PDA

View Full Version : How does faith work with manifest proof?



Virgo
2010-03-04, 05:45 PM
Hey Playground! I call upon your collective wisdom to help answer a question...

In most D&D settings (i.e., not Eberron) there's manifest proof of the existence of the Gods and they tend to be accessible through Divinations, Commune spells, Celestial or Friendish messengers or servants, et al. How does this affect the type of organized religion you'd expect to see in these campaign settings where your patron diety is one divine phone call away?

My co-DM and I are trying to specifically figure out how scripture would work... Is it plausible for there to be untrue teachings or scriptural corruption in a holy text if the god in question can reach down and tell people to fix it?

(One option we've come up with is that the God could but doesn't want to; either as a test for his followers, or because he's trying to cover up the fact that he's not actually omnipotent by deliberately confusing his holy texts.)

Thanks for the help!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 07:11 PM
Oh ho, we meet again! :smallbiggrin:

There are a lot of questionable assumptions in your post:
(1) Gods always want to correct their scripture
Gods sometimes want to test the faithful; if the God spends all His time micromanaging his followers, how can He be sure they are truly devoted?

Faith can be useful to have in followers - it helps them resist temptation from other powers, and can allow heroes to become truly Epic - and so Gods will want to cultivate it amongst their followers, whether it is "necessary" or not.

Oh, and then there are the Trickster or Manipulative Gods that "encourage" their worshipers to be clever and competitive. Why not seed a couple of "false" scriptures around and see who's smart enough to identify the "real" ones before they die? :smallamused:

(2) Gods can portion out their power as they like
In some editions (such as 4e) once a God has invested his power in someone, he can't remove it. Or perhaps the God can't fine tune his divine "flow" to deprive common clergy who are just a smidge heretical.

Gods in D&D are rarely omnipotent or omniscient; they cannot always make their wishes known to mortals.

(3) Communication with Gods is easy
Even with the existence of Commune, it doesn't mean it is a spell that it is commonly available. High-level characters are supposed to be rare as it is; include the inherent risks of using Commune (in TSR D&D anyhow) and it's not obvious that a centralized church is going to run every decision past its patron.

And that's with churches that have strong central bodies. A decentralized church is going to be incredibly prone to doctrinal differences unless each "fragment" has the ability to Speak Clearly With God basically at will.
So there're a few holes that can be poked in that proposition.

Thoughts?

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-03-04, 07:27 PM
On a semi-related note I played an atheist in D&D once. Had a cleric in the party who was always trying to convert me and took me to a temple where they put me in direct contact with his God. I (a wizard) replied by casting major image and having it say "I can do that too."

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 07:30 PM
On a semi-related note I played an atheist in D&D once. Had a cleric in the party who was always trying to convert me and took me to a temple where they put me in direct contact with his God. I (a wizard) replied by casting major image and having it say "I can do that too."
Yeah, the D&D Atheist tends to be as fun as the Deadlands Skeptic.

You'll be faced with overwhelming evidence soon enough and either you'll accept it or be smote.

Virgo
2010-03-04, 07:34 PM
All good points, Oracle! (And Ishcumbeebeeda– instilling doubt as to the accuracy of communication is a good thought.)

Unfortunately, we're dealing with a pre-existing game that has precedent for the use of Divination spells, and the god in question is a NG god of knowledge. The plotline involves a war between devils and celestials with the PCs sort-of-mostly on the celestial side, or at least on a side where their goals align with the celestials' goals.

One of the PCs has decided that he wants to reform the scripture of his church that he perceives has gotten corrupted and bloated, and my co-DM and I like to try to work to incorporate players' plot-desires into the story. Characters with class levels above 12 or so are rare in the setting, so Divinations are still more-or-less available for any serious religious scholar or devout cleric.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-03-04, 07:35 PM
Yeah, the D&D Atheist tends to be as fun as the Deadlands Skeptic.

You'll be faced with overwhelming evidence soon enough and either you'll accept it or be smote.

Yeah, that character did eventually wind up believing in the Gods. He had to after he killed Boccob and people started worshiping him. That was an AWESOME campaign.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 07:38 PM
All good points, Oracle! (And Ishcumbeebeeda– instilling doubt as to the accuracy of communication is a good thought.)

Unfortunately, we're dealing with a pre-existing game that has precedent for the use of Divination spells, and the god in question is a NG god of knowledge. The plotline involves a war between devils and celestials with the PCs sort-of-mostly on the celestial side, or at least on a side where their goals align with the celestials' goals.

One of the PCs has decided that he wants to reform the scripture of his church that he perceives has gotten corrupted and bloated, and my co-DM and I like to try to work to incorporate players' plot-desires into the story. Characters with class levels above 12 or so are rare in the setting, so Divinations are still more-or-less available for any serious religious scholar or devout cleric.
Easy enough.

Would a God of Knowledge like his followers to just be handed his true teachings? Of course not! The quest for knowledge is what is truly important.

So the God has made a standing order amongst his High Priests to guide the faithful so that they don't get too far off track, but to obfuscate His true teachings in official church scripture. Turns out that, in order to get into the Inner Circle, you have to discover the High Priests' "conspiracy" and confront them with the True Book of Faith (hidden in a suitably quest-worthy location).

Then they let you into their club :smallbiggrin:

FoE
2010-03-04, 07:41 PM
Conventional atheism in D&D is akin to delusion. After all, how can you not believe the gods exist? A more realistic version is the character who views the gods merely as powerful beings and refuses to give them his worship.

Virgo
2010-03-04, 07:41 PM
Easy enough.

Would a God of Knowledge like his followers to just be handed his true teachings? Of course not! The quest for knowledge is what is truly important.

So the God has made a standing order amongst his High Priests to guide the faithful so that they don't get too far off track, but to obfuscate His true teachings in official church scripture. Turns out that, in order to get into the Inner Circle, you have to discover the High Priests' "conspiracy" and confront them with the True Book of Faith (hidden in a suitably quest-worthy location).

Then they let you into their club :smallbiggrin:

Sounds reasonable; I considered it, but was initially concerned that the interaction with Celestials would be a problem. Of course, if they're faithfully obeying the doctrine of their divine master, they'll be equally impassive/unhelpful/mildly misleading.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-03-04, 07:43 PM
Easy enough.

Would a God of Knowledge like his followers to just be handed his true teachings? Of course not! The quest for knowledge is what is truly important.

So the God has made a standing order amongst his High Priests to guide the faithful so that they don't get too far off track, but to obfuscate His true teachings in official church scripture. Turns out that, in order to get into the Inner Circle, you have to discover the High Priests' "conspiracy" and confront them with the True Book of Faith (hidden in a suitably quest-worthy location).

Then they let you into their club :smallbiggrin:
That's a pretty cool idea. You could easily work in opposing gods too. Evil gods, instead of fighting the good gods, try to kill them by slowly corrupting their faiths over thousands of years. Maybe the good gods, in response, call paladins to their true faiths, etc, etc. This could be really fun.
Or, if you play with suitably long-lived races/classes (such as the watcher, or any incantifier) maybe a single person has actually seen the corruption.

Ishcumbeebeeda
2010-03-04, 07:47 PM
Conventional atheism in D&D is akin to delusion. After all, how can you not believe the gods exist? A more realistic version is the character who views the gods merely as powerful beings and refuses to give them his worship.

That's actually what led me to play the atheist character. Without getting too much into it I'm an atheist IRL and I kinda see the faithful in much the same way the faithful in the D&D world saw my character. I figured if the arguments don't work IRL, why should they in D&D? (I only said this as a clarification/addition to my earlier post. I don't want to/will not get drawn into an actual theological debate here, because I don't want to get the OP's thread blocked.)

ericgrau
2010-03-04, 07:49 PM
Hey Playground! I call upon your collective wisdom to help answer a question...

In most D&D settings (i.e., not Eberron) there's manifest proof of the existence of the Gods and they tend to be accessible through Divinations, Commune spells, Celestial or Friendish messengers or servants, et al. How does this affect the type of organized religion you'd expect to see in these campaign settings where your patron diety is one divine phone call away?

My co-DM and I are trying to specifically figure out how scripture would work... Is it plausible for there to be untrue teachings or scriptural corruption in a holy text if the god in question can reach down and tell people to fix it?

(One option we've come up with is that the God could but doesn't want to; either as a test for his followers, or because he's trying to cover up the fact that he's not actually omnipotent by deliberately confusing his holy texts.)

Thanks for the help!

1. Commoners can't cast even 1st level cleric spells. They must go to clerics, most of whom are 1st level.
2. There's a lot of ways to do magic in D&D. Whose to say that the divine magic really comes from gods?
3. D&D gods rarely manifest to any mortal who asks, or intervene in any way for that matter. They have better things to do and probably wouldn't care to answer just b/c someone said so even if they did have the time. You need 3 levels of cleric before you can even ask a "weal or woe" question.

Being a skeptic really isn't that hard at all. Even at high levels you'll never face a deity. Wait until epic maybe.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 07:53 PM
Sounds reasonable; I considered it, but was initially concerned that the interaction with Celestials would be a problem. Of course, if they're faithfully obeying the doctrine of their divine master, they'll be equally impassive/unhelpful/mildly misleading.
Exactly!

Heck, it even sticks with the NG alignment - the God is not interested in just having passive followers, but people who are willing to "think for themselves" when things look funny.

It's all about how you frame things :smallbiggrin:

Virgo
2010-03-04, 07:53 PM
1. Commoners can't cast even 1st level cleric spells. They must go to clerics, most of whom are 1st level.
2. There's a lot of ways to do magic in D&D. Whose to say that the divine magic really comes from gods?
3. D&D gods rarely manifest to any mortal who asks, or intervene in any way for that matter. They have better things to do and probably wouldn't care to answer just b/c someone said so even if they did have the time. You need 3 levels of cleric before you can even ask a "weal or woe" question.

Being a skeptic really isn't that hard at all. Even at high levels you'll never face a deity. Wait until epic maybe.


See, it's not about skepticism- it's already well established that the gods are real, interact, manifest, and speak through divinations.

My question is how that affects the actual practice of organized religion in such a context. Because the god (might) come down from on high and simply correct any misapprehensions about his doctrinal beliefs, I need some reasons for him not to. Oracle had some excellent suggestions in that vein.

EDIT: Also, most NPCs have class levels in this setting, albeit only a few levels each. Adventuring and mercenary work is an industry, so you do get more powerful NPCs with all sorts of spellcasting or other class abilities. As I said, though, class levels tend not to get higher than 12, though there are a few important adventurers who run things, and high-level NPCs who tend to be recluses to focus on study/prayer/training/omnicidal plots.

nightwyrm
2010-03-04, 08:03 PM
See, it's not about skepticism- it's already well established that the gods are real, interact, manifest, and speak through divinations.

My question is how that affects the actual practice of organized religion in such a context. Because the god (might) come down from on high and simply correct any misapprehensions about his doctrinal beliefs, I need some reasons for him not to. Oracle had some excellent suggestions in that vein.

EDIT: Also, most NPCs have class levels in this setting, albeit only a few.

One thing about D&D gods is that they're not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. They're not even necessarily benevolent.

Your god may simply have more important things to attend to than looking over the shoulders of every puny worshipper on some backwater plane of existence. He's more busy making sure his allied gods aren't backstabbing him while he's unravelling his enemy god's latest scheme.

Do you care much about the two ant colonies duking it out in your backyard?

ericgrau
2010-03-04, 08:16 PM
See, it's not about skepticism- it's already well established that the gods are real, interact, manifest, and speak through divinations.
See that's exactly it. Most divine divination spells really don't tell you much, especially about the diety. They could just as easily be arcane spells powered without deities. High level clerics and depending on your fluff maybe clerics in general might believe otherwise, but there's no way they could prove this to non-clerics. All the more reason to have clusters of atheists.



My question is how that affects the actual practice of organized religion in such a context. Because the god (might) come down from on high and simply correct any misapprehensions about his doctrinal beliefs, I need some reasons for him not to. Oracle had some excellent suggestions in that vein.

The main reason is b/c it's not worth his time and/or he doesn't care. Many minor traditions, celebrations and small rules could slip through. Only major screwups would be vision-worthy. If you want to withhold major information, then a non-interference pact among gods like what the Rich uses in OotS could allow this. Or the god already revealed the information to a select few, while others still don't believe it. EDIT: And really people disagree no matter what. Just look at the ongoing OotS debates even after Rich clearly says "No, this is how it is."



EDIT: Also, most NPCs have class levels in this setting, albeit only a few levels each. Adventuring and mercenary work is an industry, so you do get more powerful NPCs with all sorts of spellcasting or other class abilities. As I said, though, class levels tend not to get higher than 12, though there are a few important adventurers who run things, and high-level NPCs who tend to be recluses to focus on study/prayer/training/omnicidal plots.

Okay, so don't give clerics divine visions. When the best divination you have is augury, even a cleric could have doubts, or at least have trouble proving his faith to someone else.

Thrawn183
2010-03-04, 08:33 PM
The great thing about this is I would expect you could swing things in either direction. Let's say followers of 2 different gods came into conflict. You could argue, that they respect each other because they know that both sides are fulfilling a divine calling. Or you could argue that they take branding the other side as heathens or something to the extreme, and go for the total annihilation routine.

Really, I just think it makes a lot of things more extreme rather than specifically one way or the other. A fanatic is going to be more fanatical, but the people who don't really care (just happily going about not offending anyone) are going to be that much more unflappable because they know there are multiple gods that may or may not be quite petty and not actually worthy of their respect much less devotion.

ericgrau
2010-03-04, 08:38 PM
Oooo that's yet another side I didn't consider in D&D. Gods could flat-out lie, "exaggerate" or contradict eachother. Thus followers of differently gods would be even more vehemently opposed to each other, as each one gives credit to their own deity for this and that. 3rd parties would be skeptical of either side b/c they think it may just be cleric propaganda. Or even if they believe in the gods they may think it's only god propaganda.

dspeyer
2010-03-04, 08:40 PM
You can still have faith that <deity>'s teachings are true, and the path offered is the best one for <yourself/the world/whatever>.

But the first question is: what do gods want from mortals?

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-04, 08:40 PM
What about The Burning Hate thread? Show that to your DM and mess with him.



BTW: Eberron has two deities present in canon. Vol and the Silver Flame (technically).

Godskook
2010-03-04, 08:59 PM
I suggest you look at this world's religions more closely. I can think of a few that did have manifest proof claimed in their scriptures. I'd go further, but forums policies are being flirted with already.

Also, you have manifest proof of *existance*. THat's great, but religion also seeks to explain a few other things, such as:
-Life after death
-Code of conduct, and what happens when you don't follow such
-Why are we here

Deities all tend to provide answers to these kinds of things.

And I disagree with Oracle_Hunter's approach to the knowledge-god. Imo, such a god wouldn't intentionally mislead his students, but he might confuse them through riddles and puzzles, giving them scriptures that are difficult to understand. The clergy would then be split between the honest and those that manipulated this confusion to their own ends in some way.

Also, remember these distinctions about the gods of D&D:
-They're not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient, nor are they infallible.
-In some settings, they *NEED* worshippers to draw power from
-They're *BUSY*. Things need doing in the planes that the gods must attend to. Things on the material plane, other than where *YOU* are, need attending to.

Think of your gods as more like CEOs of divine 'companies', rather than what ever today's average monotheistic mindset would associate with the word 'deity'.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-03-04, 09:32 PM
And I disagree with Oracle_Hunter's approach to the knowledge-god. Imo, such a god wouldn't intentionally mislead his students, but he might confuse them through riddles and puzzles, giving them scriptures that are difficult to understand. The clergy would then be split between the honest and those that manipulated this confusion to their own ends in some way.
Well, "riddles and puzzles" is well within the realm of obfuscation:

Obfuscate:
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear
3. to darken.
Remember that the Church is perceived (by the PC) as "bloated and corrupt." A church for a NG God that is rife with internal contradictions and "unnecessary" bureaucracy could certainly look as such to a True Believer of the Faith.

JonestheSpy
2010-03-04, 09:38 PM
I suggest you look at this world's religions more closely.

Actually, I'd say avoid looking at real-word religions, as they have no relation to a fantasy setting where gods regularly manifest. I would heartily recommend rereading your Greek mythology, as that's full of stories of Gods acting similar to DnD gods - distant, but often meddling in the affairs of people and communicating via oracles, soothsayers, and dreams.

There's also a very interesting precedent from an old 1st edition DnD adventure, Hidden Shrine of Tamochan. It was a tournament module with three pre-generated characters, one of whom was a cleric on the run from her church. It had become corrupt and the character discovered that the upper hierarchy could no longer cast high-level spells (in 1st edition, 1st and 2nd level spells could be cast without direct aid from a deity or its minions, presumably through some kind of spiritual training or whatnot), but the Church still had enough secular power that the cleric couldn't challenge her superiors and expect to survive. Obviously, that was in a setting where clerics weren't expected to flaunt their spells all the time - it was more like real-world religions in that sense.

Anyway, to directly address Virgo's questions, I'd say that the one of the big questions is whether there need to be "doctrines" and such at all. if you know that this deity controls the weather, this one fertility, and that one is the patron of smiths, there really doesn't seem to be the need for the spiritual rulebooks that real-world religions generate. Although there would probably be certain spiritual teachings and mysteries only known to those initiated into the service a particular deity, a la the ancient Greek Eleusian Mysteries, but hat wouldn't be the same as folks arguing about the interpretation of holy writings.

Or if you WANT that kind of doctrinal conflict as an element of your campaign, you just have to come up with a reason gods don't get too directly involved in people's affairs. My old fave campaign setting Glorantha had the Great Compromise, wherein all the gods agreed to limit their interaction with mortals in order to avoid the escalation into all-out war between the gods themselves. And maybe some Big Truths are too much for regular people to handle, so they'll answer questions about when to plant the crops or where you left your car keys, but not about major cosmic secrets that, except perhaps to certain major prophets who can survive the divine feedback, as it were.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-04, 10:08 PM
My co-DM and I are trying to specifically figure out how scripture would work... Is it plausible for there to be untrue teachings or scriptural corruption in a holy text if the god in question can reach down and tell people to fix it?
IMO a setting with gods only works in the "game of gods" type of setup where direct intervention is not allowed because there is some kind of stale mate agreement where the gods agree that everything on the mortal realm is played out by "faithful" proxies.

In that kind of setup a god might abide a bit of corruption in the church if he feels that striking it down would reduce his earthly power more than it's worth.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-05, 12:11 AM
Just to reply to the question in the title... There's a big difference between believing that someone exists and believing in someone. Faith is perhaps more like trust than like belief, which isn't to say that there isn't any overlap between the two.

I think that it might be interesting to see a cleric who says "Well, yeah, maybe in some technical sense Dol Dorn doesn't really exist, but he still grants me spells every day, which makes him a fair bit more reliable than a lot of existent people I know..."

faceroll
2010-03-05, 12:20 AM
Hey Playground! I call upon your collective wisdom to help answer a question...

In most D&D settings (i.e., not Eberron) there's manifest proof of the existence of the Gods and they tend to be accessible through Divinations, Commune spells, Celestial or Friendish messengers or servants, et al. How does this affect the type of organized religion you'd expect to see in these campaign settings where your patron diety is one divine phone call away?

My co-DM and I are trying to specifically figure out how scripture would work... Is it plausible for there to be untrue teachings or scriptural corruption in a holy text if the god in question can reach down and tell people to fix it?

(One option we've come up with is that the God could but doesn't want to; either as a test for his followers, or because he's trying to cover up the fact that he's not actually omnipotent by deliberately confusing his holy texts.)

Thanks for the help!

I think of it like this- I accept the laws of gravity exist, but I haven't devoted my life to being the world's best physicist.

LibraryOgre
2010-03-05, 12:21 AM
In most D&D settings (i.e., not Eberron) there's manifest proof of the existence of the Gods and they tend to be accessible through Divinations, Commune spells, Celestial or Friendish messengers or servants, et al. How does this affect the type of organized religion you'd expect to see in these campaign settings where your patron diety is one divine phone call away?

My co-DM and I are trying to specifically figure out how scripture would work... Is it plausible for there to be untrue teachings or scriptural corruption in a holy text if the god in question can reach down and tell people to fix it?

(One option we've come up with is that the God could but doesn't want to; either as a test for his followers, or because he's trying to cover up the fact that he's not actually omnipotent by deliberately confusing his holy texts.)

Thanks for the help!

First of all, I think most deities in D&D will not present themselves as omnipotent... there's plenty of competing deities to give lie to that. Instead, they are powerful.

As to why they don't correct scriptures... I have no doubt that some do. Some D&D faiths likely have a completely true and accurate account of everything their deity wants them to know, and, while that's not necessarily everything, it's a complete mythology. Other cults will have no idea what their deity is actually doing, and have a plethora of holy texts.

Also consider that D&D deities traditionally gain power through worship... correcting people's deeply held beliefs, no matter how erroneous, tends to put them off. So long as the beliefs are merely incorrect, and not objectionable to the deity, I don't see them correcting people about a lot.

Furthermore, you may have groups that emphasize one portion off the canon above others, or who venerate one particular saint of the deity as an exemplar. Thus, one group of Bahamutian Knights may be an organization of noble sons, who traverse the lands righting wrongs and wearing shiny armor. Another might be a group of poor peasants who believe that nobility comes from the soul, and worship Bahamut as a lawgiver and ideal feudal lord. Bahamut isn't going to turn these people away... they're doing his work in his name... but they may not agree on all points.

Loxagn
2010-03-05, 12:25 AM
Whenever I play a character that isn't the religious type, I actually use the term 'antitheist'.
That is, the character knows that the gods exist, but believes that worshipping is a waste of time. You're far less likely to be looked on as delusional that way.

The term has actually spread around the gaming table, and I know a few other people who use it now too.

Thajocoth
2010-03-05, 12:28 AM
It's simple. Religion and gods rely on blind faith of the masses. Proof denies faith, so by introducing proof of their existence, there is no longer faith in deities, but rather knowledge about them. Therefore, the gods and religions all suddenly vanish in a puff of logic.

Godskook
2010-03-05, 12:52 AM
Actually, I'd say avoid looking at real-word religions, as they have no relation to a fantasy setting where gods regularly manifest.

But you go on to say:


I would heartily recommend rereading your Greek mythology, as that's full of stories of Gods acting similar to DnD gods - distant, but often meddling in the affairs of people and communicating via oracles, soothsayers, and dreams.

I'm *CONFUSED*.
As to why this was phrased as a rebuttal instead of an agreement/supplemental statement.

Yahzi
2010-03-05, 01:12 AM
Would a God of Knowledge like his followers to just be handed his true teachings? Of course not! The quest for knowledge is what is truly important.
Best answer ever!

JonestheSpy
2010-03-05, 01:27 AM
I'm *CONFUSED*.
As to why this was phrased as a rebuttal instead of an agreement/supplemental statement.

Well, because I think there's a significant difference between mythology and religion. Hopefully I can elaborate without going into verbotten territory - the difference between the real-world rituals, doctrine, etc of people who are interpreting the spiritual side of existence and what it all means vs stories of direct interactions between gods, heroes, and other folks. And when looking for inspiration of how gods relate to worshipers in DnD, it makes much more sense to look to the latter instead of the former.

To put it in another way - the stories of Heracles, Perseus, and the Trojan War were/are primarily that: stories. They did not have the religious significance of what we think of as "holy books" or whatever you want to call them, even though they featured gods as characters.

Mastikator
2010-03-05, 01:33 AM
I would simply say that the gods primary concern is not the vague and nebulous term "faith", but often a specific agenda and want the mortal denizens to actively worship them. And that the rituals and commands serve a practical and divine purpose.
For example, a god of warfare wouldn't just want people to have faith in and worship him, but for them to go out and kill each other in war. A god of wine wants people to drink and be merry. These activities fall within the portfolios and thus directly makes the god more powerful.

This way, evidence does not come in the way of devotion, since it's not about believing, it's about acting.
And for the record, in real religions both cases have been true, so this is not unrealistic when compared to real world religions. Just FYI.

Godskook
2010-03-05, 01:36 AM
To put it in another way - the stories of Heracles, Perseus, and the Trojan War were/are primarily that: stories. They did not have the religious significance of what we think of as "holy books" or whatever you want to call them, even though they featured gods as characters.

Yes, but other religions also have such stories, right there in their scriptures.

sonofzeal
2010-03-05, 01:37 AM
Heyo, Virgo! This is for Santhil, right?


I would expect that the religious organization would be more philosophically based. Everyone knows Pelor exists, as does Kord and Heironeous. All of them have fairly well-established opinions on several key issues, but they aren't always going to agree with each other. And since gods often disagree with each other, and often even contradict each other, it's quite possible then for mortals to disagree with them. One god might talk about the sanctity of marriage and another about the holiness of union, and mortals have to make their own way between those opinions, disagreeing with one or the other (or possibly both).

The religious structure, then, would be designed around defining, teaching, and explaining that particular god's attitudes and beliefs. A Cleric of Pelor would have a collection of writings about the various things Pelor has said and done in the world, and teach from them. There might be a core set, the "Book of Pelor", that higher level Clerics had verified via Commune spells as legitimate examples of their god at work, and a wider set of apocryphal ones that had not been verified yet and thus might have been illusions or misremembered. If a townsman approached the priest with a difficult ethical question, the priest would think through what he knew from Pelor's teachings, and try to give the best answer he could, backing it up with a relevant passage. He'd be unlikely to use a Commune to get a direct answer, partially because that's a significant use of resources even if he could cast it, and partially because hounding ones god might be considered in bad taste.

Thus, two priests of Pelor might have two answers to the man's question, backed up by two different things Pelor had said in the past. One would be wrong, and a bit of magic could resolve the issue, but if the spell isn't available then a temporary split might occur.

The gods might be "just a phone call away", but that phone call is a fairly expensive one and only to be used in emergencies and by fairly high ranking people in the organization. For the common man, then, he has to deal with imperfect interpreters in the form of priests, who are trained as best as possible but do bring their own biases and misunderstandings to the table, same as real-world ones. They might hold regular services, at which they'd give a message that they thought fit Pelor's teachings and might be of benefit for their audience, and they'd answer questions and give guidance to the best of their abilities. If they descend into outright blasphemy then Pelor himself might intervene, but if they're merely mistaken then it's unlikely anything will happen. If another priest catches it and calls him on it, it might escalate to the point of a Commune spell, but even that's probably rare and only if the issue is critical or would lead to a split in the church.

The material existence of their god helps prevent too big a split in the organization, but instead you get people who may move from the clergy of one god to another over time. A priest of Pelor may in time become disillusioned with the lax attitude towards evil, and might convert and become a Cuthbertine. Such a move would likely be rare among the clergy, but possible, and might spark bitter discord and arguments that no Commune spell could clear up, between the two clergies.


I feel like I might have missed your point, but hopefully that helps a little.

Indon
2010-03-05, 09:54 AM
It's simple. Religion and gods rely on blind faith of the masses. Proof denies faith, so by introducing proof of their existence, there is no longer faith in deities, but rather knowledge about them. Therefore, the gods and religions all suddenly vanish in a puff of logic.

It'd be an interesting take on divinity if this were the reason that deities did not manifest in the Material Plane.

If word of their existence got around as a solid fact (especially to their believers who would be interested to hear about it), they'd lose belief, grow less powerful, and eventually lose the power to maintain themselves on the Material Plane.

Edit: Anyway, the default religious bent in D&D and other multi-deity fantasy universes is Henotheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism).

LibraryOgre
2010-03-05, 10:12 AM
Well, because I think there's a significant difference between mythology and religion. Hopefully I can elaborate without going into verbotten territory - the difference between the real-world rituals, doctrine, etc of people who are interpreting the spiritual side of existence and what it all means vs stories of direct interactions between gods, heroes, and other folks. And when looking for inspiration of how gods relate to worshipers in DnD, it makes much more sense to look to the latter instead of the former.

To put it in another way - the stories of Heracles, Perseus, and the Trojan War were/are primarily that: stories. They did not have the religious significance of what we think of as "holy books" or whatever you want to call them, even though they featured gods as characters.

The difference is that mythology is yours, and therefore stories, and religion is mine, and therefore interpreting the spiritual side of existence.

ericgrau
2010-03-05, 11:03 AM
Yes, but other religions also have such stories, right there in their scriptures.

Perhaps at a superficial glance, but the Greek gods did some really screwed up things in that - right or wrong - they were awfully petty actions for gods. They toy with mortal lives like they're watching a soap opera and when they yell at the screen it actually changes events. Heck, Homer even pokes fun at them for such. Greek gods were involved at a more personal level. Even sleeping around, disguising themselves as mortals purely to fit in, and so forth.

And yet Zeus still does not appear to millions of Greeks. IMO this is the key thing that keeps it difficult for 99.9% of the population to believe. No god will bother with every single commoner, or even if he does he won't stick around forever, whatever the cosmos may be. Heck, without TV, 99% of the people haven't even seen the king unless they live in the capital.

Oh, and this thread is getting awfully close to breaking forum rules, and not in a nice way either. Let's try to avoid that.

Telonius
2010-03-05, 11:19 AM
Ideas for why the gods can't/won't/don't "correct" false scripture:

- Authority issues. D&D gods are people, too; with personalities to go along with it. Suppose you're a god, and it comes to your attention that some sneaky opposition cleric slipped in a bad verse a couple hundred years ago. Your followers, being good followers, have so far been following all your scripture to the letter. But if you do the divine equivalent of releasing errata, that starts to cause doubt. If this one thing was wrong, what about the rest of it? Remember, D&D gods get their power from the believers. Is it worth the amount of lost power you'd incur, to correct something minor? Some gods would say yes (Hieronius, St. Cuthbert, and some of the other Lawfuls come to mind), but others wouldn't. Garl Glittergold might even find the new verse funnier than what was there before, and Olidammara might enjoy the sneakiness of it all for its own sake.

- It doesn't happen because of MAD. (That's mutually assured destruction, not multiple ability dependency). If gods started mucking around changing other gods' scriptures, pretty soon all the scriptures would be filled with stuff added or deleted by high-level magic users. Written scriptures would be worthless. Since the scriptures aren't worthless, it doesn't happen - unless the god is absolutely sure he can get away with it and not leave his fingerprints on the matter. Not an easy task. Since it practically never happens, gods generally aren't even looking out for it.

- It does happen, and that changes the gods themselves. Since gods in D&D work on belief, if enough people think that Moradin commanded a total orc and half-orc genocide, then Moradin himself would undergo a gradual change into a more vengeful god.

lsfreak
2010-03-05, 11:24 AM
"I have gotten a vision from Pelor!"
"You were hallucinating. Only Boccob grants visions"

"My prayers were answered by Pelor!"
"No, that was just luck."

"Pelor has blessed us!"
"No, that was Kord, you're just misinterpreting it."

When anyone is presented with proof of miracles, communication with deities, or so on here on Earth, how do people who do not share that faith respond? With skepticism, attributing it to their own god, claims of misattribution or misinterpretation, and so on. A cleric certainly isn't wielding the power of the gods, they're simply doing the same thing any old wizard is - making the right gestures and saying the right words at the right time. Visions from gods? Hallucinations, a vision from my god, or just downright lies. Your god has manifested in the world? You'd believe any old schmuck claiming to have the knowledge of the afterlife, wouldn't you, that's clearly just a man with high ranks in Bluff!

arguskos
2010-03-05, 11:28 AM
You know, there's an example of this from the Forgotten Realms concerning Lathander and the Risen Sun Heresy.

Basically, there is this sect of priests that believe Lathander is another god reborn, and that the time will come when Lathander dies and is reformed into that god again. So far, he's been silent on the subject, just saying not to persecute the Risen Sun heretics, not actually giving an answer to if they're right. It's believed he is testing his worshipers, to see if they can figure out the truth for themselves.

These sorts of things are sometimes tests of faith. The god COULD answer the question, but that defeats the point of faith.

Drakyn
2010-03-05, 11:45 AM
You know, there's an example of this from the Forgotten Realms concerning Lathander and the Risen Sun Heresy.

Basically, there is this sect of priests that believe Lathander is another god reborn, and that the time will come when Lathander dies and is reformed into that god again. So far, he's been silent on the subject, just saying not to persecute the Risen Sun heretics, not actually giving an answer to if they're right. It's believed he is testing his worshipers, to see if they can figure out the truth for themselves.

These sorts of things are sometimes tests of faith. The god COULD answer the question, but that defeats the point of faith.

Didn't 4e show that they were absolutely right?

arguskos
2010-03-05, 11:46 AM
Didn't 4e show that they were absolutely right?

Yes, but I also ignore 4e completely. The point stands that sometimes, the god doesn't answer because these things are a test of faith.

JonestheSpy
2010-03-05, 03:47 PM
The difference is that mythology is yours, and therefore stories, and religion is mine, and therefore interpreting the spiritual side of existence.

No, really, there's a bigger difference. The Iliad and other stories of the Trojan War, for instance, are chock full of interactions between gods and people, but nobody, really nobody, claims they are religious texts.

Or Dante's Inferno - full of religious imagery and characters, but not in any way a holy book that would be looked to for doctrine, etc.

And hopefully that's as close to the line about discussing real world religion we need to go.

Ogremindes
2010-03-05, 05:38 PM
There's an interesting section on much this subject in the Discworld book Feet of Clay:
Vimes had a feeling about the immediate future and took a few steps away from Dorfl.
'But the gods plainly do exist,' said a priest.
'It Is Not Evident.'
A bolt of lightning lanced through the clouds and hit Dorfl's helmet. There was a sheet of flame and then a trickling noise. Dorfl's molten armour formed puddles around his white-hot feet.
'I Don't Call That Much Of An Argument,' said Dorfl calmly, from somewhere in the clouds of smoke.
'It's tended to carry the audience,' said Vimes. 'Up until now.'
The Chief Priest of Blind lo turned to the other priests. 'All right, you fellows, there's no need for any of that—'
'But Offler is a vengeful god,' said a priest at the back of the crowd.
'Trigger-happy is what he is,' said Ridcully. Another lightning bolt zigzagged down but bent at right-angles a few feet above the Chief Priest's hat and earthed itself on a wooden hippo, which split. The Chief Priest smiled smugly and turned back to Dorfl, who was making little clinking noises as he cooled.
'What you're saying is, you'll accept the existence of any god only if it can be proved by discussion?'
'Yes,' said Dorfl.
Ridcully rubbed his hands together. 'Not a problem, me old china,' he said. 'Firstly, let us take the—'
'Excuse Me,' said Dorfl. He bent down and picked up his badge. The lightning had given it an interesting melted shape.
'What are you doing?' said Ridcully.
'Somewhere, A Crime Is Happening,' said Dorfl. 'But When I Am Off Duty I Will Gladly Dispute With The Priest of The Most Worthy God.'
He turned and strode on across the bridge. Vimes nodded hurriedly at the shocked priests and ran after him. We took him and baked him in the fire and he's turned out to be free, he thought. No words in the head except the ones he's chosen to put there himself. And he's not just an atheist, he's a ceramic atheist. Fireproof!
It looked like being a good day.
Behind them, on the bridge, a fight was breaking out.

Jayabalard
2010-03-05, 05:50 PM
No, really, there's a bigger difference. The Iliad and other stories of the Trojan War, for instance, are chock full of interactions between gods and people, but nobody, really nobody, claims they are religious texts.You're actually not contradicting Mark's statement in any way, you're just serving as an example. They're not yours, so they're just stories.

sonofzeal
2010-03-05, 06:10 PM
1/0 (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/) eventually gets into this territory (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/6/641.gif), with an objectively existent Narrator with semi-divine powers within the bounds of his comic strip, and various characters having various reactions for and against (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/1/150.gif)that. The narrator, for his part, actually denies that he's "god" (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/1/130.gif), and there's attempts throughout the strip to wrestle with the nature of fiction (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/2/269.gif), ethics (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/3/391.gif), rebellion (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/4/434.gif), and physics in a fictional world (http://www.undefined.net/1/0/4/471.gif). Can you tell I love this strip?

Anyway, it does have some good insights into the structure of a world where "god" is also one of the active characters. I recommend it.

ApatheticDespot
2010-03-05, 07:04 PM
I disagree with the previous posters who said that atheistic characters in D&D are necessarily delusional. I would argue that as gods become more involved in the day to day workings of a setting they actually become easier to deny. After all, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, D&D gods are not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient; they often oppose one another, fail to achieve their goals, get things wrong and even get killed. I think it's perfectly rational for a character to ask the question: in what sense do such creatures deserve to be called "gods"? What's more, I think it would be entirely reasonable for a character to decide that the answer is "none".

JonestheSpy
2010-03-05, 08:12 PM
You're actually not contradicting Mark's statement in any way, you're just serving as an example. They're not yours, so they're just stories.

Look, you're really missing the point. The ancient Greeks themselves did not regard the Iliad as a religious text, any more than Christians think Dante's Inferno is on par with the Bible or Jewish rabbis would study Fiddler on the Roof.

Yes, I realize that the line between "just story" and "religiously significant story" can get very fuzzy, that's why I tried to be specific in my examples. Trying to pinpoint that line would take us way into Not Allowed territory, so I'll just stop there.