Turning Religion Around...

[Eldan]

This idea came from another thread I was reading, where people got a bit off-topic into their ideas about D&D gods.

It seems to me that the cults of evil D&D gods come mainly in two flavours. Evil, virgin-sacrificing empires oppressing the population with their undead and demon troops, and secret underground cults who sacrifice virgins to demons to either become said evil empires or destroy the world. (Substitute other evil goals as necessary.)

Now, take into account that the D&D gods are pretty close to the Roman, Greek and other antique gods in the way they act. They have human(oid) personalities. If they get annoyed, they blow up cities or curse people.

So, what if clerics, instead of (or in addition to) furthering their god's philosophies and causes, also had an obligation by society to appease their gods, to keep their wrath away?

I think a few things in society would change for the interesting. The local cleric of the god of slaughter and darkness is feared, sure, but he is also respected. His weekly blood sacrifice doesn't summon demons to destroy the city, it prevents that from happening. Praying to the evil storm god keeps your city's ships safe in battle. Gods from all over the alignment spectrum have prominent temples in the city.

Conversely, how would people see the more good gods and their priests? Are they taking the easy way, appeasing those gods who are easier to please and mostly benevolent anyway? Or are all gods essentially that way, the cosmic equivalent of petulant children who have to be bribed into not killing you?

What do people think of this?

[Mithril Leaf]

That seems pretty cool actually. I like it, especially considering that most gods are just incredibly strong outsiders as is.

[Psyren]

That's already how it happens in Faerun. Sailors make offerings to Umberlee before they set sail, despite knowing that she's a total b- uh, that is, not a very nice person, just in case. Offerings are made to Talos and Malar for similar reasons. And everybody donates to Beshaba, to avert her attention rather than to attract it.

[Eldan]

Hm. I guess that's what I get for never reading any Forgotten Realms.

[Urpriest]

Most of the more fleshed-out settings have at least one god like that. I think Greyhawk also has an obscure sea god with that purview, and aren't some of the Dark Six in Eberron worshiped for similar reasons?

[Wyntonian]

That's what I did for the Old Gods of the Dotze Affariata in my campaign setting. Offer a lamb to feed the god of the sea so he doesn't eat your ship, offer a pint of scotch to the Jester so he doesn't screw your luck. Stuff like that.

[Psyren]

There are, however, some deities that most people avoid. Nobody but the craziest of the crazy venerate Shar for instance, and only thieves worship Cyric and Mask. Oddly, these deities are pretty powerful considering their lack of popularity (especially Shar, the only deity that could really stand toe-to-toe with Mystra.) It might be related more to their respective portfolios than to their number of worshipers in this case.

There's also apparently some level of trickery permitted. Some priests of Loviatar pose as Ilmaterites, and under the guise of encouraging suffering, get the gullible to self-flagellate and donate to the wrong church. Clerics of Mask are actively enouraged to fake being members of other faiths and fleece their flocks - Mask prizes thieves who can take without the mark even realizing that he lost anything. Auril actually posed as Ulutiu for awhile and took prayers from his followers in his stead while he slept.

FR in general is pretty weird. If you're a big fan of Greek/Norse myth, where the deities constantly meddle in mortal affairs and are the driving narrative force behind most of the stories, you'll probably enjoy it, but it can be hard to actually play in when your characters are playing second-fiddle to deities, exarchs, Chosen, and other such major players, yet are still expected to be epic players on the world stage.

[Silma]

T=

FR in general is pretty weird. If you're a big fan of Greek/Norse myth, where the deities constantly meddle in mortal affairs and are the driving narrative force behind most of the stories, you'll probably enjoy it, but it can be hard to actually play in when your characters are playing second-fiddle to deities, exarchs, Chosen, and other such major players, yet are still expected to be epic players on the world stage.

Yeah but isn't that part of the thrill? You as an adventurer have to earn your place in the world. And even if you are an epic player on the world stage, you still have to be cautious.

[Arbane]

Yeah but isn't that part of the thrill? You as an adventurer have to earn your place in the world. And even if you are an epic player on the world stage, you still have to be cautious.

Some people enjoy it.

I find it hard to be heroic when the inescapable truth is that if what we're doing was actually important, someone IMPORTANT would be doing it already. :smallyuk:

[Eldan]

There's also apparently some level of trickery permitted. Some priests of Loviatar pose as Ilmaterites, and under the guise of encouraging suffering, get the gullible to self-flagellate and donate to the wrong church. Clerics of Mask are actively enouraged to fake being members of other faiths and fleece their flocks - Mask prizes thieves who can take without the mark even realizing that he lost anything. Auril actually posed as Ulutiu for awhile and took prayers from his followers in his stead while he slept.


See, that's actually the kind of gods I mean here. Loviatar (who is the god(ess?) of pain, I think, would be worshipped, probably with some kind of ritual self-flagellation by priests, to spare the city a sudden outbreak of painful haemorrhoids. Mask's priests would be very respected in the population, since properly paid church taxes (perhaps ritually stolen during mass by a priest in a ninja suit) would keep thieves out of the city.

[Psyren]

See, that's actually the kind of gods I mean here. Loviatar (who is the god(ess?) of pain, I think, would be worshipped, probably with some kind of ritual self-flagellation by priests, to spare the city a sudden outbreak of painful haemorrhoids. Mask's priests would be very respected in the population, since properly paid church taxes (perhaps ritually stolen during mass by a priest in a ninja suit) would keep thieves out of the city.

My understanding of Mask's faith: if they know you're a priest of Mask, urdoinitwrong. Loviatar is not quite as subtle but close - one of the ways they encourage their priests to cause pain is through heartbreak, by deceiving and then cruelly spurning a suitor. The only times Loviatarans are really open are in decadent, hedonistic societies where bored nobles and officials show up for some, shall we say, kinky worship.

As far as what you describe above, though, Talona comes close - her priests threaten (and eventually try to cause) a plague if they get run out of town. So the townsfolk tolerate and try to appease them. But even then, it's implied to be more the clergy doing it (in secret) than Talona's wrath being that powerful on its own.

[MukkTB]

In a D&D world this kind of worship is self defeating. I'm not sure where the idea comes from, but its become a prominent theory that gods get power from their worshipers. See Terry Pratchett's work if you want a good example. D&D, being a fantasy kitchen sink, has included this idea as well.

So If there is an evil tantrum throwing bully god in the area, don't appease him. It will only make him stronger. Worship some benevolent god that will stand up to the bully god. One that doesn't require human sacrifice or other nasty things to appease. In a D&D verse under normal circumstances a bully god like that would eventually shrivel up and blow away because all his worshipers turned to more moderate gods to protect them from his bull****.

I'm not saying the idea is bad. I'm just pointing out why it doesn't happen regularly. To get to that idea you have to do away with gods depending on worship. Then you've got a whole pantheon of bullys and *****. Because if human worship was only a matter of ego, how can any of them who demand it claim moral high ground? You end up back in ancient Greek times where they legitimately believed their gods were like this. They went to huge lengths to justify it. I don't think your players will.

[Yora]

In the setting I am working on, the role of priest is taken by Shamans, who are mediators between the local community and a local spirit.
Both sides need the shamans. The spirits to keep the mortals from clearing fields and walking into caves where they are not supposed to, and the people to tell them what they have to do for the spirits not to destroy their villages.

The relationship between villigers and shamans depends both on the personalty of the shaman and the nature of the spirit. If you want to build you village at the base of an active volcano, then you better be prepared to follow all the strange demands the shaman delivers. And when he says the spirit thinks the villagers are not showing enough respect with the tile roofed shrine they build for it, then you better be getting that gold plating the shaman is suggesting.
You could have a really nice shaman who is trying his best to make everyone get along well, or someone not so nice who is more than willing to be a loyal servant of the spirit if this means getting his share of the offerings and sacrifices and be the caretaker of the gifts they bring.

[Eldan]

In a D&D world this kind of worship is self defeating. I'm not sure where the idea comes from, but its become a prominent theory that gods get power from their worshipers. See Terry Pratchett's work if you want a good example. D&D, being a fantasy kitchen sink, has included this idea as well.

So If there is an evil tantrum throwing bully god in the area, don't appease him. It will only make him stronger. Worship some benevolent god that will stand up to the bully god. One that doesn't require human sacrifice or other nasty things to appease. In a D&D verse under normal circumstances a bully god like that would eventually shrivel up and blow away because all his worshipers turned to more moderate gods to protect them from his bull****.

I'm not saying the idea is bad. I'm just pointing out why it doesn't happen regularly. To get to that idea you have to do away with gods depending on worship. Then you've got a whole pantheon of bullys and *****. Because if human worship was only a matter of ego, how can any of them who demand it claim moral high ground? You end up back in ancient Greek times where they legitimately believed their gods were like this. They went to huge lengths to justify it. I don't think your players will.

I know all of that, yes. But honestly, it's not spelt out in the core rules, really. Deities and Demigods may have a bit of that, but here, I'm practising what I call Creatively Ignoring the Books if I don't like What They Say (tm).

This thread is more a what if, than anything. Part of the assumption is that Gods will be Gods, no matter the worship, as that is kind of necessary. Call it changing the fluff, if you like.

[Yora]

Creatively Ignoring the Books if I don't like What They Say (tm).
With D&D, you really don't have any other choice. :smallamused:

[VanBuren]

FR in general is pretty weird. If you're a big fan of Greek/Norse myth, where the deities constantly meddle in mortal affairs and are the driving narrative force behind most of the stories, you'll probably enjoy it, but it can be hard to actually play in when your characters are playing second-fiddle to deities, exarchs, Chosen, and other such major players, yet are still expected to be epic players on the world stage.

Easy enough to handwave. None of the gods or major setting NPCs are willing to get directly involved, since that would invite gods and major NPCS on the opposite end of the alignment to step in and the resulting power clash makes it a bad day for Joe Commoner, and perhaps the planet.

So, Elminster and his bros work through proxies (i.e. you) by subtly helping you become stronger and deal with threats that he can't handle with his hands tied. It falls apart if you pick at it too closely, but it's at least serviceable.

[Kuulvheysoon]

In a D&D world this kind of worship is self defeating. I'm not sure where the idea comes from, but its become a prominent theory that gods get power from their worshipers. See Terry Pratchett's work if you want a good example. D&D, being a fantasy kitchen sink, has included this idea as well.

Well, Forgotten Realms had the Time of Troubles, where the gods were forced to take mortal form and walk among them precisely because their power wasn't linked to their worshippers and they'd gotten arrogant (well, various other things as well).

It was only post-ToT that FR really adopted that policy.

[Psyren]

Easy enough to handwave. None of the gods or major setting NPCs are willing to get directly involved, since that would invite gods and major NPCS on the opposite end of the alignment to step in and the resulting power clash makes it a bad day for Joe Commoner, and perhaps the planet.

So, Elminster and his bros work through proxies (i.e. you) by subtly helping you become stronger and deal with threats that he can't handle with his hands tied. It falls apart if you pick at it too closely, but it's at least serviceable.

But that still results in the problem of knowing that what you're doing can't be that important. If it was, then Elminster and co. WOULD be involved themselves, because we see time and again that they are willing get their hands dirty when the world is at stake.

And even if it's a task that is just shy of their personal involvement, there's still a lot of daylight between them and Joe Adventurer. The Harpers have dragons on speed-dial, multiple guilds in their pocket, are on a first-name basis with royalty etc. At the very least, they can supply you far beyond the WBL guidelines (a fraction of an epic character's wealth, in fact) - which again, they would do if the task was actually important.

And that's when the gods aren't randomly powerleveling NPCs just to make them extra-special. (Cadderly gained something ridiculous like 14 levels over the course of Canticle, and Deneir is a minor deity!)

[nedz]

I think that you have to look at this as a compact or bargain.

Consider the old Aztec myth about having to sacrifice a human before dawn or have the sun not come up.

Or the Romans, who would build temples to appease gods after various disasters.

The evil god, in the D&D context, blackmails the people into worshipping them.

Or perhaps the cult of evil priests do the same on the gods behalf? In this case its just totalitarian power politics. You worship our god, or else.

[Alefiend]

I really wish game religion worked the way the OP suggests, but at present the whole "deities' power is directly related to how much worship they get" thing messes it up.

Therefore, I propose that gods get power from belief, not worship. If you believe the god exists, your belief strengthens his/her/its place in the cosmos. If you believe the god is particularly powerful, it makes the god more powerful. Worship is directed, ritualized belief, which is of special benefit to a god, but belief is enough.

Does anybody see a reason why changing to this concept wouldn't work?

[nedz]

I really wish game religion worked the way the OP suggests, but at present the whole "deities' power is directly related to how much worship they get" thing messes it up.

Therefore, I propose that gods get power from belief, not worship. If you believe the god exists, your belief strengthens his/her/its place in the cosmos. If you believe the god is particularly powerful, it makes the god more powerful. Worship is directed, ritualized belief, which is of special benefit to a god, but belief is enough.

Does anybody see a reason why changing to this concept wouldn't work?
Vestiges ?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I really wish game religion worked the way the OP suggests, but at present the whole "deities' power is directly related to how much worship they get" thing messes it up.

Therefore, I propose that gods get power from belief, not worship. If you believe the god exists, your belief strengthens his/her/its place in the cosmos. If you believe the god is particularly powerful, it makes the god more powerful. Worship is directed, ritualized belief, which is of special benefit to a god, but belief is enough.

Does anybody see a reason why changing to this concept wouldn't work?

I've seen an alternate take on the whole "gods gain power from abstract stuff" thing that I liked: Gods' power depends on the prevalence and prominence of things in their portfolio. The more fire there is in the world and the more the metaphysical concept of fire is invested with significance, for instance, the more powerful a god of fire is. Gods only care about and oversee their worshipers and churches to the extent that they spread their portfolios and thus maintain and increase their patrons' power; Olidammara doesn't care about Joe the Adventuring Rogue because Joe makes sure to say his prayers every night, he cares about Joe because every time Joe steals something the prevalence of thievery increases Olidammara's power by a minuscule amount, and if Joe steals enough stuff for his community to see thievery as a major problem the increased prominence of thievery in the public consciousness increases Olidammara's power as well. It's almost animism/shamanism writ large.

This helps explain some common setting features. Gods of adventuring-relevant things like war, magic, and nature are more prevalent than gods of non-relevant things like fertility, trade, and craftsmanship because (A) the servants of war, magic, and nature are more powerful and thus better able to advance their portfolios, (B) a broader portfolio (e.g. nature > the harvest) means more power for the god, and (C) tons of creatures are part of nature and fight things with magic, but a much smaller subset of creatures (intelligent, civilized humanoids) really care about having kids, haggling in the marketplace, or making tools. Racial deities exist and only accept clerics of their race because granting power to members of that race gives the best expenditure of power-to-advancement of portfolio ratio, and empowering a creature within their portfolio is better than empowering one not within it. And so on and so forth.

I like that better than the belief or worship perspective because, really, when you know a god exists and its followers go around routinely performing miracles, gods being powered by belief turns into a "Who would win in a fight, Spider-Man or Wolverine?" paradigm. Everyone knows the gods exist, so that sort of belief just boils down to who has more fanboys worshipers. Beliefs about particular power rankings would come down to who knows certain myths and who's heard about a given miracle/intervention/whatever--or in other words, "But Green Lantern can totally beat Thor because, in issue #37 of his first series, he could...." "Nuh-uh, in the movies Mjolnir can..." "Pssh! That's not even the same canon!"

[Alefiend]

I've seen an alternate take on the whole "gods gain power from abstract stuff" thing that I liked: Gods' power depends on the prevalence and prominence of things in their portfolio.

*snip*

I like this. I think I like it more than what I wrote.

[Eldan]

I like the idea, and it even works together with mine, kinda, but it makes me wonder:

What stops some gods, under this system, from basically feeding themselves? Imagine you are the god of fire. In D&D, you now have fire magic, and very powerful fire magic. So you set a house on fire from the heavens. That makes the people in that house think about fire, and in fact, increases the amount of fire in the world. So you get more powerful. So you set a district on fire...

Ad infinitum.

[hamishspence]

Since fire kills people, dead people are no longer thinking about fire- and thus the power drops again.

[ThiagoMartell]

That's already how it happens in Faerun. Sailors make offerings to Umberlee before they set sail, despite knowing that she's a total b- uh, that is, not a very nice person, just in case. Offerings are made to Talos and Malar for similar reasons. And everybody donates to Beshaba, to avert her attention rather than to attract it.

Damn, I was about to post exactly that. +1 to everything Psyren said.

[Psyren]

I think we're reading a bit too much into the belief deal. Ao's mandate was that the FR deities not ignore their worshipers, yes - but all that really means is "grant spells to your clerics." And he tied their power "in part, to the number and fervor of their worshipers" (FRCS).

There's three important components to that statement. We focused on one ("number of worshipers") but not the other two ("fervor" and "in part.") Focusing on the latter two we can explain why some deities are so powerful. For instance, Shar's church is relatively small, but she's extremely powerful because (a) those who do follow her are pretty fanatic about it, (b) her portfolio itself is necessary/strong/old enough to sustain her even with a small clergy, and (c) she ate Ibrandul during the ToT and absorbed his power over the Underdark. So even without "number" she satisfies "fervor" and "other" ("in part"), making her strong.

For the opposite side of the coin, take Kossuth - the elemental lords are usually pretty weak, yet he's the only one of them at Major Deity status. This is understandable however, because he has by far the biggest church of the four. He largely ignores Toril, but he grants spells regularly and has a highly-regimented and very attractive church setup that recruits followers like a machine. (It has to, because a lot of the new recruits die by burning themselves up.) He satisfies "number" and "fervor" better than the other three, thus he is stronger.

(It's also implied that he avoided the ToT in some way - if so, that could further explain why he's stronger than the other three.)

[Duke of Urrel]

The problem with deities who demand painful sacrifice is that anyone with the freedom to choose a less demanding deity will do so. So if less demanding deities exist and people are free to worship them instead, why would anyone worship more demanding deities?

The worship of gods who are benevolent only if they are appeased by blood offerings would be truly widespread only in a world in which there were no alternatives, that is, in a world in which pretty much all deities had this bifurcated personality.

If there are (for worshipers) better choices available, the worship of deities demanding human sacrifice will tend to be confined to unhappy regions where people have no religious freedom, because powerful Evil clerics, perhaps with the help of Evil Outsiders, violently repress the worship of any deity except for the clerics' own bloodthirsty patron.

Where worshipers are free to choose, many of them may choose morally Neutral deities who require sacrifices short of killing, or who require the sacrifice of animals (or perhaps equally sentient creatures of species regarded as less morally significant than one's own – but this arrogant attitude starts to lean toward Evil, I think). Selfish people who are not compulsively Evil might prefer morally Neutral deities of this kind over purely Good or Evil ones, because for them, the benefits (mostly to oneself) outweigh the costs (mostly to others).

Good deities shouldn't require any sacrifice other than self-sacrifice, and this should usually fall short of suicide, because it can't serve the cause of Good deities if paladins simply throw themselves at superior enemies. Good deities should favor benefits that are shared as widely as possible, and which in the end outweigh the sacrifices that were made by a few brave heroes to get them.

[hamishspence]

For the opposite side of the coin, take Kossuth - the elemental lords are usually pretty weak, yet he's the only one of them at Major Deity status. This is understandable however, because he has by far the biggest church of the four. He largely ignores Toril, but he grants spells regularly and has a highly-regimented and very attractive church setup that recruits followers like a machine. (It has to, because a lot of the new recruits die by burning themselves up.) He satisfies "number" and "fervor" better than the other three, thus he is stronger.

(It's also implied that he avoided the ToT in some way - if so, that could further explain why he's stronger than the other three.)

I recall the 3.0 book Faiths & Pantheons classing the other 3 as Greater Deities as well- but they were relegated to the next section, rather than the "primary known deities" section.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like the idea, and it even works together with mine, kinda, but it makes me wonder:

What stops some gods, under this system, from basically feeding themselves? Imagine you are the god of fire. In D&D, you now have fire magic, and very powerful fire magic. So you set a house on fire from the heavens. That makes the people in that house think about fire, and in fact, increases the amount of fire in the world. So you get more powerful. So you set a district on fire...

Ad infinitum.


Since fire kills people, dead people are no longer thinking about fire- and thus the power drops again.

Well, two things. First, the theory obviously doesn't address why gods don't meddle in the world; whatever plot device prevents gods from coming down and screwing around on the Prime in a given setting would apply there too. Once you take that into account and are talking about the god's servants doing stuff, you can see that there are actually some settings where that happens. In FR, for instance, the Chosen are all about feeding their god as much as possible: Obould Many-Arrows's orc invasion thingy empowered Gruumsh as the orcs became more powerful and everyone was talking and thinking about them, Mystra's Chosen are always going around casting spells and Mystra this and Mystra that, and so forth.

Secondly, gods need to play the long game. Kossuth can burn down a few dozen cities at a time and keep doing that for a while, but eventually he'll run into casters warding their cities against fire, adventurers trying to stop him, or other gods who are pissed at him. Once those fires are put out he loses the extra power from that, and all the extra people thinking about him being a giant evil jerk for doing that probably doesn't make up for the loss of all that fire in the cities for everyday purposes, the smiths and bakers and pyromancers who use it, and so on, so now he's pissed off some gods and is weaker for it overall. Much better to gradually build your power base over time and rely on the wonders of exponential population growth of worshipers.


The problem with deities who demand painful sacrifice is that anyone with the freedom to choose a less demanding deity will do so. So if less demanding deities exist and people are free to worship them instead, why would anyone worship more demanding deities?

The worship of gods who are benevolent only if they are appeased by blood offerings would be truly widespread only in a world in which there were no alternatives, that is, in a world in which pretty much all deities had this bifurcated personality.

If there are (for worshipers) better choices available, the worship of deities demanding human sacrifice will tend to be confined to unhappy regions where people have no religious freedom, because powerful Evil clerics, perhaps with the help of Evil Outsiders, violently repress the worship of any deity except for the clerics' own bloodthirsty patron.

Where worshipers are free to choose, many of them may choose morally Neutral deities who require sacrifices short of killing, or who require the sacrifice of animals (or perhaps equally sentient creatures of species regarded as less morally significant than one's own – but this arrogant attitude starts to lean toward Evil, I think). Selfish people who are not compulsively Evil might prefer morally Neutral deities of this kind over purely Good or Evil ones, because for them, the benefits (mostly to oneself) outweigh the costs (mostly to others).

Good deities shouldn't require any sacrifice other than self-sacrifice, and this should usually fall short of suicide, because it can't serve the cause of Good deities if paladins simply throw themselves at superior enemies. Good deities should favor benefits that are shared as widely as possible, and which in the end outweigh the sacrifices that were made by a few brave heroes to get them.

You're assuming people choose gods to worship based on the ease of worship rather than how much the religions align with their own beliefs. Given the choice of two religions, would you join the one with shorter, easier, and more boring ceremonies, or longer, more involved, and exciting ones (however you'd define boring and exciting)? As well, cultural inertia can influence your beliefs a lot.

If you're an amazing warrior who kills lots of people every battle, might as well worshiper Erythnul, since you're doing what he wants already and don't have to go out of your way to give brave speeches like Heironeous would want or get involved in the justice system like St. Cuthbert would want. If you're an orc, well, you're probably going to at least attend Gruumsh's services even if you're in a major city with dozens of other temples around, because it's expected of you by your family and his clergy.

[Eldan]

The problem with deities who demand painful sacrifice is that anyone with the freedom to choose a less demanding deity will do so. So if less demanding deities exist and people are free to worship them instead, why would anyone worship more demanding deities?

The worship of gods who are benevolent only if they are appeased by blood offerings would be truly widespread only in a world in which there were no alternatives, that is, in a world in which pretty much all deities had this bifurcated personality.

If there are (for worshipers) better choices available, the worship of deities demanding human sacrifice will tend to be confined to unhappy regions where people have no religious freedom, because powerful Evil clerics, perhaps with the help of Evil Outsiders, violently repress the worship of any deity except for the clerics' own bloodthirsty patron.

Where worshipers are free to choose, many of them may choose morally Neutral deities who require sacrifices short of killing, or who require the sacrifice of animals (or perhaps equally sentient creatures of species regarded as less morally significant than one's own – but this arrogant attitude starts to lean toward Evil, I think). Selfish people who are not compulsively Evil might prefer morally Neutral deities of this kind over purely Good or Evil ones, because for them, the benefits (mostly to oneself) outweigh the costs (mostly to others).

Good deities shouldn't require any sacrifice other than self-sacrifice, and this should usually fall short of suicide, because it can't serve the cause of Good deities if paladins simply throw themselves at superior enemies. Good deities should favor benefits that are shared as widely as possible, and which in the end outweigh the sacrifices that were made by a few brave heroes to get them.

I mentioned this already, but I guess I wasn't too clear about this: this only works if the power of gods is independent of worship. If no one worships Rampagador Murderkill the Bloodfrenzied, he will level your town because he is insulted. He won't fade away because no one thinks of him.

[Prime32]

You could always go the route where worship maintains a god's mental abilities, not its physical ones. If a god isn't worshipped enough then they gradually lose control over their powers and mind. A forgotten god regresses to an animalistic or vegetative state; in either case they retain all their powers.

To put it another way, the god of storms doesn't just control storms, he is all storms collectively. While they're being worshipped as a god, storms can decide where to strike. While they're not, they can't.

[nedz]

I mentioned this already, but I guess I wasn't too clear about this: this only works if the power of gods is independent of worship. If no one worships Rampagador Murderkill the Bloodfrenzied, he will level your town because he is insulted. He won't fade away because no one thinks of him.

Or RMB takes pre-emptive action to damage the town should the worship ever start to fall off.

[Nepenthe]

This idea came from another thread I was reading, where people got a bit off-topic into their ideas about D&D gods.

It seems to me that the cults of evil D&D gods come mainly in two flavours. Evil, virgin-sacrificing empires oppressing the population with their undead and demon troops, and secret underground cults who sacrifice virgins to demons to either become said evil empires or destroy the world. (Substitute other evil goals as necessary.)

Now, take into account that the D&D gods are pretty close to the Roman, Greek and other antique gods in the way they act. They have human(oid) personalities. If they get annoyed, they blow up cities or curse people.

So, what if clerics, instead of (or in addition to) furthering their god's philosophies and causes, also had an obligation by society to appease their gods, to keep their wrath away?

I think a few things in society would change for the interesting. The local cleric of the god of slaughter and darkness is feared, sure, but he is also respected. His weekly blood sacrifice doesn't summon demons to destroy the city, it prevents that from happening. Praying to the evil storm god keeps your city's ships safe in battle. Gods from all over the alignment spectrum have prominent temples in the city.

Conversely, how would people see the more good gods and their priests? Are they taking the easy way, appeasing those gods who are easier to please and mostly benevolent anyway? Or are all gods essentially that way, the cosmic equivalent of petulant children who have to be bribed into not killing you?

What do people think of this?

This is brilliant. And it highlights something I dislike about FR but have never been able to put my finger on (that it makes this kind of thing difficult).

[ThiagoMartell]

This is brilliant. And it highlights something I dislike about FR but have never been able to put my finger on (that it makes this kind of thing difficult).

...but that's exactly how it works in FR. :smallconfused:

[Kuulvheysoon]

This is brilliant. And it highlights something I dislike about FR but have never been able to put my finger on (that it makes this kind of thing difficult).


...but that's exactly how it works in FR. :smallconfused:

Psyren even pointed it out and presented examples... in one of the first what, five posts?


That's already how it happens in Faerun. Sailors make offerings to Umberlee before they set sail, despite knowing that she's a total b- uh, that is, not a very nice person, just in case. Offerings are made to Talos and Malar for similar reasons. And everybody donates to Beshaba, to avert her attention rather than to attract it.

[willpell]

Deities and Demigods makes it very clear that the official canon answers are only there as default examples; you are encouraged, when building your own campaign world, to decide whether gods depend on worship, how much they involve themselves in the world, whether they're good or evil, and so forth. The idea that some gods are worshipped to keep their wrath at bay is floated in that book as well. It doesn't go far enough to provide you with tools to understand exactly how these changes will affect your game, but it's a start at least.


Yeah but isn't that part of the thrill? You as an adventurer have to earn your place in the world. And even if you are an epic player on the world stage, you still have to be cautious.

It doesn't sound much like my idea of a good time (though of my reasons for hating FR, it ranks behind "all atheists are doomed to suffer forever," as well as the general expectation that you have to memorize a map and timeline in order to play). I do like the idea that the character starts out as nothing special and that the heavy lifting is being done by others, as this is theoretically great immersion, but when those others are still at center-stage even once you match them in levels, and their iconic status keeps the focus on them despite you being the PC, that's a problem.


Mask's priests would be very respected in the population, since properly paid church taxes (perhaps ritually stolen during mass by a priest in a ninja suit) would keep thieves out of the city.

This is beautiful. :smallbiggrin:


The problem with deities who demand painful sacrifice is that anyone with the freedom to choose a less demanding deity will do so. So if less demanding deities exist and people are free to worship them instead, why would anyone worship more demanding deities?

There are such things as abusive relationships in the real world, as well as the entire BDSM community (I want to be clear that I am not drawing a parallel between the two, they are as different as burglary and a swap-meet). Some people have a deep-seated psychological need to suffer, and others enjoy a supreme challenge, and still others are just so desperate to belong that they'll go to utterly ridiculous lengths to earn even the tiniest scrap of approval from whoever they've (unwisely, to everyone other than them) bonded with. You don't always get to choose what your emotions will do, and decisions about things as personal as love or faith are not always (or even "often") made on the basis of reason.


The worship of gods who are benevolent only if they are appeased by blood offerings would be truly widespread only in a world in which there were no alternatives, that is, in a world in which pretty much all deities had this bifurcated personality.

People who are accustomed to the bloodthirsty types have probably been thoroughly indoctrinated to believe in the need for this kind of "fair" exchange or "necessary" cost of living, and would be likely to react with extreme skepticism to anyone who claims you can have a god's favor without suffering to earn it. Think of Nigerian scams that offer you millions of dollars if you'll just provide your credit card number, or being offered sexual favors by someone waaaaay out of your league for no visible reason if only you'll let them in your house...if someone claims to want to give you wealth, power, happiness or the like, just because you're that special and with no strings attached, what's more likely - that you really are that special, or that there's some serious entrapment going on? This is another thing that could vary by deity, alignment, and culture.


Good deities shouldn't require any sacrifice other than self-sacrifice, and this should usually fall short of suicide, because it can't serve the cause of Good deities if paladins simply throw themselves at superior enemies. Good deities should favor benefits that are shared as widely as possible, and which in the end outweigh the sacrifices that were made by a few brave heroes to get them.

Or such is the theory, although IMO D&D's version of "Good" is extremely lacking.


Sailors make offerings to Umberlee before they set sail, despite knowing that she's a total b- uh, that is, not a very nice person.

And, in fact, apparently demands to be referred to as the "b**** queen". wince


You could always go the route where worship maintains a god's mental abilities, not its physical ones. If a god isn't worshipped enough then they gradually lose control over their powers and mind. A forgotten god regresses to an animalistic or vegetative state; in either case they retain all their powers. To put it another way, the god of storms doesn't just control storms, he is all storms collectively. While they're being worshipped as a god, storms can decide where to strike. While they're not, they can't.

This is another absolutely brilliant idea.

[Eldan]

Originally Posted by Eldan
Mask's priests would be very respected in the population, since properly paid church taxes (perhaps ritually stolen during mass by a priest in a ninja suit) would keep thieves out of the city.

This is beautiful.

Here, I was thinking of the idea of Japanese stage helpers, actually, where the idea of black ninja suits come from. Guys wearing black suits are invisible in traditional theater, since they are not part of the performance, they are stage helpers.
So an acolyte would dress in a way that would tell the audience that they should pretend not to see him, then he would walk around the temple and take away small packets of money they "accidentally" left lying around.

[Psyren]

You could always go the route where worship maintains a god's mental abilities, not its physical ones. If a god isn't worshipped enough then they gradually lose control over their powers and mind. A forgotten god regresses to an animalistic or vegetative state; in either case they retain all their powers.

To put it another way, the god of storms doesn't just control storms, he is all storms collectively. While they're being worshipped as a god, storms can decide where to strike. While they're not, they can't.

I do like this - so long as an overdeity, another deity, or even a powerful mortal can seize that god's portfolio if things start to get out of hand.

But here again, FR kinda works this way (at least in Mystra's case.) She was never forgotten, but the rest applies (i.e. being Magic) so whenever she dies all hell breaks loose in Toril.

[Lord_Gareth]

I do like this - so long as an overdeity, another deity, or even a powerful mortal can seize that god's portfolio if things start to get out of hand.

I have to disagree on this one. I prefer my gods sans overdeity, and often with very little official idea of what they're doing. Not to imply that I prefer incompetent gods, far from it - more along the lines that I like the idea that gods are learning the gig as they go along, and are thus sometimes inclined to make mistakes.

If nothing else, it provides some interesting plot hooks when the cleric is suddenly overwhelmed by a vision from his patron commanding him to find converts for the church of a rival deity, lest all of nature come crashing down.

[Acanous]

Also don't forget that some people do a lot better with direct guidance.
If you've got one god who is all about freedom and doing what you want, you really don't know what gets you in her good graces and what'll get you smote.
If you've got another god who likes blood sacrifices and hates the colour Blue, you don't wear blue and sack a chicken or something every day.