Why are shadows associated with darkness?

[Bicorn]

If anything they should be associated with light since.. You know they are created by it.

[InvisibleBison]

Shadows are associated with darkness because shadows are darkness.

[LibraryOgre]

Shadows are a chunk of darkness, surrounded by light. As primarily diurnal creatures with relatively poor night vision, shadows represent an encroaching threat onto the safety of light.

[Beans]

Shadows are created by light only in the sense that they exist as areas of darkness contrasted by surrounding light; without significant surrounding light to contrast darkness, we don't call it shadows, we call it "who turned off the ligh---WHOOPS *trip and fall*".

[Max_Killjoy]

If anything they should be associated with light since.. You know they are created by it.

When it's nighttime on earth, we're in a shadow.

However, my favorite quote about darkness:


“Light thinks it travels faster than anything, but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.” -- Terry Pratchett, in Reaper Man

.

[KillianHawkeye]

If anything they should be associated with light since.. You know they are created by it.

Shadows aren't created by light, they're created when light is being obstructed. They're the outline of negative space of where light SHOULD be but isn't.

Also, what Mark Hall said.

[Millstone85]

What has been said.

From a fantasy angle though, I like the power of shadows and reflections being distinct from the struggle of light and darkness.

[Cluedrew]

From a purely physics perspective (the amount of photons in the visible spectrum in that area) the is no difference between shadows and darkness. So why should we not associate a thing with itself?

From a symbolic perspective, it has already been covered.

[Knaight]

Darkness is just the absence of light in the visible spectrum of the observer. Absolute darkness, where there's not even a single photon in the entire region being looked at, is comparatively rare across macroscopic regions. Comparative darkness, where the photon density is lower than elsewhere but not zero, is extremely common. Shadows are a case of comparative darkness - the shaded area has a lower photon density than those around it, and is thus darker.

[DataNinja]

Sounds like my kind of thread. :smalltongue:

To be honest, though, it's really already been covered. It's because it's the absence of light, small pockets of night, a place where you have to bring your own illumination to see the monsters that are hiding. Light is often associated with safety. So anything that takes that away isn't really going to be associated with it.

[LibraryOgre]

What has been said.

From a fantasy angle though, I like the power of shadows and reflections being distinct from the struggle of light and darkness.

Oooooh... Light v. Darkness and Reflections v. Shadows are moral and ethical axes...

[veti]

Well, it's all relative, innit?

Humans are much better at seeing contrast than they are at measuring actual levels of anything. Consider: if I put a glass of milk on the table in front of you, could you tell me if it contains (within 1 cc or so) exactly half a pint? Probably not. But if I put two similar glasses with different levels, you could tell at a glance which one contained more milk.

On a bright, sunny day, my shadow - is still a lot brighter, as gauged by any scientific measure, than the same patch of ground would be on a moonless light (all other things being equal). But compared with the surrounding ground, it's much darker. Hence the shadow is darkness, because of the contrast with the light.

[Stealth Marmot]

It's because they know what darkness lies in the hearts of men.

[Knaight]

Humans are much better at seeing contrast than they are at measuring actual levels of anything. Consider: if I put a glass of milk on the table in front of you, could you tell me if it contains (within 1 cc or so) exactly half a pint? Probably not. But if I put two similar glasses with different levels, you could tell at a glance which one contained more milk.

On a bright, sunny day, my shadow - is still a lot brighter, as gauged by any scientific measure, than the same patch of ground would be on a moonless light (all other things being equal). But compared with the surrounding ground, it's much darker. Hence the shadow is darkness, because of the contrast with the light.

That similar glasses bit is pretty key though - volume is one of the things we're pretty bad at. Then there's the various optical illusions around line length and the like, things feeling colder and warmer based on heat transfer rates and not temperature, and so many other things. Of course, the end result is still that the way we see things is influenced by the environment they're in, and shadows are by definition low light zones in their own immediate environment.

[Blackhawk748]

Oooooh... Light v. Darkness and Reflections v. Shadows are moral and ethical axes...

I kinda wanna codify this into an actual alignment system now.....

[Amaril]

A Song of Ice and Fire plays with this. It has a religion devoted to R'hllor, the Lord of Light, whose servants are shadows. The idea being that shadows can only exist if there's light to cast them. It's a neat inversion, though I agree with everyone else saying it generally makes more sense to associate shadows with darkness than with light.

[Millstone85]

Oooooh... Light v. Darkness and Reflections v. Shadows are moral and ethical axes...
I kinda wanna codify this into an actual alignment system now.....What I meant is that I like the idea of a magic that deals with shadows, reflections, afterimages, echoes and other such imprints, typically leading to a clone technique or to a manipulation of the original through its likeness. And I like that being different from the magic of darkness.

For example, compare the Shadow-Shadow and Dark-Dark devil fruits.

[The Eye]

"There are no shadows in the dark. Shadows are the servants of the light, the children of fire. The brightest flame casts the darkest shadows.”
– Melisandre (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Shadow_assassin)

It does make sense, I guess that's just another way to see it. I remember the Shadow card in Sakura Card captor was also empowered by light.

hen again, Melisandre is an evil witch from a horrible and dark land that loves to burn people alive so, she may lying about this whole Shadows = Light thing.

[Amaril]

"There are no shadows in the dark. Shadows are the servants of the light, the children of fire. The brightest flame casts the darkest shadows.”
– Melisandre (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Shadow_assassin)

I does make sense, I guess that's just a way to see it. I remember the Shadow card in Sakura Card captor was also empowered by light.

hen again, Melisandre is an evil witch from a horrible and dark land that loves to burn people alive so, she may lying about this whole Shadows = Light thing.

I don't think she's lying--it's just that light doesn't necessarily equal good in the A Song of Ice and Fire universe.

[The Eye]

I don't think she's lying--it's just that light doesn't necessarily equal good in the A Song of Ice and Fire universe.

Oh, that's most certain.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm pretty sure I can count on my hands with fingers to spare the number of Game of Thrones characters that I'd actually consider to be "good" in a D&D sense.

[The Eye]

I'm pretty sure I can count on my hands with fingers to spare the number of Game of Thrones characters that I'd actually consider to be "good" in a D&D sense.

But we are talking about metaphysical concepts rather than people.

[KillianHawkeye]

But we are talking baout metaphysical concepts rather than people.

I guess my point was that, outside of a very select handful of characters, pretty much nothing in the Game of Thrones 'verse qualifies as Good. Metaphysical concepts included.

[daniel_ream]

But we are talking about metaphysical concepts rather than people.

Actually we're talking about modern physics, in particular optics, and backporting it into a fantasy realm where modern physics doesn't apply.

Shadows are associated with darkness because when Marduk, who is exalted as Suhrim, who with his weapons roots out all enemies and scatters them to the winds did slay Tia-Mat, who gave birth to the hosts of demons, the Nine and Ninety Shadows of Tia-Mat did flee and conceal themselves from Marduk, who is also Namru who illumines our ways, in the dark corners of the firmament he fashioned from the body of Tia-Mat whom he hath slain.

This is why when we see the shadows lurking beyond the reaches of our cook fires we stretch out our hands and cry " Ea! Ea! Tuku whose holy spell our mouths murmur!" that they might recall the great Marduk who is Marutukku, the refuge of the land, and be afraid.

[Pugwampy]

Its a game dude . You are not supposed to think too hard on the physics on the subject matter.

[Cluedrew]

To daniel_ream: {Claps}

To Pugwampy: Welcome to Giant in the Playground Forums, where we do that anyways.

[Knaight]

Actually we're talking about modern physics, in particular optics, and backporting it into a fantasy realm where modern physics doesn't apply.

Said fantasy realm routinely has a technological level past when a fair amount of optics were discovered. Even putting aside the whole existence of the spyglass as an item, there's a general 1500's aesthetic in a lot of ways. Ibn Al Haytham and Roger Bacon had both done optics work well before then, and it was significantly more complicated than "shadows are still brighter than actual darkness", which is roughly the observable end of what's being talked about here.

[Blackhawk748]

Said fantasy realm routinely has a technological level past when a fair amount of optics were discovered. Even putting aside the whole existence of the spyglass as an item, there's a general 1500's aesthetic in a lot of ways. Ibn Al Haytham and Roger Bacon had both done optics work well before then, and it was significantly more complicated than "shadows are still brighter than actual darkness", which is roughly the observable end of what's being talked about here.

And yet DnD seems to have a distinct lack of Guns, even though they have Plate.

[Max_Killjoy]

Said fantasy realm routinely has a technological level past when a fair amount of optics were discovered. Even putting aside the whole existence of the spyglass as an item, there's a general 1500's aesthetic in a lot of ways. Ibn Al Haytham and Roger Bacon had both done optics work well before then, and it was significantly more complicated than "shadows are still brighter than actual darkness", which is roughly the observable end of what's being talked about here.


And it also depends on the nature of the setting.

IF a setting is supposed to be "our history, but with magic" or something like it... then just because people in some ancient time may have thought that shadows were dark spirits fleeing the light of sun and fire, that didn't ever actually make it so. It was still photons and relative illumination levels and so on, regardless of what the people of some place or time believed.

[The Eye]

Actually we're talking about modern physics, in particular optics, and backporting it into a fantasy realm where modern physics doesn't apply.

Shadows are associated with darkness because when Marduk, who is exalted as Suhrim, who with his weapons roots out all enemies and scatters them to the winds did slay Tia-Mat, who gave birth to the hosts of demons, the Nine and Ninety Shadows of Tia-Mat did flee and conceal themselves from Marduk, who is also Namru who illumines our ways, in the dark corners of the firmament he fashioned from the body of Tia-Mat whom he hath slain.

This is why when we see the shadows lurking beyond the reaches of our cook fires we stretch out our hands and cry " Ea! Ea! Tuku whose holy spell our mouths murmur!" that they might recall the great Marduk who is Marutukku, the refuge of the land, and be afraid.

What in the nine hells you are talking about?

And what does Marduk has to do with modern optics?

[oudeis]

@The Eye

Who cares about modern optics? That was some cool mythology I'd never read before.

[Max_Killjoy]

@The Eye

Who cares about modern optics? That was some cool mythology I'd never read before.



It started out cool but ended up with too many recursive "who is also" loops.

[daniel_ream]

It started out cool but ended up with too many recursive "who is also" loops.

Do you even mythology (http://www.piney.com/EnumaSpeis6a7.html), bro?

[Max_Killjoy]

Do you even mythology (http://www.piney.com/EnumaSpeis6a7.html), bro?

I'm guessing the answer is "no", but I also don't speak "bro" and Google translate isn't much help.

That sort of "50 names" thing and confusion over who is who, comes mainly from ancient syncretism as local faiths merged into regional faiths and disagreements arose as to who was actually who or equivalent to who or related to who... see examples where gods end up as their own ancestors, or the competing family trees of the Greek gods as presented by different authors.

For settings where deities and spirits are real, I'm more interested in how religious beliefs would grow in that different soil, rather than simply duplicating the religious trappings of a world in which it's easy for disagreements to arrise about deities and their relationships and so on... because none of them are real. See also, the trappings of magic vs how magic would be approached were it actually functional.

[daniel_ream]

That sort of "50 names" thing and confusion over who is who, comes mainly from ancient syncretism as local faiths merged into regional faiths and disagreements arose as to who was actually who or equivalent to who or related to who...

More secular modernism bleeding back into a fantasy world where the gods are real and deeply involved with everyday life, and everything is magical.

If you'd ever bothered to mythology, bro, you'd know that the Nine and Ninety Shadows of Tiamat aren't part of any historical mythology. I made them up. The Enuma Elish exists, but I took parts of it that sounded good and made up some new stuff and used it to create a bit of in-universe lore.

Kind of like people do all the time in RPGs by starting with things like "swords" and "castles" and "chain mail" and then adding things like "dungeons" and "dragons".

Just because Harn exists on one end of the setting spectrum doesn't mean Mythic Mesopotamia doesn't exist on the other.

[Max_Killjoy]

More secular modernism bleeding back into a fantasy world where the gods are real and deeply involved with everyday life, and everything is magical.


"The gods are real" and "mashup mythology" (ie, "our god X is your god Y's father" vs "no, our god Y is your god X's father") are probably not functionally compatible.




If you'd ever bothered to mythology, bro, you'd know that the Nine and Ninety Shadows of Tiamat aren't part of any historical mythology. I made them up.


Yes, you did. I never said didn't make it up, and never said that any one part of it was real. You were quite clearly riffing on existing myth. But that's largely beside the point.

[Jay R]

When you are in shadow, you are in darkness.
When you come out of the shadows, you come out of the darkness.
The land of Mordor where the shadows lie is the land of Mordor where the darkness lies.

But when you shine a light on a shadow, the shadow disappears.

[daniel_ream]

"The gods are real" and "mashup mythology" (ie, "our god X is your god Y's father" vs "no, our god Y is your god X's father") are probably not functionally compatible.

Only if you assume that gods are bound by mortal notions of time, biology or familial inheritance law.

Which, being gods, they probably aren't.

But getting there requires one to stop thinking like a secularist modern.

[Max_Killjoy]

Only if you assume that gods are bound by mortal notions of time, biology or familial inheritance law.

Which, being gods, they probably aren't.

But getting there requires one to stop thinking like a secularist modern.


So... abandon empiricism and reason for the sake of myth and superstition?

Nah.

I think I'll stick with settings with an objective reality, where the present can't edit the past, and mutually contradictory assertions can't simultaneously be "true". You know, like our universe has always been, and always will be, regardless of what fool notions people get in their heads.

[Cluedrew]

Which, being gods, they probably aren't.I enjoy some interpretations that just ignore day to day logic in gods and other divine matters.

"What, if you have it trapped in a cage, how can it still be omnipresent?"
"Admittedly the main reason we are sure it is trapped is that it continues to try and escape."

Swordsaged, and if it is more fun that way, by all means.

[daniel_ream]

I think I'll stick with settings with an objective reality, where the present can't edit the past, and mutually contradictory assertions can't simultaneously be "true". You know, like our universe has always been, and always will be, regardless of what fool notions people get in their heads.

I'm curious what settings those are. Even Harn has magic. Montsegur 1244, perhaps.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm curious what settings those are. Even Harn has magic. Montsegur 1244, perhaps.

I didn't say "without magic".

I said "where the present can't edit the past, and mutually contradictory assertions can't simultaneously be "true"."

[Bicorn]

But when you shine a light on a shadow, the shadow disappears.

Hey I just got up and did that with a flashlight and it worked. Now I can see why light harms shadows. Thanks dude I can't thank you enough! This has been tormenting me for years.

I guess the case has been solved we can close this thread.

[DataNinja]

But when you shine a light on a shadow, the shadow disappears.

Stop doing that. I like being around! :smalltongue:

[daniel_ream]

I didn't say "without magic".

I said "where the present can't edit the past, and mutually contradictory assertions can't simultaneously be "true"."

Real-world physics and magic are mutually contradictory. And a single divination spell breaks causality.

The problem with all this "Ooby-doo, I only like perfect clockwork universes" is that it's a fool's errand. You've just decided to accept a different set of mutually contradictory assertions in your fantasy world than most of the rest of us, and you're copping an attitude of moral superiority that your set is somehow "better".

[KillianHawkeye]

Hey I just got up and did that with a flashlight and it worked. Now I can see why light harms shadows. Thanks dude I can't thank you enough! This has been tormenting me for years.

I guess the case has been solved we can close this thread.

I feel like this was a sarcastic response, but I'm honestly not sure.... :smallconfused:

[GorinichSerpant]

I feel like this was a sarcastic response, but I'm honestly not sure.... :smallconfused:

There was the idea of light vs darkness and shadow vs reflection as an alignment system. That could be discussed in depth, but probably on a different thread.

[Pronounceable]

1) Shadows aren't associated with darkness. Darkness is associated with shadows, because God of Shadows kidnapped and married the daughter of the God of Darkness and will one day inherit his position too.

2) What is this optics you speak of?

3) Shadows (the undead ones) hide in darkness because they're ambush predators, which has led to a false correlation in our minds.

4) Every time a wizard casts a Darkness spell, a shadow (the undead ones) is born in Shadowfell.

5) It was the God of Darkness who kidnapped and married the niece of the God of Shadows and will one day inherit his position too, and those pesky worshippers of God of Shadows are a bunch of lying heretical scum we will purge with maces when the time comes.

6) No seriously, what's an optic preciousss?

[Lord Raziere]

Real-world physics and magic are mutually contradictory. And a single divination spell breaks causality.

The problem with all this "Ooby-doo, I only like perfect clockwork universes" is that it's a fool's errand. You've just decided to accept a different set of mutually contradictory assertions in your fantasy world than most of the rest of us, and you're copping an attitude of moral superiority that your set is somehow "better".

Yeah, I on the other hand just accept all contradictory explanations then turn them into subjective explanations from the point of view of one person or another for my settings. Some magic obeys one model, another magic obeys another, but the true shape isn't something that is really important. In other cases the rules are simply different depending on where you are.

-for some, shadows are an absence of light
-for others, shadows are a physical darkness
-for others, they are portals to the plane of darkness
-for others shadows are living beings that want to break free by grabbing clothes and dwelling under the clothes so that the sun doesn't burn them away.
-For others still, shadows are the first thing summoners call up and their most loyal summoned being

Far more options that way and therefore its far more fun than being bound by one rule.

[Cluedrew]

I feel like this was a sarcastic response, but I'm honestly not sure.... :smallconfused:Yeah, I'm going back and forth between annoyed sarcasm and joking overly-dramatic.

[Max_Killjoy]

Real-world physics and magic are mutually contradictory.


First, see other discussion about "definition of magic".

Second, "where the present can't edit the past, and mutually contradictory assertions can't simultaneously be "true"." doesn't necessitate or even imply a carbon-copy of real-world physics. It could just mean "enough like the real world that when magic isn't involved, it's hard to tell the difference" -- which allows for the setting to be fairly coherent, and for players and GM to have a better shared grounding in what's possible, how the characters and their surroundings interact, etc.




And a single divination spell breaks causality.


Not if the spells are revealing possible/probable outcomes, rather than set-in-stone futures. And really, regardless of the setting, I'd never have divination spells that reveal set-in-stone unchangeable futures. I don't see that being compatible with player agency or the randomized nature of most RPG rules. It would become the ultimate railroad.




The problem with all this "Ooby-doo, I only like perfect clockwork universes" is that it's a fool's errand. You've just decided to accept a different set of mutually contradictory assertions in your fantasy world than most of the rest of us,


Or not, but you'd have to slow down and take in what's actually been posted, instead of jumping to attack mode.




and you're copping an attitude of moral superiority that your set is somehow "better".


This from the guy who says "do you even mythology, bro?" and that "ooby-doo" comment. Pull the log out of your own eye. The condescension and disdain are dripping off your posts.




Yeah, I on the other hand just accept all contradictory explanations then turn them into subjective explanations from the point of view of one person or another for my settings. Some magic obeys one model, another magic obeys another, but the true shape isn't something that is really important. In other cases the rules are simply different depending on where you are.

-for some, shadows are an absence of light
-for others, shadows are a physical darkness
-for others, they are portals to the plane of darkness
-for others shadows are living beings that want to break free by grabbing clothes and dwelling under the clothes so that the sun doesn't burn them away.
-For others still, shadows are the first thing summoners call up and their most loyal summoned being

Far more options that way and therefore its far more fun than being bound by one rule.


And when the conflicting explanations have to interact? What then?

[Millstone85]

Real-world physics and magic are mutually contradictory.This is setting dependent.

You can have a setting where all physics are an ongoing magical effect. Here, magic doesn't just manipulate gravity, magic is the reason there is any gravity anywhere at any time. However, there may be difficultly mutable laws of magic.

You can have a setting where magic and physics are wholly distinct. Magic itself doesn't obey physics, but so would a magnifying glass still work in an area from which magic is gone, because optics are a thing that is nonmagical.

You can have a setting where magic has a physical explanation, albeit a sci-fi one. Be sure to use expressions like "sufficiently advanced technology", "sufficiently evolved life form", "thaumic particles" or "five-dimensional energy field".

[2D8HP]

1) Shadows aren't associated with darkness. Darkness is associated with shadows, because God of Shadows kidnapped and married the daughter of the God of Darkness and will one day inherit his position too.

2) What is this optics you speak of?

3) Shadows (the undead ones) hide in darkness because they're ambush predators, which has led to a false correlation in our minds.

4) Every time a wizard casts a Darkness spell, a shadow (the undead ones) is born in Shadowfell.

5) It was the God of Darkness who kidnapped and married the niece of the God of Shadows and will one day inherit his position too, and those pesky worshippers of God of Shadows are a bunch of lying heretical scum we will purge with maces when the time comes.

6) No seriously, what's an optic preciousss?

I just like the mythic resonance of this post so much (also the humor).

Thank you Pronounceable!

[Cluedrew]

"The gods are real" and "mashup mythology" (ie, "our god X is your god Y's father" vs "no, our god Y is your god X's father") are probably not functionally compatible.Have you listened to the news lately? I have to regretfully inform you that I think that level of disconnect is entirely possible even before you start messing with how the universe works. And things can really get weird.

To Millstone85: I think "real world" physics is not actually setting dependent, because the setting has been specified. Now the physics of a particular setting, then that holds for everything you said.

[Milo v3]

The very existence of this thread confuses me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Have you listened to the news lately? I have to regretfully inform you that I think that level of disconnect is entirely possible even before you start messing with how the universe works. And things can really get weird.


I was speaking of the underlying reality, not the things some people living in it might believe.

[Lord Raziere]

And when the conflicting explanations have to interact? What then?

Then it gets fun, and you have a plot for scientists! Just picture it: mutually contradictory explanations! Two towns arguing over it, a player who is say a wizard wanting to know the truth, going forth to investigate, to try and figure the different conditions under which such a thing is true but not the other, or even discover that BOTH explanations are true in a way that make sense:

-in turns out that shadows are portals to the plane of darkness, but each shadow leads to different home within, each with a different shadowfolk curious of the world of light and thus when they figure out how to break through the portal they jump out into the world of light through the portal! But of course they need to grab clothing to shield themselves from the sun
-a figure of the local religion seeing the wizards explanation as heresy and wanting to kill them to silence this truth so that they continue with their plot to destroy the other religion of the town next over.
-Meanwhile another person, a thief wants to keep this truth under wraps in the town that doesn't believe they're portals so that they can use the shadow-portals to steal stuff.
-A third town has an artifact that that renders shadows nothing but an absence of light, closing off the portals for whatever reason.
-While a nation over the other side of the continent has already figured out a summoning to summon shadowfolk from their homes so that they may experience the world of light without getting burned the by sun in exchange for reasonable labor services. They just haven't shared that spell outside that nation yet, so its not known to everyone.
-The Shadow Mages are wrong about the shadows being solid shadow though, their magic just alters shadows to make them act as if they are.
-Except in the process of your investigations you find out that a mage intends to make a new spell to enslave massive numbers of Shadow Folk as an army forever so that they can take over a nation for themselves!
-This in turn angers the Shadowfolk King to declare war on the entire World of Light and try to invade inr evenge.
-thus what started out as an investigation into why these two contradictory things both exist has become a massive fantasy epic and the wizard must go forth to persuade the Shadowfolk King to have emrcy and that you'll work on a spell to free them from the evil wizard's control.

Its all about figuring out how an exception can exist within the framework presented. After all water is water, except when heated to become water vapor or when it becomes cold enough to become ice, or when someone mixes it with something to become a tasty drink......

[The Glyphstone]

I was speaking of the underlying reality, not the things some people living in it might believe.

It wouldn't be the weirdest thing ever included in mythology, at least. If nothing else, use magic like 3.5's Teleport Through Time (or a similar time-travel ability) and God X/Y actually can simultaneously be each other's fathers.

[Segev]

To be fair, "Our god X is your god Y's father" need not be true for god X's followers to believe it. If you accept that gods are fallible beings and, in fact, are capable of lies, deceit, and just plain being wrong, themselves, then you can get a lot of religious dogma based in "fact" where there is dispute between different cults and clergies.

The X-Crawl version of the drow worship the norse god Loki, but they genuinely and honestly believe him to be the god of truth...because he told them he was, and they worship and believe in him. The other gods, they believe, are liars trying to slander their noble and honest deity. They are, of course, ENTIRELY wrong, but that doesn't make their belief any less real.

As long as no particular god really has a monopoly on true doctrine in your setting, it becomes nearly impossible to disentangle genuine facts from lies from philosophical beliefs from concepts lost and mangled in time. The more distant the gods are, the easier it is to have mixed-up beliefs, too. Lost doctrines and time-mangled traditions that require the god to take a more active hand to correct become feasible. The more active the gods are, the more a god's decision about what he WANTS his followers to believe (because it's useful to him), and the more dispute over active philosophy (as the god takes on a role of highest teacher...but may or may not be RIGHT about his philosophy vs. others) become sources of doctrinal conflict.

In one setting I ran, where the gods of particular races were literally the progenitors and/or first generations of their worshipping races, gnomes and trolls shared a pantheon. Gnomes viewed the troll gods as demonic, vile, evil deities, and trolls felt the same about the gnome gods. There was argument over who was the "parent" god, as well (the trolls' progenitor god was actually the son of the gnomes' progenitor goddess, but his followers didn't believe it because they couldn't stomach their god coming from what they viewed as so vile a goddess...so they painted him as her first and lawful husband whom she betrayed). And the two races LOATHED each other. As did their gods. Divinity wise, it was a massive family feud. The only point of fact that could be - potentially - clarified by honest assessment would be the lineage question. All the rest is mired in philosophy and a certain amount of "it's THEIR fault. THEY started it," that has some legitimacy and some self-delusion on all sides.

[Max_Killjoy]

To be fair, "Our god X is your god Y's father" need not be true for god X's followers to believe it. If you accept that gods are fallible beings and, in fact, are capable of lies, deceit, and just plain being wrong, themselves, then you can get a lot of religious dogma based in "fact" where there is dispute between different cults and clergies.

The X-Crawl version of the drow worship the norse god Loki, but they genuinely and honestly believe him to be the god of truth...because he told them he was, and they worship and believe in him. The other gods, they believe, are liars trying to slander their noble and honest deity. They are, of course, ENTIRELY wrong, but that doesn't make their belief any less real.

As long as no particular god really has a monopoly on true doctrine in your setting, it becomes nearly impossible to disentangle genuine facts from lies from philosophical beliefs from concepts lost and mangled in time. The more distant the gods are, the easier it is to have mixed-up beliefs, too. Lost doctrines and time-mangled traditions that require the god to take a more active hand to correct become feasible. The more active the gods are, the more a god's decision about what he WANTS his followers to believe (because it's useful to him), and the more dispute over active philosophy (as the god takes on a role of highest teacher...but may or may not be RIGHT about his philosophy vs. others) become sources of doctrinal conflict.

In one setting I ran, where the gods of particular races were literally the progenitors and/or first generations of their worshipping races, gnomes and trolls shared a pantheon. Gnomes viewed the troll gods as demonic, vile, evil deities, and trolls felt the same about the gnome gods. There was argument over who was the "parent" god, as well (the trolls' progenitor god was actually the son of the gnomes' progenitor goddess, but his followers didn't believe it because they couldn't stomach their god coming from what they viewed as so vile a goddess...so they painted him as her first and lawful husband whom she betrayed). And the two races LOATHED each other. As did their gods. Divinity wise, it was a massive family feud. The only point of fact that could be - potentially - clarified by honest assessment would be the lineage question. All the rest is mired in philosophy and a certain amount of "it's THEIR fault. THEY started it," that has some legitimacy and some self-delusion on all sides.


Which is all fine when talking about what the people in the setting subjectively believe. One is the mythology of their setting, the other is the reality. IMO, it's a very particular setting where subjective mythologies literally define the reality of that setting.

The confusion in discussion comes about when posters freely flip back and forth between what the people in the setting believe, and the objective reality of their setting, without being clear as to which one they're talking about at any moment.

[Segev]

Which is all fine when talking about what the people in the setting subjectively believe. One is the mythology of their setting, the other is the reality. IMO, it's a very particular setting where subjective mythologies literally define the reality of that setting.

The confusion in discussion comes about when posters freely flip back and forth between what the people believe in the setting believe, and the objective reality of their setting, without being clear as to which one they're talking about at any moment.

Oh, sure. What is objectively true should be known at least to the GM. Even if the players don't know it, and have to try to learn it through the auspices of play.

[veti]

Oh, sure. What is objectively true should be known at least to the GM. Even if the players don't know it, and have to try to learn it through the auspices of play.

The DM should probably have a reasonable idea of what's "objectively true", although I suspect a certain fuzziness around the edges is extremely common practice even at that level.

But I, personally, wouldn't expect that "objective truth" to be shared with anyone. Ever. Certainly not with the players, and probably not in a thread like this, unless talking about a historical setting that is never expected to be used again. All they know is what they perceive, and what they deduce for themselves from that perception, which may or may not be intentionally framed for the express purpose of shaping their belief...

And good luck to them.