Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 SteelMirror Mar 01, 2009 2:55:42	I often have a problem visualizing and therefore portraying the philosophies of evil gods (and their followers). Too often I feel that they are represented as either irrationally violent and genocidal for-no-adequately-explored-reason (Cyric), or bent on WORLD DOMINATION!!! . . . and for some reason vast hordes follow them, despite simple math telling you that most of the people in that horde of followers will not be supreme overlords in the new world order(Bane and to a lesser extent Shar). I mean really, other than truly deranged cults, who would follow these guys? I finally settled on a method that seems to make sense to me, but I wanted further opinions before I presented it to my players. Basically I take the fantasy gods from FR, with their sometimes hackneyed portrayal as complete evil without a cause, and compare them to real-life ideas and philosophies (which are more familiar and have the benefit of being actually thought through by someone, at some point). So here are the comparisons I’ve made so far, jump in if you think that the comparisons are inaccurate or, alternately, you have something to add. Bane: Think Machiavelli. Bane advocates rule by force, but also for the express reason that this is the strongest form of government and that any ruler who does not adopt it places himself, his nation, and his people at the mercy of nations with fewer moral qualms. It’s thus less purely egotistical (I want to conquer the world, rar) and more subtly focused on the philosophy of statesmanship and even the greater good. Shar: I used to have no idea how to portray this deity, now I make the comparison to existential nihilism. Essentially we are all going to die and our souls fade; even gods die (apparently with startling frequency). As a result “morality” is a completely arbitrary set of rules without any basis at all. This does not mean that you should commit evil acts, it means that the idea of an "evil" act itself is meaningless. There are simply actions you can take, none morally superior or inferior to any other, and so the actions you choose should be based entirely on ruthless self-interest (to do anything else is dangerously idiotic, and such individuals deserve the failure they will doubtless revieve). Add a twinge of vengeance against those who cross you, to teach them a lesson (preferably that lesson is death, since that's the hardest lesson to ignore). Cyric: Nihilism with an almost sociopathic emphasis on the priority of individual impulses over social, moral, or interpersonal constraints. After all, if we’re all going to die someday why not kill a child for fun? Anybody who espouses morality is not simply to be ignored (as a devotee of Shar might do) but scorned, heckled, and possibly even attacked, if you can get away with it. This differs from the classic Chaotic Evil depiction in that the devotees of Cyric should still have a strong sense of self-preservation. There is, after all, nothing to look forward to after this life. They have no objection to killing that child in principle, indeed many might do it just for the novelty if they could be absolutely sure that there would be no personal ramifications. Since in most cases they couldn’t be sure, they abide by the law simply as a matter of practicality. Any thoughts? And yes, I know that none of this is original, it just helps me (and hopefully the PCs) get a handle on why anyone (who isn’t a certifiable psychopath, though those exist) would ever choose to worship an evil deity. Thanks for reading!
#2 suin_bahhar_02 Mar 01, 2009 6:39:46	These three evil gods have large amounts of followers for a reason. Take into account what their clergy represents to most people. Bane has influence over a very well organised institution filled with ruthlessly ambitious individuals. He has resources, and uses these to protect and grow those resources. People with similar ambition are naturally attracted to Banes monastic holdings and barracks in cities under his protection. In most societies Shar's voice is only whispered. Her clergy is secretive, but likely very good at holding up appearances. You will find her clergymembers twisting the thoughts of the local populations in sham society clubs, spiritual advisor circles and at other hotspots of potential power. By guarding secrets about the movers and shakers in areas the clergy can extort with malicous precision. The clergy also monitors the masses and supplies ample reason for them to curse Shar's name for every slight they get to experience, further empowering Shar through feelings of loss and embitterment thereby placating her. Cyric's clergy is more loudmouthed, rebellious. The idea that society is weak makes them so scary. They use semigenious or insane intellect for brutal fear mongering, elaborate deceptions and vicious coupe d'états. They can rise very quickly in power but are always at risk of internal strife or inefficency through deluded actions. The more criminal minded people are likewise attracted to his clergies utter scorn for lawfullness. The masses are likely to placate Cyric through fearfull use of his name, through wardingspeech for protection from his ire or for power in unstable times.
#3 lord_karsus Mar 01, 2009 22:00:20	-The dogmas of various deities can be found in Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, Demihuman Deities, and Faiths and Pantheons (3e).