerics in the world than Cult of the Hellcow clerics. Ultimately, most of the faiths of Eberron are about having a reliable source of divine power, which isn't necessarily a god; the Silver Flame IS a source of divine power. Whatever else they are or aren't, the Sovereigns are an easier path to clericdom than the Overlords... though just like the shoe, you CAN get spells praying to an Overlord, it's just somethign fewer people achieve.
Anyhow, ultimately I think we are debating semantics. A 34th level immortal being who influences the world around him definitely fits the Gozer rule; when someone asks if it's a god, you say yes (paraphrased, yes, but so be it). I'm just saying where the wider world draws the line between "god" and "demon overlord".
You say that to the SH, gods define reality. Then, who defines Tyranny? Who defines slavery, oppression, domination? Those are things that exist everywhere: Kids bullying the fat boy. The brother of a friend captured by goblins. The oppressive crime lord controlling you by force and fear. The warlords seeking to conquer your village.
Surely more than one faithful has approached his priest with this question.
About the division between god or overlord, I think most people stick to what their religions teach them, and consider the rest of the beliefs as utter crap. A few ten erudits in the whole world may discuss those issues attempting to leave their beliefs aside, but what would their criteria?
Certainly not the cuantity of believers. Census would be hard to get.
Spells granted to their clerics? It doesn´t have to be obligatory. Some gods can do it. Some may chose not to do it.
Physical Presence? Again, not obligatory.
And so on...
And so we return to the OP.
You say that to the SH, gods define reality. Then, who defines Tyranny? Who defines slavery, oppression, domination? Those are things that exist everywhere: Kids bullying the fat boy. The brother of a friend captured by goblins. The oppressive crime lord controlling you by force and fear. The warlords seeking to conquer your village.
Surely more than one faithful has approached his priest with this question.
The gods, of course. As is the world. so are the gods. As are the gods, so is the world. Look for the cause behind a tyrannical goverment and you will find the deity behind it. Is it greed? Then the keeper's hand has a heavy presence behind the tyrant's regime. Bigotry and hatred? The Fury. The Mockery is all about using violence and disonourable actions to achieve your goals. Ruthless ambition? Aureon's shadow revels in such things. On the other hand, Dol Arrah rejects the works of a Tyrant and blesses those who fight against him.
Look for the cause behind a tyrannical regiment and you will find the deity behind it. Is it greed? Then the keeper's hand has a heavy presence behind the tyrant's regime. Bigotry and hatred? The Fury. The Mockery is all about using violence and disonourable actions to achieve your goals. Ruthless ambition? Aureon's shadow revels in such things. On the other hand, Dol Arrah rejects the works of a Tyrant and blesses those who fight against it.
Bingo. And don't limit yourself to the Six. Aureon is the Lord of Law; the tyrant that focuses on absolute imposition of order can easily see himself as forging the perfect society Aureon would want. As I suggested above, the ethnic cleanser can claim to be doing Boldrei's work - purifying undesireable elements from the community. The Host and Six involve broad concepts. Greed, ambition, rage, treachery, order, security... just there you have all sorts of concepts that can support a tyrant.
Now, going to the question of "Why do Sovereigns allow evil and suffering?" there's two answers. (well, many many more, but two primary ones.)
For a vassal, the point is that the Sovereigns are omnipresent and offer inspiration, but that they do not CONTROL mortal action. The tyrant's greed may be inspired by the Keeper. His vision of an ordered world may come from Aureon. But Aureon doesn't MAKE him do these things, nor does he assure success. The Sovereigns guide and inspire. The vassal smith believes that he produces superior work when he lets Onatar guide his hand. But the key word there is "guide" - it's still the smith who makes the sword, not Onatar alone. Which influences you more, Aureon or his Shadow? At the end of the day, that's on you, not them. A bully listens to the Fury or the Mockery and lets those evil thoughts guide him to do evil. So you should look for Boldrei or Dol Arrah in YOUR heart and do something about it.
The follower of the Blood of Vol doesn't accept this. For a seeker, the answer to "Why do the Sovereigns allow evil and suffering?" is that they are evil and thus we suffer. That if the gods were just and loving, we wouldn't have death and pain and cruelty. That it's a game - that death exists to keep mortals from attaining their true potential and becoming the equal of the gods. Seekers who hold this view see vassals as imbeciles, serving the very forces that have enslaved them.
Who defines slavery, oppression, domination? Those are things that exist everywhere: Kids bullying the fat boy. The brother of a friend captured by goblins. The oppressive crime lord controlling you by force and fear. The warlords seeking to conquer your village.
Well, just looking at points separately:
* Kids bullying the fat kid? Easy. They are listening the the Fury, whose 3E domains include Evil, Wrath, and Hatred. They are letting cruel emotions guide their actions.
* The brother of the friend captured by goblins: who's to blame? You could stick it on the Fury again, saying that the monsters are guided by the Sovereign of Hatred (and she's got Madness in there, which can also cover a lot of different behaviors). You could blame the Shadow, commonly thought to be the source of many monstrous races. You could curse the treachery of the Mockery.
* And with that said, let's look at the Mockery. Patron of "Dishonorable Combat and Unjust War", whose portfolio includes dishonor, murder, terror, and treachery, and whose domains include Evil, Trickery, and Domination (among others). Sounds like we've got your crimelord covered pretty well.
But the key again is that in many other settings, you pick a single god as your patron. As a rule, that's not how Sovereigns OR Six work. They work in concert. The crimelord who rules through terror and treachery is favored by the Mockery, surely. But if his actions are motivated by greed, that's the touch of the Keeper. Likewise, the tyrant who seeks absolute order may indeed have some vision of Aureon - but unfortunately, the madness of the Fury has led him astray from the righteous path.
So again, to the question "Gods of Tyranny are a standard trope of fantasy - was it an error that the designers left one out?" As one of the designers, I can at least say that it wasn't an accident. In Sovereigns and Six, you have concepts that can work to justify all sorts of types of behavior. And you even have the Blood of Vol as the people who hate the gods for allowing evil to exist. And because this is Eberron, at the end of the day, you can always decide that you don't believe in ANY god - that no just god would allow the goblins to kill your brother and therefore you won't worship any of them.
In my Dreaming Dark novels, Daine was a follower of the Silver Flame who lost his faith after the Mourning. I think that the Mourning would be a huge polarizing event for many: some might see the Mourning as divine punishment. Others might cling to faith as a way to find meaning and hope in a horrific world. While others would say "I lived my life in accordance with the faith and my nation was still obliterated - how can this be just?" and turn away from it.
So yes, surely many faithful approach the priests with these questions. And there are many answers. Such and such was led astray by the Fury. Such and such placed greed before noble intent - listening to the Keeper instead of Dol Arrah. You must find your faith, son. Listen to Boldrei as she urges you to care for your family and neighbors. Heed the voice of Dol Arrah in your soul, and make a difference in the world. Let her light lift you up as you face down the tyrants of this world.
Perhaps that will inspire you to action. Perhaps not, and you'll abandon your faith. Perhaps you'll go a step further, seeking a force that gives you immediate and direct results - sign up with a cult of the Dragon Below, and get your symbiote now!
But, short form: It wasn't accidental. As designers, we didn't think Eberron needed a Bane-like god among its religions... and it essentially already has a Morgoth (incarnate being who creates races of monsters and fights battles) in the daelkyr and the Overlords. I'm not expecting you to agree with that decision, and it's certainly an interesting discussion... I'm just saying that it wasn't something we overlooked, it was a decision we made.
And so we return to the OP.
You say that to the SH, gods define reality. Then, who defines Tyranny? Who defines slavery, oppression, domination? Those are things that exist everywhere: Kids bullying the fat boy. The brother of a friend captured by goblins. The oppressive crime lord controlling you by force and fear. The warlords seeking to conquer your village.
Surely more than one faithful has approached his priest with this question.
About the division between god or overlord, I think most people stick to what their religions teach them, and consider the rest of the beliefs as utter crap. A few ten erudits in the whole world may discuss those issues attempting to leave their beliefs aside, but what would their criteria?
Certainly not the cuantity of believers. Census would be hard to get.
Spells granted to their clerics? It doesn´t have to be obligatory. Some gods can do it. Some may chose not to do it.
Physical Presence? Again, not obligatory.
And so on...
actually, there are probably the equivilent to entire "majors" in universities dedicated to discussing those issues. just like if you talk to 100 rabbis, 100 catholic priests(especially if a good number are jesuits), 100 orthodox priests, and 100 lutheran pastors, you'll probably get more than half of each group who know a few things and can debate(to varying degrees) on the topic of gnostisism, particularly during the first half of the first century AD.
also, with both the SH and SF churches being quite wide spread, worshiping...entities of greatly different natures, the discussion becomes very probable. sort of like the theological discussion between muslim and judaic philosophers in the Al-Andulus period in spain, and other similar settings in our history. two or more faiths which can agree on many, if not most, points of morality, living together relatively well, with a lot of philosophy going on in both cases= all manner of theological discussion.
Look for the cause behind a tyrannical regiment and you will find the deity behind it. Is it greed? Then the keeper's hand has a heavy presence behind the tyrant's regime. Bigotry and hatred? The Fury. The Mockery is all about using violence and disonourable actions to achieve your goals. Ruthless ambition? Aureon's shadow revels in such things. On the other hand, Dol Arrah rejects the works of a Tyrant and blesses those who fight against it.
Bingo. And don't limit yourself to the Six. Aureon is the Lord of Law; the tyrant that focuses on absolute imposition of order can easily see himself as forging the perfect society Aureon would want. As I suggested above, the ethnic cleanser can claim to be doing Boldrei's work - purifying undesireable elements from the community. The Host and Six involve broad concepts. Greed, ambition, rage, treachery, order, security... just there you have all sorts of concepts that can support a tyrant.
Now, going to the question of "Why do Sovereigns allow evil and suffering?" there's two answers. (well, many many more, but two primary ones.)
For a vassal, the point is that the Sovereigns are omnipresent and offer inspiration, but that they do not CONTROL mortal action. The tyrant's greed may be inspired by the Keeper. His vision of an ordered world may come from Aureon. But Aureon doesn't MAKE him do these things, nor does he assure success. The Sovereigns guide and inspire. The vassal smith believes that he produces superior work when he lets Onatar guide his hand. But the key word there is "guide" - it's still the smith who makes the sword, not Onatar alone. Which influences you more, Aureon or his Shadow? At the end of the day, that's on you, not them. A bully listens to the Fury or the Mockery and lets those evil thoughts guide him to do evil. So you should look for Boldrei or Dol Arrah in YOUR heart and do something about it.
The follower of the Blood of Vol doesn't accept this. For a seeker, the answer to "Why do the Sovereigns allow evil and suffering?" is that they are evil and thus we suffer. That if the gods were just and loving, we wouldn't have death and pain and cruelty. That it's a game - that death exists to keep mortals from attaining their true potential and becoming the equal of the gods. Seekers who hold this view see vassals as imbeciles, serving the very forces that have enslaved them.
you've quite a knack for discussing this stuff from the pov of someone who believes in the religion being discussed.
some awesome insights here.
Thanks.
actually, there are probably the equivilent to entire "majors" in universities dedicated to discussing those issues.
I'd have to agree. The Five Nations are fairly cosmopolitan, and if you look to the Religion description for Zilargo, "The Zil take faith seriously, to the extent that many gnomes explore different religions before settling on one faith." I'd expect that the Library of Korranberg has masses of tomes examining the question of evil, the extent of the influence of the Sovereigns, the relative merits of the Sovereigns versus the concrete force represented by the Shadow in the Flame, and so on. Bear in mind that the Shadow in the Flame is the only Overlord that's been unleashed in recent history, so it's the only one where the full power of an Overlord can be examined in any way.
As a side note, I expect that in Zilargo, they aren't just discussing the merits of the Sovereign Host we are most familiar with - which is the Pyrinean faith - but comparing and contrasting with the sixteen gods of the fall of Dhakaan, the Droaamite approach to the Dark Six, the church of the Wyrm Ascendant, the Rusheme faith of Xen'drik, and more. Technically, these are all "the Sovereign Host" - but I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a Zil Gnome who followed the Rusheme faith. Likewise, I'd think that there are Zil scholars who are fascinated by the Binding Flame of the Ghaash'kala orcs and the serpent cults of Khalesh - are these in fact closer to the true faith of the Silver Flame than the church of Thrane?
Spells granted to their clerics? It doesn´t have to be obligatory. Some gods can do it. Some may chose not to do it. Physical Presence? Again, not obligatory.
Certainly. Which means that some of the most important elements of a religion are the behavior it encourages among its followers and its ability to build community. Look at our world. I don't EXPECT to get miracles for my faith. I don't expect a deity to drop by for lunch or smite my foes. So what is going to influence me? I'm likely to choose the faith whose principles inspire me - or that has built up the strongest support base, as the faith of others may influence me.
During the initial development of Eberron, the three strongest faiths were supposed to be the Silver Flame, the Sovereign Host, and the Blood of Vol. To look at each...
As I mentioned above, one of the key ideas of the Sovereign Host is that it is an easy path to divine magic. Clerics who follow something close to a Sovereign are more likely to gain spells than others. There certainly have been faiths scattered around the world that have no connection to the Sovereigns; the people of Rhiavhaar revered an assortment of minor maritime deities before Pyrinean missionaries won them over to Kol Korran and Arawai with their divine miracles. So the history of the Sovereign Host is one that is based in the fact that Eberron is a magical world, and that vassal priests DO work miracles more easily than the Cult of the Shoe. Mind you, the various Sovereign variants (Rusheme, the Sixteen, Wyrm Ascendant) are on equal footing, so at that point you get to specific belief.
Set that aside, though, and look to the faith itself. The Sovereigns encourage order, industry, commerce, and community. They encourage strength and honor in battle. While their worship is not encouraged, the Six are part of the faith; they explain the presence of greed, hatred, passion, treachery, terror, change, and death. Through Arawai and the Devourer, we see both nature's bounty and its wrath. Olladra smiles when fortune is yours; the Traveler grins and the unexpected occurs. The faith encourages the good but acknowledges the bad. Still, through Boldrei, Aureon, Onatar and the others, it encourages civilization and community. It doesn't promise an escape from Dolurrh; evidence shows that you can go down to Dolurrh and pull a soul out. But some believe that there is a realm beyond Dolurrh, the home of the Sovereigns - and that this is where your thoughts go when memories fade in Dolurrh. Today, the vassals aren't so strong on recruitment, in part because they are the incumbant faith. But back in Sarlona, the Pyrineans were filled with missionary zeal, and they had the miracles to back up that faith.
Next you have the Silver Flame. As I've said before, it's important to remember that Eberron is a world in which supernatural evil is a very real threat. Demons, doppelgangers, vampires, werewolves - they are all out there. They could be hidden in your village and plotting your destruction RIGHT NOW. As if this small scale threat wasn't bad enough, there ARE ancient evils locked away in Khyber that could shatter entire countries if released. The Silver Flame calls the community to stand against these evils. It calls on us to do what we can to protect the innocent from these supernatural threats - and to encourage noble behavior within our own communities through compassion, charity, and example. If we are to stand against the darkness, we must first encourage the light. The Silver Flame makes no excuse for the existence of evil, because the Silver Flame is not omnipotent. It's not a god. It is a force of energy that noble souls can draw upon to fight the darkness - and when we die in its service, our souls strengthen it so that we may continue to defend the innocent after we fall.
So the Silver Flame is all about building community and providing hope in a world where supernatural evil is a threat. It doesn't posit the existence of a god; it is a tool the righteous can use in their struggle. Like the Sovereign Hist, it is a source of divine energy that provides an easier path to divine magic than worshipping your shoe - as a result you see various varients (serpent cults, Kalok Shash) that have locked onto that source of power without being exactly the same.
The Blood of Vol holds that if the gods exist, they hate us and have cursed us with death and suffering. As a result, it takes community VERY seriously. All we have is this life and one another. Stand by your family and your friends, because the universe itself is against us and death is the end. It's a very grim faith, but its followers will say that they are realists. Beyond that: they believe that a spark of the divine exists in us all. We could all be gods - and morally, we are better than the gods. Again: stand together. Love your neighbor and your brother. Protect your community in life, and let your bones risse up and protect it in death. Hope that someday we will find a way to end death and suffering for all.
So the point for me is, again, that all three encourage positive values and strong community among their followers. Any of them can harbor corruption. Any of them can be misinterpreted. But they all encourage people to stand by their friends and neighbors. The Blood of Vol and Sovereign Host provide more support for individual ambition - the seeker who believes he can attain his divine potential in this life, the vassal who believes that he is more personally blessed by a Sovereign - but on the other hand, Tira shows that you can be a special vessal for the Flame, too.
Looking to the lesser faiths...
The Undying Court is sort of like the cult of the Emperor in Warhammer 40K - less faith in a god, and more support for the ruling party. The Court definitely exists, and you've seen their power at work. It's limited outside of Aerenal, but it's real and it protects your people from dragons. Do the right thing and you might get to be part of it. What's not to like?
The Path of Light is the worship of a deity that DOESN'T exist yet - the belief that il-Yannah is yet to come. It's a code of discipline and the belief that encouraging light in the world will bring greater light in the future.
The Cults of the Dragon Below come in a variety of forms. On the one hand, you have your madness, which is, well, madness. No explanation required. On the other, you have cults that directly interact with aberrations or rakshasa, that directly see the power of the things they worship, that are handed symbiotes and other gifts. Here you have the person who follows the faith because he believes he will receive a concrete reward in this world - whether that is power over the unbelievers or being spared when the darkness rises (or, well, being spared a little longer than everyone else).
The Path of Inspiration provides security, stability, and a promise for a better life after death.
I'll stop here, because I do have actual work I should be doing. But essentially, as a tyrant, there's an argument for many of these. I could be serving Mordakhesh the Shadowsword because he's providing me with an army of Demon Waste barbarians and the promise of power when Rak Tulkhesh rises. I could believe that I'm doing the will of Aureon or Boldrei (as suggested earlier), while others say I've clearly been misled by the Fury. I could be a follower of the Silver Flame who believes that only by imposing my absolute rule can I hunt down the doppelgangers in our midst. Or I could be a man without faith, who doesn't care about any god, much like the first Dhakaani emperors; I do what I do by my own hand and my own will, and I don't need some god to justify my actions or take credit for my victories.
The "same thing, different name" distinction comes into play when you start dealing with Quori, Angels, Demons, Devils, and the like. Because Overlords are, in essence, extremely powerful outsiders. We're even said that you could use Orcus as an Overlord. Now, in many D&D settings, "gods" DO fall into this category - a "god" is just a 35th level being. In Eberron, gods are held to a higher standard. The fact that you can potentially beat it up is a sign that it's not a god - it's a big angel.
Just going to interject some random semantic assistance here. Pretend I'm a gnome, I'm sure gnomes love coming up with destinctions and labels. They do in my game. The next bus from campus to my home is 2 hours from now so I have time to burn.
I think it would help if we structured our definitions a touch. We have a large number of overlapping words--deity, idol, god, overlord, lord, faith, etc etc.--that could help better define this argument (argument in terms of discussion, not temper-filled debate)
I would propose this (both for the sake of this thread and in my own game's in-game discussion):
- Deity: Any distinct or defineable being who is worshipped.
- God: Any Astral-origin being who is immune to attacks by non-epic characters, e.g. Bahamut or Tiamat. This includes entities who have these abilities if they exist, but their existance is unconfirmed, e.g. The Traveler or Onatar.
- Faith: The worship of an entity using doctrine, scripture, and rituals as an intermediary (i.e. worshipping The Silver Flame by leading a good life and lighting a silver candle each week is a faith; kneeling before the actual Flame and saying 'praise be' is not)
- Idol: As in "false idol", any being which does not qualify as a God, yet is worshipped as one (wittingly or not to their non-God nature), e.g. The Silver Flame, Druidicism, the Undying Court or the Cults of the Dragon Below. Also includes worshipped beings who may not exist yet are not gods if they do, e.g. The Becoming God.
- Cult: The worship of an entity by directly serving or worshipping that entity with no ritualized intermediation. This includes 'directly serving' through a 'voice' of the entity. That is, obeying the words of a prophet of Ixaixaz the Beholder and obeying the words of the beholder itself are both cults; kneeling before or sacrificing to an actual beholder is a cult; ritualized sacrifice to an image of a generic beholder, with no actual direct beholder influence on the worship is a Faith.
- Philosophy: Any religion which does not worship a specific entity, real or imagined, but instead a concept, e.g. The Path of Light or The Blood of Vol.
There's obviously some overlap between these definitions--if you worship the BoV as a concept, you worship a Faith and/or Philosophy, if you worship it knowing about Lady Vol, you worship an Idol, and a Cult if you're in the higher echelons of the faith. And it also depends on your point of view, some Dragon Below cults worship Khyber, which might be a 'God' category or a 'Faith' category, yet I put it in Idol because of the iconic daelkyr worship.
But I think that this system of defining things works fairly well for structuring the disparity between "gods" and "powerful beings who are worshipped as a religion".
The Overlords are Idols, they are Deities. Depending on the sophistication of the religion, this might be a Cult or a Faith. Going on a pilgramage to the Silver Flame and listening to the Overlord within and doing as he commands is a Cult, following this pilgram's commands is a Cult, writing scriptures based on these words and spreading the faith to people who follow these orders without direct commands is a Faith.
To refer to the Hellcow quote I took, Quori would be Idols, Cults to those in the know but actually a Philosophy for the common folk who don't worship the Quori, just their guidelines for behavior. Big Angels are also Idols, not Gods--and their worship is a Cult, unless it's organized beyond direct worship and commands, then it's a Faith.
Hey, that ate up like an hour of writing, now it's only half an hour till my bus arrives.
By your definitions, I'd call the Silver Flame a philosophy, not an Idol. The flame in Flamekeep is simply a manifestation of the divine force, like the Shroud of Turin; you don't actually worship that one flame. Remember that it didn't even exist until Bel Shalor was REbound, and at that point he'd already been bound by the Silver Flame for a hundred thousand years. The Silver Flame is the force holding the evil at bay, and the force the faithful can draw on, but it's the combined force of noble souls, not an entity. Even Tira Miron is, in essence, a saint as opposed to a goddess... and you don't worship her, she just helps you listen to what's right.
So I'm just saying that within the faith of the Silver Flame, the Flame exists, but it is a TOOL that you should use to protect the innocent from the darkness - not an entity you worship in its own right. Hence, I'd say philosophy.
The problem with using the God/Deity split being defined as something people would use in-game is anyone's ability in game to make that judgment. Only one Overlord has been released in recorded history. Bel Shalor was defeated by Tira Miron. To history, this says "This being was defeated by a mortal". Yes, a mortal empowered by divine forces who then ascended in what you and I recognize as the conclusion of an epic destiny. But does the gnome at Korranberg have a way to make the judgment that Tira was an epic character? Does he have a way to make the judgment that Rak Tulkhesh is in the only-hit-by-epic-characters club while the Devourer isn't? Neither Rak Tulkhesh or the Devourer have walked the earth since human or gnomish civilization began. Certainly one could argue that in the myth cycles, Rak Tulkhesh appears to be of the same order as Bel Shalor... but as Sarlax brought up, there's also the myth of the **** of Arawai, or in fact the myth of Aureon teaching magic to the giants. Now, evidence would suggest that the Aureon who taught magic to the giants was in fact just a dragon whose deeds ended up becoming associated with the myth of Aureon. Or did the dragon become Aureon, which is what Thir would say? Or something else? If anything, I'd argue that we've got the Devourer in the "No evidence that he can be beaten up by mortals" category, and the Overlords in the "Can definitely be beaten up by mortals" category.
It's certainly a good basis for discussion. I'm just loathe to use a distinction that is based on in-game attributes (IE origin or epic level), since for something like an imprisoned Overlord a gnome will have a hard time acquiring that info.
And as a side note, Bel Shalor (and thus, presumably, Tiamat in Eberron, as she is a fellow Overlord) doesn't have the astral origin.
Also, why make Druidicism an idol as opposed to a philosophy? I suppose some druids literally worship Eberron, but overall I see that as a far more figurative thing - the bounty of the earth - than treating Eberron as a goddess in the same way a vassal would worship Arawai.
"Deity" works fine as a being who is worshipped, who may be mentioned in myth, but who has never been conclusively proven to exist.
From there, I'd probably go to "Idol" as "being who is worshipped and can be conclusively proven to exist" - covering Overlords, daelkyr, il-Lashtavar, and radiant idols. Sure, their power level varies, but in-game it's hard for a character to say "Pardon me, Belashyrra, we're trying to measure you against Bel Shalor - what would you say your relative levels are?"
Even with the Overlords that haven't been released, we have some archaeological records of their existence, testimony from demons that have known them personally, etc. We just don't know their precise physical capabilities.
I would certainly say that "Ability to grant spells" should NOT be a factor, because again, that's not something the people of the world see. As DMs, WE know that the Overlords do not grant spells to their followers. However, the fact of the matter is that a priest of Rak Tulkhesh's cult can get spells - technically, it's just channeling the energy f Khyber through his faith. The point is that this is HARDER than getting spells as a follower of the Sovereigns or the Silver Flame, and thus these religions generate more divine characters than the idol faiths... but nonetheless, to the world at large, you can encounter a cleric of Rak Tulkhesh who can perform magic.
But I think the distinction between worshipped being known to exist and worshipped being of uncertain existence is useful.
For druidicism, it's mostly due to the fact that while 'oneness with nature' is a philosophy, and real life druidicism would qualify, in D&D you actually have druids (referring to all primal classes) actually talking to spirits, communing with primal beings, taking on spirit animals... at this point, it stops being a "treat nature with respect" religion and starts being a "we actually have a focus for our faith"
Now, I claimed that my system of labels would apply for in-game and out-of-game discussion, but I've obviously been called on that by the epic-mortal distinction. That specific line was there simply because I wanted a clear-cut distinction between powerful outsiders and gods, for the sake of forum discussion =P Obviously, a tad impractical for in-game discussion.
And balls, I'm crossing swords with the master here--I forgot Tiamat wasn't a God in Eberron, though her stat block in other settings is =P Uhh.. uhh... Io Damnit.
Yeah obviously there are a few holes in my definitions =P I suppose if I were to revise the whole thing...
- Deity: Any distinct or definable entity who is worshipped, even if they haven't been confirmed to exist.
- Philosophy: A concept which takes the place of Deity as the central worshipped force of a religion.
- God: Any Deity who is immune to being permanently destroyed via brute force, including those who have no existing equal but if they did they still could not be destroyed via brute force. May include deities whose existence is unconfirmed.
- Emblem: Any distinct or definable entity which is not worshipped, but has great ancillary importance to the Faith or Cult, even if they haven't been confirmed to exist.
- Idol: As in "false idol", any Deity who does not qualify as a God, and is confirmed to exist by adherents and non-adherents alike. May include mortal beings who merely claim to be Gods.
- Faith: The worship of a Deity or Philosophy using doctrine, scripture, and rituals as an intermediary, often with direct communication with the Deity unavailable.
- Cult: The worship of a Deity or Philosophy by directly serving or worshipping that entity with no ritualized intermediary. Almost always includes Idols, rather than Gods.
(I've completely left out any e.g.'s in this one simply so I don't get pwned by Hellcow again =P)
EDIT: I wanted to underline swords to make it a pun.
EDIT EDIT: I suppose if I wanted to clarify my thoughts... I added 'Emblem' to cover the problem of non-central but still important religious figures. Saints, spirits in druidicism, the semi-holy trinity of the Silver Flame, any epic-level clerics, etc etc =P
I think with this system it pretty much can cover most situations. An Overlord is an Idol, a Deity, and direct obedience is a Cult while obedience through scripture is a Faith. They aren't Gods, unless there happens to be an Overlord who is indestructible except under certain circumstances.
And of course, have to take everything with the grain of salt that comes with most of Eberron: it's all up to the DM. Personally, I see the Silver Flame in my campaign being both a Faith and a Cult: It has a long list of defined rituals and scriptures, but it still has PopeGirl to say "Hey, the Flame says we need to change our ways temporarily to go do this" and so they do (or at least, some do, some want to ignore her, including certain High Cardinals). To most adherents, the Faith is a form of Idol worship. To others, the elements that compose the flame are merely Emblems to a much larger Philosophy. It really depends on how close to the Flame you are personally: a high level cleric would understand the Emblems are really only a tiny piece of this grand force of purity that spreads across the world and keeps evil at bay. Some farmer shmuck in Breland is probably praying directly to the paladin/couatl in the Flame through Idol worship.
You get the idea.
And of course, have to take everything with the grain of salt that comes with most of Eberron: it's all up to the DM.
Certainly. Please understand that in EVERYTHING I say on these threads, I'm saying "This was my intention when working on sourcebooks." In some cases, I'm talking about ideas that were never even clearly expressed in the sourcebooks, or that were in fact changed - the original ECS description of the Blood of Vol is quite different from what I've described, and it's been slowly working it's way towards that original vision. So I'm not saying "UR doin it wrong" - I'm simply wanting to participate in the discussion and to explain why I wrote the things I did. So I'll tell you how *I* see the Silver Flame, in the hopes that it may be interesting to some. That doesn't mean you're wrong to do something different.
With that in mind...
For the idol/philosophy distinction, I was more going for the fact that the actual Silver Flame is something people can actually pilgrimage to, and which can actually speak (through another person) the flame's thoughts.
Well, first, you can make a pilgrimage to Mecca, but you don't actually WORSHIP the Kabaa; it's simply an extremely holy site. That's the only point I'm trying to make. Lots of readers mistakenly assume that the spark in Flamekeep is thought to be THE SILVER FLAME, when in fact it is simply a visible manifestation of it. That makes it a thing of wonder and the holiest site to the church, certainly a place worthy of a pilgrimage, but not actually deserving of worship in its own right. Again, the Flame had been binding Bel Shalor for tens of thousands of years before he escaped and was rebound.
Next to that, you mention "the Flame's thoughts". My point is that the FLAME doesn't have thoughts. It's not in any way an anthropomorphic entity. It is a force of light composed of the souls of thousands of noble souls, from the original couatl to orcs, shulassakar, humans, and more. There is a gestalt here that helps put you on a noble path if you heed it, and the Voice of the Silver Flame is there to give that a little more direction. But it's not sitting in the Flamecave talking on Radio Free Flame. It's more like the Force in Star Wars. It's with you. It can guide you if you let it. You can merge with it when you die. It can empower you in battle. But it's all around us. It's binding demons in the Demon Wastes and Xen'drik.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's very different from Dol Arrah. A paladin of Dol Arrah believes that Dol Arrah is watching him, guides him, that she wants him to act in a certain way, and that the other Sovereigns are there as well (because again, you don't deal with a single Sovereign alone). A paladin of the Silver Flame knows the reason the Flame exists: to bind the darkness and protect the innocent. He knows that he can draw on its power to do these things. He knows that it's POSSIBLE a couatl or other spirit will come to him. But as a general rule, he DOESN'T think the Flame is "watching" him; unlike Dol Arrah, it's not a anthropomorphic entity in that way. It is a force that exists, that holds back the darkness, and which can be drawn upon by a noble soul serving a righteous cause.
The Keeper is of course a special case here. She communes with the thousands of souls within the Flame, including the souls of former Keepers. But there again, it's less of a "The Flame wants this", and more "Listen to the voices in the Flame; let them guide us on the righteous path." She can commune with the Flame in such of guidance, but that's like asking for a show of hands - it's not poking her and saying "Do this." So the Keeper may say "I have consulted with the Flame and come to the conclusion that the Curse of Lycanthropy must be destroyed", but it's a gestalt-y meditation thing, as opposed to the priestess of Dol Arrah who may say "This is what Dol Arrah herself has said."
WITH ALL THAT SAID: While the Silver Flame is very different from Dol Arrah, it IS supposed to be a source of divine power. As a result, I do see the distinction between that and either the Path of Light or Blood of Vol, which truly are philosophies. So I can see how it would be a "god" as opposed to a "philosophy" by the definitions given above. I'm just saying that there is a fundamental difference between the paladin of Dol Arrah and the paladin of the Flame, even though both may oppose supernatural evil.
Looking to the druidic point, my issue is that while druids may traffic with spirits that can be destroyed, I don't see any of the defined sects of Eberron "worshipping" them. The Children of Winter believe that the great Winter is coming, that it will sweep the world clean for the new Spring. Certainly, they interact with nature spirits in the course of their duties as heralds of the coming storm, but again, it's the Winter that is their guiding principle, and even that isn't a thing they WORSHIP... it's simply part of the cycle of death and rebirth. The Wardens of the Wood are guided by Oalian, but he's just "the Great Druid", not the object of their veneration. Now, you COULD still go with the idea that they worship the lifeforce of the world itself, and that this counts as a "god" as opposed to a "philosophy". I'm just saying that again, there's a huge difference in my eyes between the Child of Winter who believes that there is a natural order to life and death that must be respected... and the Sovereign priest who serves as an intermediary between Arawai and the Devourer, beseeching these powers for a good harvest with light storms. The Ashbound warden believes her actions protect the world; the priest of Arawai believes that her prayers may actually INFLUENCE the world, that if Arawai looks favorably on them, she will grant her bounty.
Anyway. When I refer repeatedly to the Flame, people pilgrimaging to it, I'm really mostly referring to how people perceive the Flame. The random citizens--and the random clergy--I don't think truly grasp just how widespread and the history of the Flame.
To an average person, they have a series of behavioral laws, they have a giant spout of flame that happens to be their capital, they have a pope who talks to the flame and makes world-sweeping commands of her followers...
I think to the average person, the Flame is a unique creation, and Flamekeep isn't the center of worship as one of many holy sites (but the only one they've heard of), it's literally the origin of this demon-binding silver flame.
To a DM, we know a bit better, and to learned sages (DC 25 History check to even get HINTS at this?) there's a bit more to it.
So when I talk about the Flame being classified as an Idol, I refer to how people perceive things. The fact that the Flame is more of an advisor, an Emblem to a much larger non-existent universal faith that the Keeper can speak the words of a tiny portion of... well, that's for DMs to know and players to find out. I think most paladins of the Flame know they don't worship a God in the Dol Arrah sense, and more of a Philosophy--but I think it's a Philosophy which borders on Idol worship. To some it's Philosophy with a touch of Idol, to others it's Idol with a touch of Philosophy--but I think only a DM should be able to say "Nope, it's just an Emblem."
As for everything else, yeah, I pretty much agree, I saw your points and thus was born the Emblem category--I merely was mentioning my thoughts before that so that I could tread briefly over my reasonings before fixing them =P
So yeah, part of my new classification (I didn't provide examples because of how interpretable things can be) I would call druidicism in general a Philosophy, with Emblems being made of the nature spirits and Oalin.
Uhh... I think that covers everything. I think that for the purpose of discussion, there is a difference between a DM's point of view, an adherents view, and a non-adherents view. Druids see their spirits as Emblems, an outsider might see it as an Idol, the Flame might be a God, an Idol or an Emblem depending on how close and knowledgeable you are. That sorta thing.
Ah, you mean to say that Silver Flame is both an Idol and a Philosophy as Prayer is both a way of asking for stuff and means to spiritual sustenance.
When I refer repeatedly to the Flame, people pilgrimaging to it, I'm really mostly referring to how people perceive the Flame. The random citizens--and the random clergy--I don't think truly grasp just how widespread and the history of the Flame.
I agree. The average follower of the Flame knows nothing about, say, the couatl sacrifice in the Age of Demons.
I think to the average person, the Flame is a unique creation, and Flamekeep isn't the center of worship as one of many holy sites (but the only one they've heard of), it's literally the origin of this demon-binding silver flame.
And here I disagree. Obviously you're entitled to do it this way in your Eberron, but to me it's about the basic, fundamental principles of the faith that every follower knows.
* The Silver Flame is a force that exists to defend the innocent against supernatural evil.
* When good people die in the service of the Flame, their souls join with it and strengthen it.
* Tira Miron - the founder of the faith - is the Voice of the Flame. It empowered her to defeat a demon, and her spirit serves as a vessel letting its light reach others who previously could not touch it.
* Champions of the Silver Flame draw on that light to defend us.
Walking down that list:
#1 - This is just the bare-bones basic creed of the faith. The 4E EPG calls this out: "The Silver Flame is an abstraction, not a deity. It represents powerful forces of good and self-sacrifice that keep evil locked away." Page 246 of the 4E ECG continues this. Note that the core faith of the ECG mentions the Voice of the Silver Flame and the Keeper of the Silver Flame - what it DOESN'T mention is THE SILVER FLAME, on its own, talking. This is my main point through all of these posts. The Silver Flame is an abstraction, not a deity. It's got far more in common with the Force than with Dol Arrah. It is a force a champion can channel, not a god that intervenes of its own volition.
#2 - This is mentioned as a core belief on page 246 of the ECG, and it's a key part of the faith - live a virtuous life and your soul will do something better than rot in Dolurrh. This then ties to the common understanding of what THE FLAME is - the communal force of noble souls that shine against the darkness.
#3 - Covered on ECG 246. So Tira's existence is a core point of the faith. The font in Flamekeep is holy because it's the site of her battle and her sacrifice. Again, her sacrfice IS the faith: she was empowered by the Flame and defeated a demon thereby, sacrificing herself to bind it and become the bridge by which others can touch the power of the Flame and emulate her deeds. There's an annual holiday about this. It's not the kind of thing you don't know about. A key part of this is simple: The Flame already existed. The Couatl came to Tira because of her purity and she was able to channel the power of the Flame. This is the sort of image you'll see stained glass windows of. Her sacrifice was necessary so WE could hear the Flame - but she didn't create it; she was the first vessel of it.
#4 - This is what makes a paladin a paladin. And this is basically like the Jedi. As a normal guy, I may have heard of the Force, but I still can't use it. That Jedi can, and his job is to use it to protect me. He's Tira Jr.
So again, the whole point to me is the Fountain in Flamekeep is an incredibly holy site. It's the site of Tira's sacrifice. It is a place where a demon is bound. But it is not THE FLAME. The Flame empowered Tira before she MADE that sacrifice, and this is the core myth on which the faith is founded: paladin visited by Couatl, becomes vessel for Flame, sacrifices herself to bind demon and open the path for the rest of us. This may be the closest any of us can come to the Flame - but the Flame as a force existed before, it exists beyond, and you're not actually worshipping the thing. It's as if we had the fully intact true cross somewhere. That would be an amazingly holy relic people would flock to see. But it would remain an instrument and symbol of sacrifice, not a thing to be worshipped in its own right. One reason this is important is because it explains why you had Brelish paladins of the Silver Flame standing by Breland during the Last War, and the priests of Stormreach who don't recognize the theocracy: because the Silver Flame isn't tied to Thrane. The font of Tira's Sacrifice is there. The Keeper is there. But the Flame is EVERYWHERE.
Anyway - I think we're spending a lot of time and words on a single semantic point, so I'll probably try to agree to disagree at this point. ;) I do agree that the average follower knows nothing about the Binding Flame or the serpent cults of Khalesh. But I would argue that they do know that the Flame is the light of thousands of noble souls, that it binds the darkness and lends its strength to those who fight evil, and that those who die in the service of the light may join with it and strengthen it... all and all, a fairly straightforward concept. But very different from Dol Arrah as a war goddess who watches every battle and encourages soldiers to fight for the cause of right. Again, page 18 - it's "an abstraction, not a deity". It's a force that strengthens us - not a woman watching over our shoulder. The Voice of the Flame comes closer to Dol Arrah, but she's just one ascended mortal reminding you what's right; a saint, not a goddess.
As a side note, in case anyone hasn't seen them, I figure I should put links to the old Silver Flame Dragonshards...
Part One - www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/2...
Part Two - www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/2...
Flamekeep isn't the center of worship as one of many holy sites (but the only one they've heard of)
... As a side note, Flamekeep is the biggest holy site of the modern Church of the Silver Flame, but it's not supposed to be the ONLY one, and it's not even the only one we've mentioned. Page 63 of the 4E ECG mentions the Shrine of Fathen the Martyr in Sharn (also mentioned in Sharn: City of Towers; Fathen's Fall is a local holy day). The Face of Tira has come up before. While we've never mentioned them by name, I'd expect there to be many holy shrines scattered around Aundair connected to the Silver Crusade, and that the followers of the Pure Flame in Aundair would take these things very seriously. Just in Thrane, I'd expect to have shrines to Tira scattered all over the place - the place the Couatl first found her; the place she received Kloinjir; the site of the first demon she destroyed; and so on. The home villages of Keepers likely become places to visit. And so on.
So personally, I see Flamekeep as having elements of Vatican City and Mecca. It is the seat of the spiritual leader of the faith. It is the site of the single holiest site of the faith. But there are other shrines and holy sites scattered about, which will vary in importance based on your nationality and branch of the faith. The faithful in Flamekeep may not care too much about the Shrine of Fathen the Martyr, but to a follower of the Flame in Sharn, it's INCREDIBLY important, and you know the story of Fathen backwards and forwards; you've reenacted that battle with your brothers every year on Fathen's Fall, and you were so excited the first time you got to be Fathen. This is one of those situational Knowledge things - it would be a reasonably difficult Religion/Geography DC for a random character to know about a local shrine, but I'd be likely to give it to a faithful character who grew up in that city without a roll (and in fact, following the suggestion in DMG II, be open to letting that player come up with some of the details of the Fathen's Fall ceremonies).
Anyway - I think we're spending a lot of time and words on a single semantic point, so I'll probably try to agree to disagree at this point. ;)
No no, I don't mind at all. Having you rant about aspects of the Silver Flame is receiving detailed clarification on the nature of the Flame, to put it in a way, 'straight from the horses mouth'. No doubt after I read your post thoroughly I'll have a better grasp and a closer attention to the nuances of the
faith.
And wasn't this a semantic argument anyway? =P
...and now I have to look up the phrase meaning/etymology of 'straight from the horses mouth' because it has piqued my curiosity...
(Nop. Not a Realms fan.)
There isn't just Bane. There is also Hextor in Greyhawk, or Melkor/Morgoth in Middle Earth, or Takhisis in Dragonlance. Tyrants-Gods are a staple in fantasy. So one of the doubts was why the designers of the game considered leaving it outside of Eberron.
The other one is how it affects it IC the game: During the Last War, my bet was that there were times when Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn weren't enough, and the feelings and prayers were more appropiate for Tiamat, or some of the Rajahs, than to the Host.
People in our world fought and slaughtered others in the name of their "goodly" gods thinking their cause just. The same could be done in EB. People doing evil things don't think of themselves as evil except in "typical" fantasy. EB is not that sort of fantasy. There are lots more gray areas than "This is an evil god and this is a good god". It is all about belief of the people and not the actual power and "Sphere/Portfolio" of the god.
Just my opinion.