The historically medieval world (as well as late antiquity) was one in which faith had an astonishingly large sphere of influence over day to day life. Your God, and His clergy, dictated laws by which you were expected to live, act, and think. The question of “how should I live my life” was answered in the holy book of your religion, and its associated traditions. Basically, your religion supplied you with an ethical code that you were expected to follow if you valued your place in the afterlife. This code formed the basis for much of the secular legal system of the medieval era.
Perhaps because religion also supplied ethics in the late antiquity/medieval world, religions – and therefore ethical systems – were viewed as highly exclusionary. It was not supposedly possible to be of two religions, because faith in one was the only way to salvation. Of course, there were exceptions to this – some traditions in some faiths accepted the correct nature of some other faiths, the Koran in particular mentioning “people of the book” (Christians and Jews) as occupying a religious and spiritual place above mere pagans or apostates. Nevertheless, the widespread nature of religious war and internal violence against heretics and schismatics in the medieval period demonstrates that medieval religions were generally characterized by a belief that one’s own God was the one true God.
Thus, ethics also becomes exclusionary. One cannot pick and choose different rules to live by from various holy books in a medieval setting, because the rules are divinely given as a whole package, not simply “divinely suggested.” Simply put, you do not get a passing grade for fulfilling 7 out of 10 Commandments faithfully – if you don’t do the whole 10, you are something less than righteous.
At this point, you may be wondering how this relates to D&D. All you have to note so far is the similarity of this medieval outlook to traditional D&D – Gods are associated with particular alignments, and require specific behaviors and codes of conduct in order to remain in their good graces. Were a character to mix and match behaviors and rules between two opposed deities, he would find himself (more than likely) to have offended both. Worshippers of Selune are sworn enemies of those of Shar, because their codes of conduct are opposed, and they are held to their codes of conduct by the insistence of their divine patron.
In the ancient (read: pre-monotheistic) world, the question of “how should I live” was answered not by religion, but by something now relegated primarily to obscure college offerings – philosophy. Religion was by and large of a ritual and explanatory nature, but not an ethical one. Deities governed the weather, the harvest, fire, lightning, fertility, specific cities and peoples, and so on, but by and large they did not require a specific code of conduct. There are no 10 Commandments of Zeus; it was presumed that, as long as you sacrificed properly and did your civic religious duty, he would not smite you and might even favor you in the future. Ordinary Greeks, Egyptians, and various Mesopotamian peoples (perhaps the Norse as well, again my knowledge is a bit more limited here) did not “follow” a certain deity of the pantheon, though they might give more offerings to one based on what they needed – a farmer would certainly give more to a goddess of agriculture, while a sailor would give his offerings to a deity of the sea. Nevertheless, a sailor did not scoff at Demeter, and neither did a farmer make fun of Poseidon in the public forum.
This type of religion was usually not exclusionary; the Greeks, for instance, saw everyone else’s Gods as manifestations of their own (as you can see in the Hellenic East, specifically Greco-Bactria, where worship of “Zeus-Ahura Mazda” was common). There is a noticeable absence of religious wars in this era of human history.
Instead, philosophy, not religion, dictated what you were supposed to do with your life. In D&D terms, while your God might be Chaotic, you might follow a Lawful philosophy – this does not conflict, because your God does not expect you to be Chaotic, only to give offerings regularly, and in return you only expect good favor on his part. Because your God does not mandate that you follow him in order to reach the afterlife, you are free to also make offerings to as many other deities as you choose.
The “Faerun” D&D model of religiousness thus mixes ancient Polytheism with an outlook on religion that is highly medieval – very ethical and very exclusionary. Faerun takes this to the medieval extreme, where you are in quite a bit of trouble with respect to the afterlife if you don’t follow a deity. I propose that there are other ways to approach the question of faith in D&D. They are not necessarily better, but may give world builders a broader view when they consider the question of religion in their game.
As an example, consider a world in which the Gods operate in an ancient model, like in ancient Greece or Egypt: they serve largely ritual purposes. My hypothetical character has a few favorites; because he is a wizard, he makes sure to sacrifice regularly to the deities of knowledge and magic, and perhaps also to any local deities or to any “overdieties” (e.g. Zeus). He is Lawful Neutral, because of his own personal convictions, but also because he subscribes to a certain philosophy of truth and lawfulness that is common back at his old wizard’s academy. He thinks everyone should be as truthful as possible, and tries his best not to lie – he is convinced that being a good person requires him to do this. The God of magic may be a chaotic trickster, but that doesn’t bother him much (though he privately wishes the god would stop giving magic a bad name).
You could take this in other ways, as well. Perhaps you could have a medieval monotheistic God with an ancient outlook – there is one God, but he doesn’t give laws to mankind, only requires that offerings and praise be made to him. His priests run the gamut of alignments, from chaotic to lawful and good to evil, and are often at odds with each other – but they all sacrifice to the same deity. It is likely that such a world would not have an organized church or priestly hierarchy, because there would be so much disagreement between clerics.
Just like in the real world, you can have conflicts between these various outlooks as well. Perhaps there could be two pantheons in your world: Panthon A is medieval-type, and each deity demands a code of conduct be followed by their followers, while Pantheon B requires offerings or prayers but no specific ethical behavior. The followers of Pantheon A might be antagonistic towards the “heathens” of Pantheon B, or they might just be too busy fighting the followers of diametrically opposed deities within their own pantheon.
On a final note, there are possibilities in this for magic, as well. In the campaign I run now, called "Ralum," I have turned the cleric class into the philosopher class – mostly identical, but her powers come from inner conviction and moral fortitude rather than faith in a deity. Priests still exist, but being a priest is an occupation rather than a character class. Thus, any fighter or wizard could be a priest of a certain deity, though most probably have a few that they give offerings to. The possibilities are quite wide – consider which religious and ethical model works best in your campaign. If your players dislike Faerun-style exclusionary Gods, or don’t want to have to follow a select deity in order to be a ranger or paladin, there are alternatives!
- Mithridates
When I play, I prefer having clerics with specific deities rather than deriving their power from moral convictions but that is a personal preference. But then I play mostly in Forgotten Realms so that has never been a problem for me.
It would be interesting however to play with a pantheon that does not require the strict adherence to ethos and philosophy that the exclusionary deities of Faerun do - although there is an Egyptian pantheon that exists in Mulhorand, I have not read much on the requirements of the gods there so I do not know if they have the same strict approach as the rest of the deities of Faerun.
Ele~
I've tried something a bit different in the latest homebrew world I've created. The ideologies and basis of religion evolves and evolved there from time unknown, in a cyclical manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the most ancient days to which man seems to have found or discovered or remembered bits of (roughly 35,000 years on this time line) there were several competing pantheons of gods, and far more odd races than there are at present. Humanity was the smallest of the races in these pre-dawn times, but still had the largest number of gods and indeed, had more pantheons among them than most of the other races combined owned. This was the first of the great cataclysmic events and the Hells and Heavens made war upon each other and most things died. Only the dragons and greatly reduced numbers of the various prolific races remained.
Then about 30,000 years ago the elves and dwarves emerged as the great races and built vast empires that lasted for several thousand years of relative peace and prosperity and came to their end only when the Lords of the Abyss marched into those lands and decimated all. Even the dragons withdrew into their fastnesses and 99 of every 100 sapient beings died or were carried off alive to the Abyss, and among the Elves and Dwarves these numbers were even greater. During the time of their greatness the Elven and Dwarven pantheons were pre-eminent and even man worshiped one or the other.
Then starting about 20,000 years ago and lasting about 6,000 years, was the great empire of man. Man was fast to change and alter things and the religion was their greatest alteration. They forsook the gods, and the gods forsook them, and in a time of failing magic they managed a different way, technology and created many marvels that have lasted into the present day (although those marvels are now though of as magical in nature, simply of an ancient and strange sort of magic) in the form of the great roads, the barriers, and the ruins of the "god cities", so called because men had become as gods. Then the world was caught within the press of a great conflict between the Hells and the Abyss, but man had become so powerful that they were able to drive the fiends from the world and created tremendous barriers of energy using both super natural and super technological sources, but something went terribly wrong and almost overnight the god cities become grave yards of the unburied dead, haunted places that few, even at the present, are willing to venture near...except the weird and twisted Mal, humans who claim decent from the survivors of those days but whom are one and all servants of the Hells.
Finally, about eight thousand years before the present, each of the various continents, each surrounded by its own autonomous energy barriers began again to produce cultures. No where was the fullness of the ancient knowledge maintained, but in Uro'e (also referred to as the Old World in the present day) they retained enough to know that man had once been godlike. They founded an new religious ideal around this knowledge and the "Church of the Divinity of Man" which is very similar to the old Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages in structure, but very different in focus. It was a Good church that struggled among itself to resolve the ideals of mans Divinity.
Since there was no leaving the crystal sphere, and no entering it, because of the barriers, only the most basic Clerical magics were possible (1st through 3rd level spells only), until quite suddenly, less than one century before the present, the Clergy began to perform great miracles and the Inner and Outer Planes, so long denied, began to be accessible again, if in a limited manner.
The Church of the Divinity of Man began to change too. It began to become less secularized. More and more the ideals were shifting towards the veneration of things "beyond the ken of mankind" and ancestor worship.
In the New World, or Noramanland, a very different metaphysic developed. It was more pervasive, more potent and yet less inscrutable, it was the power of Nature venerated (the Druidic ideal). But here there were damned few arcane casters of any stamp, only a very few scattered sorcerers, who were believed to be Evil by simply having the power, and there was a tiny number (because their populations remained so small) of Wizards and Bards among the Mal living in the ruins of the "god cities".
At the time of the great re-awakening, as it was called in the Old World, the barriers between the New and Old Worlds dropped; as well as the barriers between those continents and the Planes and it was discovered that where these barriers had been there was now a rapidly fluctuating matrix of energy that seemed to have the property of instantly transporting anything that it caught in it's pull into other Planes or worlds. From these worlds came other godly ideals and ideas.
For a future history, about 500 years in advance of the present, in the "known World" the New and Old Worlds combined, there is now either Druidism and Ancestor worship or the worship of the pantheon of Man in the Old World, one or the other, but never both close together, or both co-existing side by side, in the new World.
This new Pantheon of Man is a familial sort of set up with squabbling, but mutual support as well, and having one "god" or goddess for each of the Nine Alignments. With the exception of one god (the Laughing Rogue), these deities seem to be extensions of the old sects within the Church of the Divinity of Mankind as far as the non-Evil ones are concerned and the Evil ones seem to be new, spontaneous godheads that have evolved form some other ideology.
It gets far more complex, with a great deal of interaction but this gives the basis and basics.
Isshia
In D&D terms, the Avatar is generally a rank 0 quasi-deity of around 25th-30th level. However, the overall power of a domain and its avatar is loosely dependent on the worshippers of the domain, so some, such as Good, Healing, Plant, etc may be as high as rank 3 or 4 demigods, while some more obscure domains such as Darkness, Scalykind, etc, may be only rank 0 and level 12 or so.
Faiths:
Rather than a god encompassing a portfolio, each town or village generally has a temple or two devoted to germane domains. Example: a farming community in the hot and rainy southern kingdom of Lorraine might have a temple devoted to Community, Water, Sun and Healing. A temple for a grim walled trading outpost in the frigid North might be devoted to Winter, Cold, War and Protection.
The churches and Avatars of the domains have a complex political structure that changes as alliances are made and broken. Often a domain’s Avatar will choose to sponsor a race or organization for a time. Example: The Avatar of Destruction currently favors the hobgoblin race, and the Avatar of Law resides in and supports the human kingdom of Murafe.
The lay person, unbound by the strict tenets of a deity, tends to seek his own ends, and generally abides by his alignment, more so if one of his favored domains is of that alignment.
Certain domains obviously appeal more to certain groups: sages often revere Knowledge and Magic, farmers offer supplication to Plant and Sun, warriors to War and Strength, etc.
This may be because they want you to set up your own stuff if you are using the standard D&D system and not a setting, but a little bit more info would have been nice.
But anyway, I like your ideas on the "philosopher" class name for clerics too, because when I hear the word cleric I automatically think bloke in robes who sits in church halls all day studying texts. Personally I like to refer to Clerics as battle priests or war clerics because they aren’t just clerics really, they are designed to actually FIGHT the enemies of their gods, not just revere their god.
I like how you have translated the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius into a semblance of D&D-type language. I hope that you can further develop these ideas. The D&D Alignment System could use a decent overhaul, perhaps you are the man to write it out.
Marcus was a moral individual to start with. The ethics came from what he learned later. There is a gold-mine there; I look forward to any further developments.
One cannot pick and choose different rules to live by from various holy books in a medieval setting, because the rules are divinely given as a whole package, not simply “divinely suggested.” Simply put, you do not get a passing grade for fulfilling 7 out of 10 Commandments faithfully – if you don’t do the whole 10, you are something less than righteous.
In theory this may be the case. In practice, however, it wasn't so simple. In Christendom they were working from the Bible, which actually doesn't give quite such a detailed ethical layout as sometimes supposed. There was, and is, considerable debate about how much the Old Testament law applies to post Christ believers, and Christ's moral teaching was long on general basics (love your neighbor) and short on specifics (My neighbor has stolen my cow. What exactly do I do?). As a result, even in medieval monotheism there was a large range of approaches to religion and ethics. The ascetic hermit who abandoned the world for an island was in many ways far more separated from the community of monks who gathered vast wealth for large scale charitable works than a worshipper of Zeus is from a follower of Poseidon. Islam was a little more homogenous as it does have some set precepts, the Five Pillars for example, but even there large variety does exist. It is often understated just how different you had to be to become a heretic: there were some core doctrines you couldn't alter, but most of the splits in the religions were organisational not doctrinal or ethical.
In the ancient (read: pre-monotheistic) world, the question of “how should I live” was answered not by religion, but by something now relegated primarily to obscure college offerings – philosophy. Religion was by and large of a ritual and explanatory nature, but not an ethical one.
Leaving aside the angry lynch mob of professional philosophers, :P I would caution very very strongly against any statement like this. "The pre-monotheistic world" covers a vast variety of cultures, many of which are very poorly documented. Any blanket statement is almost meaningless. For example, your statement is pretty much true of China, especially pre-Buddhist China where the gods were more ceremonial and ethics was provided by thinkers like Confucius. It’s absolutely not true of Egypt, though; their religions fueled a large body of ethics and morality. Their priests were their philosophers, and Religion the foundation of their ethics. And, of course, for the vast bulk of ancient religions we don't know which camp they fall in since their religious and moral thought has not survived.
This type of religion was usually not exclusionary; the Greeks, for instance, saw everyone else’s Gods as manifestations of their own (as you can see in the Hellenic East, specifically Greco-Bactria, where worship of “Zeus-Ahura Mazda” was common). There is a noticeable absence of religious wars in this era of human history.
Well, true to a certain extent, but the Greeks and others were always quite clear that while Ahura Mazda may be Zeus, the differences in name, attributes and style of worship were a result of the non Greeks getting it wrong. They were no more open to new religious insights than monotheists were. Some polytheist cultures were, but not all by a long way.
There is a noticeable absence of religious wars in this era of human history
There was no shortage of people claiming divine missions to build empires. The Assyrian stuff makes Urban II look like a rampant secularist. Wars were frequently cast in mythic god vs god mode.
As an example, consider a world in which the Gods operate in an ancient model, like in ancient Greece or Egypt: they serve largely ritual purposes
Its worth bearing in mind that the fact that a lot of Greek philosophy has survived and no religious moral thought has more to do with the fact that the Christian monks and Islamic scholars who copied the texts were interested in the former and not the latter; it doesn't necessarily reflect what the original content was. When Heracles commits a terrible sin, he doesn't head down to the Agora to consult his local moral philosopher, he goes to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. When various kings and others commit crimes they aren't hauled up in front of the philosophers and given a wigging, they are consigned by Hades to Tartarus where they are tormented for their crimes. I think Greek morality has more religious content than you give it credit for. Egyptian morality is firmly religious, complete with post mortem judgment in front of Osiris.
consider which religious and ethical model works best in your campaign. If your players dislike Faerun-style exclusionary Gods, or don’t want to have to follow a select deity in order to be a ranger or paladin, there are alternatives!
There are, but I am not convinced that your ritual-only, don't-care-what-you-do gods have ever existed in history, and they seem quite bland to me. The power of religion in a story is as something that motivates people to do things. Reduce religion to an empty propitiation in exchange for services rendered, and what’s the point of having it at all?
In contrast to this, is the Church of the Silver Flame, which has lots of correlations to medieval monotheistic religions. All of their faith is in the Silver Flame (instead of a deity, per se) and no other beliefs are considered to be correct. Occasionally, they have crusades/holy wars to advance/defend their faith and heretics are not tolerated.
The Eberron setting is also unique from other published D&D settings since none of these deities take direct action in everyday life. No avatars or chosen. No gods walking the earth. Clerics can be any alignment they like and don't lose access to their faith-based powers even if they act in a manner that is contrary to the tenets of their religion. This provides lots of opportunity for religious corruption - which can be a great story tool if you're into that sort of thing.
The last major difference is the concept of the afterlife. There is no reward and no punishment. Souls exist after death and all go to the same place where they just sort of...forget who they were. Faithless and faithful, everyone's eventual fate is the same, so religion doesn't hold the kind of power that an 'eternal reward/damnation' system does. Without that 'punch' religion is inherently more of a philosophy or general guide.
This particular detail about the setting makes your religious options within the game a lot broader. NPC clerics are not necessarily what they appear and may not be trustworthy even though they serve a lawful good deity. It also gives more freedom to player characters. A cleric can be conflicted about what is the right/best thing to do and doesn't have to fear losing his connection to his faith if he chooses poorly.
Ambiguity. It’s a beautiful thing.
One of the campaigns I play in takes place in 12th century Europe where there are a few major differences: Rome never fully fell, the Egyptians really do understand necromantic magic, the Black Forest really does have faeries and goblins, and, in general, the worship of the Norse, Roman and other gods really does have a benefit for people.
However, there is this monotheism that's been growing in strength, and its adherents will not compromise on their faith. And, there is a small sect of folks who believe in elder gods, gods supposed by others to have left this world in the capable hands of the current gods.
In all cases, there's the issue of the fact that the faithfuls’ prayers seem to sometimes be answered (i.e. clerics of all faiths have spells and powers). There are hotly debated reasons why this is so. Several of the kings and lords are suspicious of magic, and in some places, the worship of some deities is outlawed (but, of course, still sometimes covertly practiced).
The blending of different religions has really made this campaign come alive. Many of the players ride the edge as some are cavalierly dedicated to this or that king, and others are wizards, hiding their power from plain view.
In that campaign, I began by taking levels in Aristocrat and Expert because I knew I wanted to play a Wizard, but that doing so could be suicidal if I didn't have good reasons for my unusual behavior (she is an apothecary and also a bookkeeper, any seasoned player knows this is a way to hide potions and scrolls).
This game isn't all about min/maxing and crushing enemies under the unending onslaught of Power Attack (not that this isn't fun, I also play a Gladiator in a Warcraft RPG). It's about subtlety and care. My character has spent every rank possible in Diplomacy and has needed it in almost every session.
Thanks for the great post. I wanted to let you know that there are others of us out here taking seriously these kinds of ideas in our gaming.
Dave
At this point, you may be wondering how this relates to D&D. All you have to note so far is the similarity of this medieval outlook to traditional D&D – Gods are associated with particular alignments, and require specific behaviors and codes of conduct in order to remain in their good graces. Were a character to mix and match behaviors and rules between two opposed deities, he would find himself (more than likely) to have offended both. Worshippers of Selune are sworn enemies of those of Shar, because their codes of conduct are opposed, and they are held to their codes of conduct by the insistence of their divine patron.
(...)
As an example, consider a world in which the Gods operate in an ancient model, like in ancient Greece or Egypt: they serve largely ritual purposes. My hypothetical character has a few favorites; because he is a wizard, he makes sure to sacrifice regularly to the deities of knowledge and magic, and perhaps also to any local deities or to any “overdieties” (e.g. Zeus). He is Lawful Neutral, because of his own personal convictions, but also because he subscribes to a certain philosophy of truth and lawfulness that is common back at his old wizard’s academy. He thinks everyone should be as truthful as possible, and tries his best not to lie – he is convinced that being a good person requires him to do this. The God of magic may be a chaotic trickster, but that doesn’t bother him much (though he privately wishes the god would stop giving magic a bad name).
This is exactly how I currently see the religion in D&D. As an example, I will suggest Umberlee, the CE Queen of the Deeps, vs Valkur, the CG Captain of the Wave. Both are gods of sailors. So a neutral sailor would be more likely to worship Valkur, if he wants to have an "happy" afterlife. The problem is Valkur is just a Demigod, and he won't always answer your prayers. So if caught in the middle of a storm, would he beg the good Valkur to protect him, with average chances of success, or would he beg Umberlee to spare him, perhaps sacrificing a little animal in the process? I think he would go for Umberlee, but as soon as he is on ground, would give an offering to the next Valkur's temple. At his death, if his offerings to Valkur top the sacrifices to Umberlee, in quality and quantity, then Valkur would welcome him. But remember, those two are Chaotic Gods...
In the game Baldur's Gate, there was a Paladin Order, the Order of the Most Radiant Fist (or something like that). It was not an order dedicated to only Tyr, LG god of Justice, but to Torm and Helm as well, respectively gods of Duty and Guardians. It was not forbidden to worship more than one, it was even the rule.
The only exception to this would be the Cleric class. A Cleric is a deity's spokeperson, he would be really unwise for him to "occasionally" pray for an opposing deity. Praying for any neutral deity wouldn't be a problem. I write "neutral" not in the alignment view, but more in the deity's relationship view. Thus, a Cleric of Sune could pray for Ilmater to support some pain, but wouldn't pray for Garagos, for this god preach the destruction of beautiful things, even if Sune's alignment is closer to Garagos than Ilmater. Also, the Cleric could only join the office of gods friendly to his own god. Thus, Tyr wouldn't see a problem if one of his clerics would pray Sune to help finding a wife, but would be displeased to see him join the priestesses of Sune in their celebrations...
But once again, as per the RAW, a Cleric do not have to worship a specific deity:
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
In the ancient (read: pre-monotheistic) world, the question of “how should I live” was answered not by religion, but by something now relegated primarily to obscure college offerings – philosophy.
And I see no problem with this really but if you’re trying to make your campaign like that look at it this way.
Bob the cleric wants to know how he should sacrifice his sheep to the god Heronious.
In the real world this question could bother him for years, even for the rest of his life.
BUT
In the classic D&D setting he could just go and cast a spell that lets him talk with the gods.
Problem solved.
Personally I think you should have one of two things. Active gods that can be communicated with and therefore everyone believes in them.
OR
No gods at all.
If you are going to have gods that don't ever intervene in human societies a lot of the NPC's in the game wouldn't believe in the gods existence and those that did would have huge holy wars proclaiming that their god exists and no one else’s do. New "Fake" gods would be invented by NPCs too.Though remember that there are portal spells that high level ARCANE spellcasters can access that allow them to visit gods pantheons.