“Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!”
I want to bring two ideas I use when dealing with worldbuilding religions in fantasy: It is particularly weird that a genre that so heavily draws from medieval Europe often has such a flimsy and superficial relation with faith. I understand that thinly veiled catholicism feels weird and lazy and from a mechanical point of view monotheism goes against the notion of domains. A way to solve this within a christian way is actually to use saints, which in a way are much closer to the smaller domestic gods of romans. A cleric following the path and phylosophy of a saint makes a lot of sense. When dealing with pantheons, it also makes a lot of sense that every culture in the setting has their own, with a lot of overlap but also slight differences. When romans got into contact with germanic tribes, they described Odin as Mercury. Similarly, there is a clear ancient relation between Thor and Zeus. Having gods with slightly different names and functions across the world makes a lot of sense in terms of culture and worldbuilding. It can also be interesting to explore how different cultures relate to the same concepts. Even if there is a sun god that is shared across cultures, it would make sense that its placement and mythology would vary slightly from a tropical civilization to one that lives in the polar circle. Doing this suggests there has been migrations, and cultural exchanges, which gives the impression of naturally emerging cultures. It also makes oddball gods pop up even more, since they make for an interesting break in the mold!
True with the "flimsy and superficial relation with faith". There are two shortcuts or hacks to religion though: 1. Why does someone follow a religion? The 3 Bs of religion: Believing, Belonging and Behaving. 2. Why do organized religions establish themselves as they do: Those in power or profiting from it have an incentive to keep things the way they are. What you said, for example, with some religions taking over others by reframing their holidays, gods and saints is a consequence of the two. This is why Christmas, for example, is on a certain day and not on another.
Saints were a powerful tool in converting pagan beliefs because of the similarity to pantheon religions. Santa Maria in Mexico is still set up like that to this day. Catholicism also emphasizes the mystery of faith, which is lost in 'transactional' systems.
I think having gods take multiple names and faces across cultures is going to be a lot to remember for most players. Make sure your players want to remember all of the intricacies of a convoluted faith before you make it.
There is literally no relation between Thor and Zeus other than the fact that Thor's the god of Storms and Zeus throws lightening as a weapon. Thor is a brash, but overall kind God who is the patron of farmers, common laborers, and common warriors. Mjolnir, The Crusher, requires that even Thor wear a magic belt and ring just to wield it and isn't even where Thors lightening and thunder come from. Those are from his chariot racing across the sky; pulled by his immortal goats which he eats as spare rations, which they then regenerate from. Zeus, if connected to *ANY* of the Æsir, is connected with Tyr, who used to be the chief of the Æsir before Odin was (based on archeology, not on any myth).
Tolkien did that, he had the one true God, Eru Illuvatar, and then he had under him multiple Maiar with different domains like the Greek pantheon, with the Satan figure being a rogue Maiar.
I think using a pantheon is so common for two main reasons. 1. It is the defeault set up within the rules. It was how Deities and Demigods was set up, and it works well with the default way the Planes are set up if you are using those things. 2. More importantly, it is unlike the ways people are practicing religion today. The more in line you bring faith in your game to one of the big religions, the more it is going to feel like a commentary. Most players are quite illiterate theologically and don't have the tools to interact and discuss real world belief systems in a constructive manner. OR they have very strong beliefs and may not appreciate having to discuss something similar to their beliefs, even if it is not the same, every game night.
You're spot on. While the D&D approach to polytheism is the default, it's not an accurate reflection of how real people in antiquity interacted with their gods anyway. In tabletop RPGs, we often have to make compromises, and faith ends up being one of them. You could certainly create complex, moralistic faiths that mirror real-world religions, but doing so risks overcomplicating the game and potentially making your players uncomfortable. It’s similar to running a large-scale battle: you could spend hours on detailed planning and use complex, historical wargame rules, but unless your group enjoys heavy simulation, it’s likely to feel like a slog. RPGs naturally simplify complex ideas to keep the game flowing and fun.
I agree with you on everything except people being theologically literate there's tons of people who will condemn religions as backwards and anti progress, and wont listen to any othe viewpoints. for example, r/atheism has about 3 mil followers (for perspective thats just under 1% of the US population)
@wildlifeecology-xy6dw I specifically said illiterate, as in the average person could not hold a meaningful conversation on theology. The average person has never read the Bible, or Quran, veydas, etc.
@@jacobdavidlet Though this may be true, introspection exists. It would suggest that people willingly shut themselves off from the consideration or exercise in such things. I think it has to be fear of believing as I've never heard an answer to it besides an emotional response in the negative. I'm sure there must be, but again, I've not come across it personally.
Totally agree. The problem is that the way religion works in most fantasy settings is that there isn’t any faith. Gods are 100% real and knowable, and communion with them is perfectly understood. That’s not faith, that’s certainty.
@@t.k7five084 Let's say for a second that you're right. They're still not knowable, and communion with them is at beast rare and not fully understood.
@@jorenvanderark3567 I'll agree it's not well understood, especially by laymen. But I don't think it is actually that rare. It's just usually not the sort of thing that gets press. I have a friend who was a hardcore atheist when we met, but he had a dramatic religious experience that made him a Christian. Again, nothing a reporter could really go on, but for those who know him it is very striking. Personally I've always been a believer, but since I started taking my faith more seriously I see God everywhere. It's very hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but it's not rare.
As someone who has jumped from Mesoamerican religious study to Old World religion and occultism, religion is incredibly potent for the development of character and worldbuilding in ways most writers unprepared for (let alone DMs or players). Understanding the mythological personae of the gods as a bunch of undying wizard bureaucrats who hold executive authority over the powers of nature is much easier than wrestling with the notion that the personae _belong_ to the principles, not the other way around. Zeus is easier to deal with if he's just a dude who throws lightning bolts and is kind of an ass, instead of a skinsuit worn by the font of the Storm, which may have no agency and cannot behave other than it does. The idea that the gods have a different structure than the magic-man-of-the-thing, or that gods might be heterogenous in structure, is often too intimidating for people. There's another consideration, which is how fair it is to other players. I'd love to roleplay my Old-Testament-style Kobold prophet going out into the desert, sacrificing a bull, then scattering its entrails and other viscera out in an imitative ritual of his deity creating the star signs (which, to the faithful, is _not_ imitation of but _participation in_ the essential creative act). But, how much of the session time is that occupying and how bored/alarmed/ill am I making the other players? Not just this but strong moral convictions beyond "Don't steal from/kill vaguely-defined innocent people," and "Slavery bad," usually don't play well at table, no matter how fun they might be to explore.
Its simple: most people, ESPECIALLY so-called 'nerds' (or whatever weirdoes have been replacing real nerds in their spaces) have a very distorted view of religion and mysticism born of the factors of how modern society think and is organized. Add in the simple fact that having a list of Gods with domains as a cheap way to allow Cleric options that are flavorful on the surface but conceptually very shallow and you get most handling of fantasy religions. Religion in fantastical setting is either used as vague window dressing or, when it is used in it its often reduced to an antagonistic force because of the very modern idea of religion=anti progress and anti-thinking.
Modern views of religion also have a heavy focus on those conflicts between religion and religious sects. Starting simply, Christian isn't the same as Muslim. To a more complicated Baptist isn't the same as Catholic. Then, to violent conflicts, like the various crusades to modern conflicts still influenced by religion. These conflicts, big and small, are what you want to explore with this system so people's views on it will come up. Atheist players, especially those with difficult or traumatic experiences with religion, are more likely to see these conflicts as being as petty as the Greek conflicts you're trying to avoid. You both read the same book but interpreted paragraph 6 on page 43 differently, so now you hate one another? You both think that somebody from your respective faiths stood on this rock at some point, and now you're going to war over who gets the city built on that rock? These are gross simplifications, but it's how some people feel, and it's the reaction some players will have to your world.
@grinninggoblin3698 This is kind of a strange point to make. What somebody thinks objectively outside of the game does not matter. If the character is bought into the world, their character is not going to be an atheist just because they themselves are. Meanwhile the Greek style conflicts are petty both objectively outside looking in but also through the lens of character. This is a key difference. If somebody told me they had a traumatic experience with religion or something and it impeded their ability to play in a game with an emphasis on religion, that player would simply not be allowed within the campaign.
@@Cbev1994 What exactly about it is what you are looking for? Or do you mean the story of Exodus, but it is easier to have people watch a movie than get them to read the Bible?
@@jacobdavidlet Moses was probably more torn up in the movie because he was raised as Ramses's brother. In Exodus he's raised as his cousin - and his actual mother was his wet nurse, so it wasn't some surprise that he was Hebrew.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments here. I wonder if part of the problem is in RPG's are created within a modernist and dare I say materialist paradigm. So all faith, monotheistic or pantheistic is simply transactional. Even the ancient greeks doubted their gods, and had things like the Eleusinian Mysteries, which there really isn't an equivalent in modern role-playing games. The modern view on a religions faith is that it is inherently personal and up to the individual. Which meshes well with getting your +1 to X, or proficiency in your personal deity's favored weapon. Ancient faith made claims on not just the individual, but laid out a cosmic vision for the world that the individual could participate in. Ritual is not just to effect internal change, but is seen as an externalization of said religion. To me, the gods in rpgs seem cut off from really leaving a mark on that reality. For example, in curse of strahd it always bothered me that there were powers that could carve out a pocket dimension of reality and trap peoples souls there, regardless of the influence of any other deity. It was like the gods didn't really influence the world or reality other than just giving players little stat bonuses. Which meant that the player characters can't be part of anything bigger than themselves, and faith boils down to personal gain! I felt it would be much more interesting if everyone in Barovia had participated in some kind of dark pact with strahd, and you were sent to weaken that pact and redeem those you could so the outside forces of good could finally crush that little pocket dimension of evil. At least that would feel more interesting to me than having the gods just shrug and look the other way.
From what I’ve read, what’s really interesting about Greek/roman paganism was that while there’s the sense that the gods are divided, flawed, petty, and fickle, there’s also the sense that the gods are favorable towards the moral (though pre Christian morality was pretty different than ours). They were very human, but if you were immoral enough you risked being divinely punished. This doesn’t make much sense until you realize that the pagans weren’t nearly as organized as the Christians and Jews, so their theology didn’t really have the internal consistency that Christian and Jewish scholars would work so hard to pursue (and often fight wars over). When Julian the apostate tried to make a unified pagan pseudo-church to compete with the Christian church, it just didn’t work.
@@samurguy9906 I would add, the roman's gods originally were not immoral at all. Romans activly disliked the storise some greek wrote about their's gods and only after they started adapting the greek style of religious practice when they started writing more human like gods. Originally roman gods were more protector to one-one action, like god of harvest, god of gates, god of cooking etc. etc. Other interesting thing is thet romans belvied thet the gods especailly favored rome as a city/state over other people, this made them unique compered to the greeks who had patron gods, but not neccesirly belvied thet their's city was the most special place on earth.
I write historical romantasy so religion is a huge part of my characters’ lives. The MMC in my upcoming Civil War romantasy novel is a devout Catholic and was even studying for the priesthood but enlisted in the Army because he was in seminary out of family obligation. He’s okay with being Catholic and he definitely struggles with his faith…and I found it added a great deal of depth and complexity but wasn’t preachy or dogmatic and it also highlighted the story’s themes of love, duty, honor, sacrifice and the struggles of being good and doing good in a time and place where survival is the law of the land. Well written religious struggles should have a place at the fiction table. It adds so much.
Ever since I started with D&D in university I’ve shied away from making gods too present in the world. Majoring in Philosophy exposed me to just enough medieval theology to make me appreciate the complex debates that arise when there is a possibility for ambiguity about what is dogma and what is heresy; and the interplay this creates between holy texts, clerical institutions and individual beliefs. Not that I ever found the time to flesh out centuries of fierce theological debate on aspects of religion that might seem trivial to most people just living their lives. But I at least wanted (and still want) there to be space for that in my game worlds; for people to debate the will of the gods, rather than just asking them. The real question that remains though is how to actually bring faith to life for the players like you describe here.
My opinion to answer your question is by making it of consequence. Not that you should enforce any sort of interactions but providing incentives to engage. Not through material rewards but through experiential rewards. I read somewhere that specific to 5e one of the most popular classes is warlock, specifically because of the interaction with their patron. I think people see those kinds of interactions and want in. That's not to say you should make the gods directly interact or converse with the players but by providing them SOMETHING the others don't get as a result of not engaging with faith.
@@TrillTheDM The relationship between warlock/patron is what I typically imagine to be a perverse reflection of what should be the ideal relationship between the pious/deity relationship. I think the reason why a lot of folks think it's fun is because they're guaranteed time in the limelight and usually given pretty pointed objectives with obvious consequences. That's the opposite of what you can expect with a typical faith-based relationship with a deity. I agree that maybe having more tangible or mechanical feedback would make players want to engage with a deity/saint more. Currently 5e doesn't really offer any way to do it, other than some homebrewing on alignments... "back in my day, paladins were lawful good!". The warlock/patron relationship is purely mechanical, and therefore transactional, whereas a faithful/deity has nearly no mechanics associated, relying mostly on RP. I'd almost make the argument that what brings faith to life is what the player brings to the table, very much mirroring real life, but that doesn't automatically make it fun for folks who play with those who are less-faith-inclined. It's possible that the playstyle of people who interact with gods in RPGs is simply a reflection of [religion in current year], and people dont take it seriously in game because, like others said, most people have little to know actual knowlege or piety in their personal lives. We can't fix the game for a problem that exists outside of it.
In my homebrew setting using Pathfinder 2e as a base I have three "types" of gods. The modern gods callled the "Pantheon" who are actually just really powerful ascended mortals with egos and rule kingdoms as god-kings. They're the most up front but also the weakest. Then there are the Old Gods that embody and rule over aspects of nature and reality. They're less understandable, more abstract and generally fearful and awe inspiring. Then there are the Primordials, which make up a creation trio that other, less powerful entities often refer to as the "true gods" but to mortals they are distant and obscure. Layers of faith, mystery and perspectives make for interesting interactions. One of my players characters was a staunch follower of the New God of Duty and Justice, but when confronted with a cult of an old god that protected a village from monsters using blood sacrifice (not full on murder but bloodletting) they were forced to grapple with the morality of what they were taught was evil, ect.
I really liked this video. To ne a lot of your points echoed sentiments or ideas I've picked up on while studying Tolkein and Chesterton, ESPECIALLY the last point you made about silent intervention, if any. I've been world building for some time now and am starting to write stories for the project and your video really got me to consider both possibilities and pitfalls. Again, really good video and thank you.
On a separate topic to my last comment; what stops Lich gods? If the true gods are silent snd inactive then other powerful entities may fill that slot. A lich has incredible powers that can be taught or learned, can be spoken to directly, and asks very little. A lich can save crops from drought by changing the weather, or cure wounds by brewing potions. Potions that can also be taught. The lich is wize, knowledgeable, and immortal. All they ask is a human sacrifice every now and again. You probably have plenty of criminals you were ready to hang or burn so thats perfect. Plus the Lich can raise an army of the dead, no one dies in war because they're already dead. Plenty of warriors with faith in the lich would happily be buried knowing their body will rise to defend their city. Thats only one example, but really any creature powerful enough can replace the gods in a more clear and direct way. Whats to stop true gods from losing all their followers because they chose to remain silent?
This kind of reminds me of Babylon, Rome, and Egypt where their rules would declare themselves gods just because they were immensely powerful in this world. So in short, there's nothing to stop them from doing that. Like in our world, God allows certain things to happen due to free will but he also is a big component of consequences of your actions. Not to get too into discussing Christianity and Judaism, but for example in Daniel God speaks to King Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel saying that "All authority in this world comes from Me and what I allow, and I can take it away just as easily." This is the summarization of it anyway. Oftentimes God allows these things due to our free will, while He is present and acting he prefers to limit Himself to allow us to grow and learn from our collective mistakes. Like how a child learns by doing and seeing what happens kind of thing. With the Lich declaring themselves a god the question you have to ask, sure they could do all these great things, but would they? Power tends to corrupt mortals, not always, but usually. It takes an absurdly strong moral code to not get corrupted by power like look at politicians or even RUclipsrs for how true that is. To prevent this corrupting influence they tend to need to believe in a moral code much greater than themselves in whatever way that takes. And really hold to those beliefs. And even if they do, there's no guarantee that even those morals won't get corrupted over time. History is littered with people performing atrocities who first started out with only the best of intentions.
That's an interesting idea for a lich being a ruler of a kingdom/city state. Good idea for both the villain or more neutral part of the worldbuilding. Even without that lich being actively worshipped/being a state relligion ruler like that would be treated by it's subjects with nearly relligious zeal. You don't even need human sacrifices in such scenario, just bodies. People die all the time, from old age, accidents and the like. Lich like that would be a pretty darn good ruler assuming that in your setting necromancy is not poisoning the land nonstop. If it's just a magical tool it'd allow a lich to create stable kingdom with absolutely massive army.
This is what happens in the Dark Sun setting. The Gods are gone, and a physical veil makes inter-plane travel nearly impossible. In a world as barren and as brutal as Athas, only the Sorcerer Kings rose to power, granting boons to their most loyal servants, while always being wary of them, lest one believes they can supplant the Sorcerer.
I wouldn't have them only ask a human sacrifice every now and than. I would have them start out sounding reasonable but their demands become more and more outrageous over time. They don't have it in them to just not ask for the most outrageous act of twisted devotion they think they can get away with. If they had the temperance for that, they would never have become lichs in the first place. The very hubris that starts them on this path inevitably leads them to their own destruction.
This is NOT too far! It's always good to push creativity outside of the comfortable boundaries. I, personally, have never seen this approach! And I'd be curious to try it out! That isn't to say our group has always used a pantheon. We've had everything from no gods at all, to a heaven/hell pseudo-Christian setup, to the typical pantheon. I think this can be a touchy subject for some people, which is why it might be done less. Or perhaps people think it has to be the conceit of the whole world or something. Either way, thanks for the video!
The only things that i don't agree, and maybe is just a misunderstanding, is on the more "transational" nature of the gods: african diasporic religions and icelandic sorcery (for example) have this very practical and very transational nature, still maintaining however the more "mystic" and mysterious, and even comunal aspects. Imho a videogame that have a more occult vibe to the divine is "Fear and Hunger", both of the two chapters, where the gods usually fluttuate between sentient agents and raw forces of existence, without setting on either. For the rest, i absolutely agree on creating "pantheons" that are more soft, more mysterious, and why not more ruthless kind of divinity: in my Savage Worlds game, Sanguinaccio is a faithful young man of Yacopse, the god of destruction (and a bunch of other stuff), and he have a really interesting view on him and his operate. For him, the god of destruction is a messianic entity of liberation through violence, and he plays the ritual and the divine gift accordially, seek fight not in a generic nihilist way but trying to kill bigger and more powerful (both physically, magically and socially) enemies (in particular monsters) for having the approval from the God.
I don't necessarily mind the transactional nature in theory because I think even in non polytheistic approaches there is a transactional nature even if it isn't as direct as the Greek style approach. I just think it's a heavy crutch that DM's will rely on. Instead of making the faith matter and putting emphasis on the (imo) right parts of religion and faith, instead it'll be handwaved in favor of a transactional set up. Do X receive Y.
@@TrillTheDM I'll say that it more about the fact that gods became some sort of bankomat that an actual agent, a force that if isn't truth it's really close to it. Polytheistic pantheon have a place, at the same time a more "soft" approach to world build can help to create the right amount of mysticism. And also, people should think of what themes want in their campaign and in their world build before ripping off the greek patheon without aknowledgin the cultural implication of it.
@@azaelvonhohenheim9570 Absolutely! I think that's a great point in addition to the video. Too many people look at the Greek pantheon approach as the default because of obvious system build ins (D&D being most egregious) and don't consider the larger implication in the setting.
This is a deep well that can go on for a while. When you've got such a meaty subject, don't be afraid to take a few more minutes to explore it further. I'd recommend The Great Courses "Myth in Human History" if you have an Audible account. It's easy to look at RPGs and pick on Pantheons, but they were far more typical of a belief structure than the monotheistic ones. You and I agree that faith/belief in RPGs is generally meaningless, particularly on the transactional nature you put forth to some extent. The transaction is mostly one direction, deity to faithful, with faithful to deity getting hand waved as many things do. Sure, there are some instances where so-called requirements of the faithful are listed, yet hand waved (not enforced), much in the same way that shopping for equipment gets hand waved. The big challenge with larger-than-life cosmic entities, which are more like forces of nature without regard to human sensibilities, is just that. Why would such a thing even know of the character's existence? Why would such an entity, even if it acknowledges a character's existence, bestow upon them or imbue them with any form of power? Another aspect is that it has nothing to do with RPGs; it's us, not it. To play the faithful is to play with more constraints or restrictions, not what you could "gain access to," but what the character does and should not do in the game? A cleric who refuses healing to characters who kill everything they encounter. A druid who distributes punishments to those who kill animals unnecessarily. It's a subject that can quickly illustrate why the moral dilemma is avoided in favor of what's "fun." For an actual game example, you can look no further than the early iteration of the Paladin, when Lawful Stupid was uttered because alignment and class restrictions became conflated with character personality and play style. When playing the faithful faithfully, you, the player, would be challenged to believe what faith means and how to roleplay it. Great video and a good subject; keep going.
@@stochasticagency Yeah I don't have any issues with the pantheon approach generally and actually think there's an insane amount of potential with it, should you have the time for it. It's moreso the implementation that I've seen. I agree fully with your second point. The further I get into playing and exploring TTRPGs though the more into these restrictions I am. Serious restrictions with heavy consequences that essentially force me to really dig in to understand and play a character. Appreciate it and I'll definitely give that course a look! Thanks for the suggestion.
@@TrillTheDM You've definitely put substantial effort into this and your other works. They're thoughtful and not just dismissive or reactionary. I encourage you to extend them a bit more, not jump to 1/2 hour, but this one could have gone to 15 minutes, and your active subscribers would still watch the whole thing. I, too, have been exploring play constraints by looking at what it means to play in "The Sandbox as a living reactionary world." Looking forward to the next upload.
I haven't finished the video yet, but I know a conundrum I had when thinking about religion in my own setting (a sci-fantasy setting I mostly use as a D&D setting): Sectarian conflict within a religion, and corruption of good religion in a setting where Paladins and Clerics exist and objectively do get powers from their deity. For example, in real life people of the same religion can have very different beliefs about what their deity wants of them, and you can have "dueling zealots" if you will. For example, a character like Zachary Hale Comstock from Bioshock Infinite, in contrast with someone like John Brown. Both would be equally fanatical, and they'd both *absolutely* hate each other. I needed a way to have "evil" Paladins of Good-aligned Deities. What I went with is that, while Paladins and Clerics do objectively get their powers from deities, it's not easy to prove which deity you're getting your powers from and it's quite possible for someone to deceive themselves on the matter. Thus, the setting's Satan-figure actually has a large number of fundie loons acting as his Paladins.
The "gods" in my setting are more like impersonal lenses through which the Divine Intellect shines. There are six and they come in matched pairs. Memory and Prophecy are two, for example. They are basically responsible for the way mortals perceive time. Give and Take are another pair. They influence how people interact with each other, and are called Domination and Submission by some. They're more like archangels than gods. The actual god is the Divine Intellect itself, which is the impersonal force of intelligence and order.
The question of doubt is interesting to me as well. Since, in my settimg, you can look up to the sky and see the face of god, aka the Mind's Eye. Whether god exists or which is the true god is irrelevant. People have a much more direct connection with the divine than we imagine for a typical fantasy setting. Different religious traditions are more about interpretation. Layered on top of this are traditions of ancestor worship, natural spirit reverence a la Shinto, and a bunch of other crap.
Amen Brother! - This is how religion is and how it matters not just to actual people but in stories meaningfully reflecting on religion. Any and every belief can see that.
I disagree with your little sentence on doubt. Gods can be real and present, but the doubt can still be there: Are they really helping? Really interested? Really good? What do they really want? And so on. I think it pays to look closer into the different forms of atheism for that one. For example, in a world where gods definitely do exist, misotheism could take really strange forms.
@@monkeibusiness Specifically I meant doubt in their existence but I agree with what you've said and probably could've been a bit clearer in the video.
Doubt could take all kinds of forms. Doubt in the relationship, doubt that their Faith isn't strong enough, doubt about the representatives of the "real and present" deities, doubt that they have acted appropriately while representing the deity.... Needs to be managed by the DM for any of this to be relevant
You can also bring the concept of dead gods in to cast doubt on them. What if there were past instances of interloper gods subjugating and killing a local deity and absorbing their domain and adopting their underlings and followers? If something theological or divine goes wrong some may start to question if their god has abandoned them or their church or society due to someone taking over. Or worse what if their god is dead and their prayers are being offered up to the conqueror that decides to act in defiance to their new subjects? The fact that a god can even be killed may rise to a sect of atheists or anti-theists that denounce the gods as nothing but powerful inter-planar wizards not worthy of devotion! This is actually already a faction in the Planescape setting and the concept is super sweet and was even the motivation for a resurrected PC-turned-BBEG in our long-running campaign!
People doubt things naturally in the material sense. It would need to be something more to doubt what is considered more than human and that usually manifests as doubt when one does not gain something in return or need met. Verses in the Bible say that despite miracles the people still rebelled or felt abandoned by God because he didn't make life entirely comfortable or weren't taking responsibility for their actions. Crisis of faith is different in that a vow is made between that god and individual and seems to be forgotten or betrayed. It could be a test and they do not see it. But when gods are acting just as human as their creations, the doubt is far more human in nature and different from dealing with others in that the consequence could be supernatural.
>"If the god is the person of a principle, like the Storm, do they have their own agency? Do they actually have a capacity for judgement, or are they bound by their natures to behave exactly as they will? What if, in this instance, they must defer to the other principle? My god may be righteous, but does that mean in this instance they are correct?" Lots of things you can do with that.
Just a pet peeve of mine but ppl have a really poor cultural understanding on greco-roman religion and how it was irl. And many historical aspects of it are basically what you describe, with deities holding power of seemingly opposite domains, like Dionysus being a god of madness yet also of sobriety, or Apollo of health yet also a plaguebringer. There were mystery cults that claimed to hold special knowledge of or connection to specific deities. Sometimes certain cults, even those of really mainstream deities were outright banned anf persecuted bc their worship was seen as breaking social cohesion (such as with Dionysus again, where his cults also focused on gender and class equality, social liberation, etc. It got banned in many greek kingdoms before being watered down and co-opted as state religion in many of them, but later on this didnt stop the romans from banning it and putting to death every single worshipper in the city due to its views on the social roles of women). Even religious conflict, though it was WAAYYYY rarer back then, than with the later monotheistic religions, it did kinda happen a couple times: . Once the state oracle of Rome declared that a crisis could be solved by bringing the relic of a certain deity to their own temple, so the romans invaded the city that had it when it refused to give it up. Another ocassion is when the greeks encountered the jews during their conquest of Persia, Alexander interpreted their religion as them worshipping Zeus and accepted them, one of his succesor generals believed the israelites actually worshipped an evil deity called Typhon, or the "anti-Zeus" and sought to helenize them (which led to the revolt of the Maccabes eventually). Pythagoras (the famous mathematecian) was also a mystic and was leading a cult that the locals of his area found to be so weird they chased him and his cultists out of their city, killing them when they could.
I enjoyed your essay and wanted to share my own experience with religion and faith in D&D. I don't know about other DMs but it's become hard for me to want to put much effort into writing religion/faith elements for campaigns. The last campaign I attempted I really wanted to explore the nuances of faith as a concept: how it helps people, how it hurts people, how it shapes society and day-to-day life, ect. I spent long hours writing a very comprehensive mythology surrounding nine greek-esq lesser deities and their relationship with a mysterious, remote, abrahamic-style "overgod." I was very upfront to my players that religion--and its uncertainties--were central to the setting, and that the plot heavily revolved around unraveling the truth about the overgod. Unfortunately what I found was that aside from the cleric none of my players really engaged with the religious elements. Most of them were either ambivalent/uninterested whenever the faith elements of the setting came up. I weirdly ended up with a party that seemed to have *zero* opinions on religion either for or against. Any interaction in the setting involving religion/faith usually boiled down to: "Huh. Well anyways..."
Love the vending machine analogy and the thought that it's more interesting when domains conflict - like Christ's commitment to both love and justice. Thank you for the video - favorited and subscribed.
Based on what you describe at the beginning, I don't think it's the polytheism itself that left your character's beliefs feeling unchallenged. It's certainly not a Greek setup, because the polytheism in these games doesn't really reflect the complexities of the Greco-Roman gods. Instead, I think you hit on the real problem when you addressed the transactional and gamefied nature of religion in fantasy TTRPGs. The issue you found at the start of the video stems from the fact that these religions don't serve the purpose of worship for the characters in many of these games. Instead, they're inherently mechanical in their use. You gain benefits from worshiping a chosen god and are often set up against rival churches or rival domains because that's what your chosen god's blurb in the book says. Obviously, that isn't how real world polytheistic religions work. People may have worshipped a favored god based on where they lived or their family lineage, (Athena for Athens, for example) but it was still the expectation and the norm in polytheism to show at least some reverence and a level of respect to ALL of the gods. Even the ones viewed as villainous would be respected and feared for what the people believed they could do, including the disasters they could bring. TTRPG polytheism doesn't do this. Instead, our games often treat the individual gods as if they have their own unique faiths wile also being part of a greater polytheistic network. It's basically a trimmed down form of monotheism built within an equally trimmed down polytheism for the sake of the game's mechanics. This then feeds into the issues of lacking complexity and poor verisimilitude because this setup makes the conflicts feel largely artificial. Instead of working as part of the setting, it works more like a byproduct of the game's mechanics.
If you have time, I'd recommend looking at WFRP's religion. Warhammer Fantasy has, in my opinion, one of the best systems of religion because of how much you question it and how almost no priests except the best actually have any type of divine powers. By nature of the setting, it's hard to confirm if the gods are real, stolen and repurposed from different cultures, old beings of an alien civilization, or purely alive because of humans' faith as the setting seems to imply all of these conclusions and brings religious characters into a crossroads with conflicting evidences. It's a refreshing change from D&D 5e transactional religions where there is no type of doubt of the gods' existence or intent.
Actually, we do know that the gods in Warhammer are man-made in a sense, as humans can become gods and enough "belief", or emotion can create gods. They are both beyond men in reference to the Chaos gods, but subject to them as well as less belief in them takes away their power. It's a slightly different take, but it's been done before in a number of works. Remember, Warhammer "borrowed" a lot from other IP. You can see the same concepts used in Japanese media.
Dude how do you keep hitting bangers, you are preaching to the choir exactly everything I've been trying to push in narrative building TRILL, voice of the people!
The biggest problem with faith in various fantasy settings is that... there is no faith. There are gods, but there is knowledge about them, not faith. The fact that they exist is as obvious as the fact that the sun shine. Most people have no clue about how the religions are formed. How the basic believs are created on the basis on what society does and most important what it observe and cannot explain. And how they later evolve into larger beings.
The Greek polytheism for standard generic high fantasy isnt the issue: actual Greek polytheism was virtually nothing like it and is interesting in many of the ways you seem interested in. They had multiple Sacred Wars, and so many conflicting philosophies and some were atheistic or had alternate views that generally opposed the mainstream god cult practices and then there were the mystery cults, which were so important to the rise of Christianity. So the issue is essentially dull game mechanics not doing anything with their inspirations and sources
I think one problem in fantasy pantheons is that gods have personal names such as Pelor, Lolth and Malar. When by themselves, those names -- words -- mean nothing. I think it retains a sense of mystery if a god's name sounds more like a title. "The Adversary" from Shadowrun has a very evocative name; you can guess what his deal is without knowing anything about him. Yet, it sounds a bit off if a god is only known by their title, like they're so great and distant we can only describe them by what they do -- not by any personalized name. Also, it helps to differentiate them from mortals that there is 0% chance of mixing up an NPC named Pedro and a god named Devourer of the Night Sky together 😄
Very well written! I think divine silence is only a test because how else could a mere mortal see it? Silence means giving up faith or holding to faith, and thats the point of faith. And the outcome is coloured by perception - often becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy either way, because, well, we tell ourselves stories to live, and we get caught up in our own life narratives. Thanks for the thought-provoking video!
I agree wth many of you arguments. Religion is usually way too simple and non personal in fiction and fantasy especially. However one thing I thing is missing, and that is the fact that in many fantasy settings, the gods are real, sometimes even material and are able to very clearly communicat their will, their creed, their motivations and what do they want from their followers in exchange for their power, miracles etc. Religions in our world however are usually plagued with many interpretations, manipulations, scarcity of sources and first and foremost doubt. Why would a cleric in fantasy setting doubt his faith or his god, when he for a fact knows, that the god exists and what the god wants? Sure I say this as a not so much religious person, but still, in fantasy there often is very tangible evidence of gods existence and their will. That takes some of the guessing and doubts out of the equation. Otherwise, great video, enjoyed it and once again it made me doubt my own worldbuilding and made me think about throwing it out the window.
actual ancient greek religion was way weirder and more complex than dnd polytheism, the way dnd polytheism works is garbage (as you yourself point out) but it isnt based on any historical religious faith or practice
I agree with this so much. In the campaign setting ive been working on, the "gods" of old died with the birth of the world and what was their power became diffused across the whole world. I find it way more fun to think over how a religion or divine being would work when you wal away from standard dnd mold.
I've seen this in a few settings. I believe the Eberron setting handles the idea of faith well and challenges the DM and players to come up with their own ideas. The other setting was a homebrew one I played back in the 90s. The DM made anyone playing a cleric or religious character come up with their own ideas and why.
I don't believe every religion in a fantasy world needs to be a deep, complex struggle... but I also don't believe the opposite. A world where there are many different religions, some complex, some simplistic, most unrelated to one-another, is more intetresting, I think. Like how Sazed describes the world pre-aescention in Mistborn
I fully and wholly agree with most of the video's points, and most of the comments I have read so far: The problem in most modern fantasy, RPG and P&P is that nothing is actually done with the concept of faith, and that 'gods' are just another mechanic to forward a character's progression. There is no actual 'religion' or even 'philosophy' involved. It just is there, because the numbers (or the plot) demands so, or at best, because it gives characters a 'flavor'. And the general knowledge of most people what religion and faith actually are mostly derives from either experiences with very modern views of religion/faith, or a very pop-culture'y view (which overlaps with what people think of 'morality', as has been discussed in other videos I've watched here). There's no 'depth', so to say, as there is no actual understanding of the concept, nor of the deep, interesting storytelling tools said depth would offer. Still, as I watched and read comments and am now commenting, I keep remembering one line I spoke at a recent larp, portraying my paladin in a discussion with one of her pupils, if I recall correctly: "I believe, because I *know*." In context: she has been raised to be faithful to both a catholic-inspired church and by proxy to a stand-in of an abrahamic-like One-God. While her faith in said church shattered once she started to actually study the holy texts and see how the leaders would either disappear or escape in a time of ultimate crisis, she witnessed first-hand the miracles of said god and his angels to the point of being chosen first by the angels, then the very god, as priest and then paladin. She is aware that she knows nigh-nothing factual of The Powers That Be, but she has felt their presence, even literally spoken to some. She *knows* that gods (not only the creator-god, but several others as well) exist. She *knows* there are powers beyond her understanding, both allied and antagonistic. She *knows* her first-hand experiences are so ridiculous that she'd not believe her own life-story if she hadn't lived through all those experiences herself. But she *knows*. And *knowing* all that, despite her being nothing more than a puny mortal with infinite flaws, and even being aware that angels, too, can make mistakes, her faith is only strengthened. She fights not for The One True God(tm), even if her freely and honestly given oaths bind her to said god's will and creation. She fights not for The One True Faith(tm), though she basically founded a new religion and is trying to spread it, as she knows what this truth means. She fights for the very concept of life, creation and goodness. She fights, so that others will not need to endure her suffering. Sie fights, so that others may live in peace and prosperity and need never know of the horrors beyond mortal understanding. She prays, never expecting anything in return (or at most a pat on the head with a sense of "You can do this without our help" if she does ask for aid), and yet there are, time and time again, answers. She prays, and is always, from the depth of her heart, grateful for all of creation, all aid granted, all opportunity to make things better for everyone. Every thanks she gives is not a hollow recital of some ancient scripture, but is spoken genuinely with whatever words come to her mind, brought to her by understanding and *knowing*. She does not burden herself with traditions passed on for generations, but rather with her own desire to be devoted to the powers that decided that she, somehow, is *more* than anyone else, that have faith in *her* to do what is necessary against the foes of creation. She struggles. A lot. About a lot of things. All the time. But her faith has only been strengthened by proof. The divine exists. And she tries her very best to press abstract understanding in to mortal words and mortal teachings. And she is so, so afraid, that her words will, sooner or later, be pressed in to man-made doctrine, only become a new corrupted church, and ultimately lead again to pain, loss and failure. Not to mention of her being aware of all the enemies she's made simply by existing, being a folk hero, a 'self-declared' saint, a woman in power or just a *way* too efficient tool of the Powers That Be against their antagonists. In the end, the characters don't know their gods and philosophies are just numbers and/or interesting plot hooks for some random humans to have fun. The characters believe and doubt. This is how I came to learn dealing with faith in roleplay in a way that I enjoy it: Never expecting or demanding proof or answer, and respond with appropriate awe if answer is given, even if, or especially when, the gods are factual entities. Or, well, they might also respond with open denial and many following struggles. Depends on the setting and character in the end. Thank you for this channel. I will continue to peek in to some other videos!
This is a great video. I agree. Fascinating topic. I think this depiction of religion would work even in pulpy style games. A cool follow up video would be examples from movies, books, campaign materials, etc. I would guess the “medieval authentic “ style of DnD would be one of the best places to start.
In my world gods are alien, enigmatic and yet somewhat tangible and even human, because they were, some of them, once mortal. They have certain elements and beliefs and domains that are consistent from sect to sect, but each temple and shrine of the greater cults (which is what they call organized religion in my world) also has some different opinions and views (unless looking at a god who is associated with truth, like Humal, one of several death gods who does not boast or lie). On top of that, toil and struggle between cults and those who would house them serve to stir doubt in people, and that encourages mortals to find faith in all its facets, thus maintaining balance between the cults of Law/Singularity and Chaos/Entropy. Additionally, mortals devoted to one god can perform rituals re-enacting (and sometimes even changing) myths and deeds of their god for esoteric boons. Like for example Humal the Sword God, who has rituals associated with severing ties, battling undead and winning great battles in a time before, after, and between mortal time.
Thank you for this video. It put a lot of what I desire from tabletop religions to words. I currently play a character that is part of the clergy of a polytheistic setting, but I’m fortunate enough to have been Christian for so long that I can play a zealous character that has never directly interacted with his god.
A thing I find frustrating is how gods always seem to be one category of thing. It’s always a very dualist perspective. You have the material world, and then the gods who sit above or outside of it, who influence events. Additionally, the influence of these gods is very transactional, there’s little room for gods/religion to be useful on a personal level. The Paladin prayers to the war god, repeating a parable of another knight, their sword gets stronger. Compared to say, the Paladin tells themself the parable of the knight, because it reminds them that there have been warriors like them, who struggled against similar odds, and still persevered. It’s this camaraderie and hope that makes the Paladin swing their sword a little harder, makes it bite a little deeper.
I believe the forgotten realms originally had a religion more like you descripe, TSR changed that. Probably to make it easier to explain to other people. That's the most importaint thing, there are probably enough tables that have a religious system simular to what you describe but when you want to sell a setting to people you need something that can be described to any person from any background on maybe 10 pages.
Theology is such a fascinating topic, and you were hitting a lot of points that my professors were talking about in college, such as God being just wish granter and butler, which is false.
I was actually writing a setting recently with a monotheistic religion for a custom ttrpg I'm making, the religion had risen to rebel from another religion that had crueller practices, using a god just called "Justice", that has many vague connotations that also could involve every individuals ideas of justice, I had a few different sects set up with opposing ideals and different preferred champions of the religion. so I enjoyed this video showing that you have some of my same problems with how ttrpgs handle religion One huge problem I have is working that religion into mechanics as I really dont want to do what others do and have it basically be a wizard but also I feel like I must have something, some abilities influenced by faith, one way I've thought is having a priest class that can use specific equipment only accessible through their connection, so they basically have holy relics they can use that impart some bonuses but even parts of this dont feel right I'm contemplating having religion be more a background thing but I would like to have priestly/crusader characters as classes
I remember early on in my world-building project I decided that it didn't make sense for a Fantasy world with a medieval cultural structure to still have an outdated pagan religion. So in my fantasy world, the main fiber religions consist of two contrasting monotheistic and three other religions that worship abstract ideas or goals rather than Gods. I find this much more interesting than a copy and paste pagan religion. But I'll give you credit if you create a really creative pagan pantheon or since you're fantasy world in something equivalent to the bronze age.
I love this video. Theology has always been a personal enthusiasm of mine. And from that aspect i think this is a very cool video. However I think the reason things like faith can be upsetting for ttrpg players is because players tend to prefer a greater degree of freedom within a world and an amount of personalization. A strict adherence to even the basic tennants of belief and faith can be upsetting to people who value freedom. Which we tend to value in this day and age. I think faith is a part of life people can struggle with daily It’s a deeply concerning thing to think about I think pantheism answers questions about yourself in a much more favorable comforting way as well I find. Pantheism is a lot more inclusive and has been used as a tool for empire building for a very long time. If an empire accepts your god they accept your people. If an empire does not accept your god they expect you to convert It is not often that people will go back into pantheism once they’re a monotheist.
Great video! I’ve done a lot of collaboration with players to build and create deities before campaigns and they become part of my home brew world. I’m DND, it often only matters to Paladins and Clerics, but if Warlocks and Bards etc. are worshiping the same god, it can get real fun and real weird
I enjoyed this quite a bit. Oh ye of little faith, you fear to believe and find yourself believing not a thing but that belief itself is bad. But one must have beliefs & even the denier must have something to believe. Otherwise life & meaning simply fall apart. Whether it is faith in God, the belief the sun will rise tomorrow, that patterns will be kept, schedules remain the same, that your politics will win out, that your friend is doing what you asked them or even something as mundane as believing that the man selling you a shirt is selling you what he claims to be selling you. At the end of the day, believing something that has no provable 100% certainty is just that: Believing. And that in itself is faith. Be it in a moral principle, a law, a relationship or literally anything else. It's knowing how faith forms that is important here. Because faith as it stands is a highly versatile thing. For some people, faith may be rigid and for others fluid. It may bend but never break, or it may shatter and be forged anew. Some see faith as a cloak you change as needed, but that isn't faith but rather the duplicity to change oneself as a means of power & avoidance is a reflection of belief in a different kind of faith. The faith of one man is bound to be different from that of another simply because everyone is different. Hence why the saying that each is to their own form of worship, for each has their own relationship with God (or gods, or spirits, or taco bell, or whatever else they believe in) has such meaning. Religion should reflect the culture,society and people of a region,their history and (where applicable) their creation. But Faith should reflect the individual, a society may be known as a theocratic state but that doesn't mean the Faith of every person there is a carbon copy of one another. If anything, a theocratic state is bound to have varied interpretations, familial practices & traditions, localized holdouts of old or new traditions & Faith in the state may be emphasized as being Faith in the patron deity, saints, spirits, or whatever it is that the theocracy has its religious body built around. One of the reasons I like Cosmic Horror for instance is that regardless of your beliefs or what Faith you hold, exposure to the eldritch will inevitably shatter your mind & corrupt you. Whether mentally or also physically may vary, but the idea that exposure to the Truth of reality, the 100% confirmation of beliefs, can be a soul shattering experience is what I find highly compelling. The heroes of such stories often struggle immensely, trying to balance their own wavering faith against the harsh challenges of what they believe in,being proven undeniably true or false with both having grave unforeseen consequences. Whether that truth is that "Gods exist, what I believe is our God also exists. However he is a raving madman & our reality is his dream. Furthermore, I have discovered our world is filled with things that merely knowing can harm not just our minds and bodies, but our very souls & existence." like with Azathoth. Or "God exists, but unfortunately we are NOT his favoured creation nor even high on the list. We may have been created by him or one of his creations, but now we find ourself at the mercy of things beyond comprehension that I find myself with the questions: Did God create these horrors I see that see us as but ants underfoot? Or did they come from somewhere or something else? Both cases find me mourning, for He cannot save us or will not save us from them." But yeah, Faith & Belief are complex. Religion isn't a cookie cutter. And these things are tied to individuals as much as societies & have roots somewhere. Whether it's the maddened ancestors carving idols of the slave masters that would eventually change into saintly familial figures, worship of those who came before & the reverence of their blood running through our veins, worship of the diabolical gods so that they don't do unspeakable things & smite us for our irreverence, or a casual relationship with the deity that sits in the idol atop their temples & may visibly aid those who facilitate that deities own goals,attract their interest or simply entertain them. I find gods that take active participation in events need to have set limitations lest they become a giant plothole or source of convenient deus ex machina. Which is one reason I enjoy small gods like spirits, a spirit of a river may be fearsome in that river but cannot leave the shores of the river without losing much of their power. Much as a nymph may be bound to her pool or grove. The great sea spirit may grant you favour on the seas, but their moods may be fickle & in their vastness they may literally just forget you exist. God may grant a vision to a Saint who then can perform miracles, but its also possible they performed them under their own merits & their remains hold miraculous powers because God wanted to help the Saint aid others after their passing. A sort of loophole if you will or a system of laws. ex. "A deity can only interfere with mortals if requested by the devout after their death, but the interference is limited to the body or immediate possessions of the deceased." Things like that don't just help set-up stories, they help shape the world & make things more interesting! I take fun and interesting over gritty realism any day. :P If you can have both it is all the better.
I think the best god related thing in DnD in recent time was the Piety system from the Theros book. It was an idea that allowed everyone in the party to actually connect with that part of the lore, not just the Paladins and Clerics, but most importantly it rewarded the characters for roleplaying. People made homebrew expansions for it. Thing is, thinking about it, every party member should probably have a god. The relationship between a god and their followers is their teachings, so really and truely a god would be their character's core belief given a face. Is your character a nihilist? They worship Shar. Power Hungry, Bane, do they have a tragedy in their past from which they want to heal, maybe they worship Selune. A god for your character and your character's faith and doubt with their god can be an external representation of their own internal struggle.
I acrually liked that you could refuse so much the existence or influence of the gods that you could literally develop a certain resistance againts it, so Theros doesn´t even make you have to actually be a full on believer.
I think the problem is the lack of conflict with other religions. We know what our faith is when it’s challenged. One religion for a setting without contest is boring. However, having multiple religions with the divine silence gives a lot to a world and emulates real life.
Most settings don’t have gods by any proper definition. They don’t create their domains, they govern things in ineffective ways and ultimately can be deposed or replaced. These aren’t gods but really old or really strong bureaucrats over vague concepts. The fact they’re material is even worse since that makes them less divine than an Angel in real religions. You’re right that these relationships are transactional, it’s because they’re less like a covenant and more like a corporate sponsorship.
I agree that the gods would be more interesting if they were more complex as you explained. Sadly D&D, PF and other popular fantasy TTRPGs rules don't allow for such complexity. Kinda hard to role play such a thing as faith and its complexity when the rules tell you that a cleric lvl 1 can literally save a man from the brink of death by holding their holy symbol and saying a few words. You would have to change the rules of classes such as clerics, paladins, warlocks and the like to such an extent that they would be something completely different.
Once you make faith matter, your setting becomes so much easier to develop. Nations, politics, wars, conflict between peoples. It isn't just 'they're izardmen and obviously aren't friendly to humans' instead it becomes 'they're pagan worshipping savages who are a moral threat to our society and therefore justifys any actions against them' Warhammer figured this out decades ago. Because their characters put value in their faith (which represents a set of morals), conflict between factions becomes more realistic and grounded. Even in a setting as over the top as Warhammer.
I fully agree. Religion shouldn't be reasonable or even logical. Gods shouldn't be understandable, nor should they be directly in contact with mortals - they are simply too vast, too much above the physical to not make one's head explode from just trying to comprehend them. Unknown, cryptic god creates room for interpretation and that interpretation then provides ground for conflict. I'd even go a step beyond: there doesn't have to be many gods. One god understood and seen in different light will reflect in how religions look like.
Loved the video, couldn’t agree more. I’m trying to come up with a different take on religions for my next campaign. One that involves different clashing beliefs that tie into the world in more meaningful ways than each god just having a domain. And for that I think belief and doubt are needed. But I’m struggling with how to justify clerics and paladins reliably casting divine spells granted by deities. Sure, I could ban them or use a different system, but I haven’t given up yet on the idea of a clever explanation for these mechanics. What is your take on this?
This is a tough question, especially if you're sticking to creating a setting specifically with a game system in mind (D&D, Pathfinder, etc) because those systems have a very specific sort of fantasy they deliver on that doesn't necessarily line up well with the video. I ran 5e in a setting without Gods. In that setting I explained that Paladins were so motivated by their oath that they manifested aspects of it. Their "Will" was so great it enabled a different kind of magic, not necessarily divine. Same thing for Clerics, they were so devoted to the domain of their choice. That was the most satisfactory answer I could come up with for my setting at the time but it did feel hamstrung by the system itself. I'm sure there are others with much more clever answers.
I don't think I've ever had too much of a problem with how religion works in D&D. Passive religion is perfectly serviceable, but demanding active faith should be more prominent with clerics and paladins and such. But it a campaign has little to do with there particular religion, then having a whole narrative arc around it might not be particularly easy depending on the god I guess. One campaign I think about wanting to run is centered around the cult of orcus trying to besiege a fortress controlled by The Raven Queen and she tasks the party with carrying a mcguffin from somewhere and taking it to the shadowfell to destroy the bonelord. A whole complex narrative arc about Sune or Torm would be difficult to fit in to this in my mind. It's hard to keep the Raven Queen vast and too unknowable here because I intended her to be directly setting up this task, and other gods a cleric might worship aren't really relevant to this conflict. Maybe Kelemvor or something. Some gods more than others especially go very far into being defined by their transactional worship, which I think can be fun when it's compared to gods that aren't as much like that. Umbrelee is one of my favorites because her entire religion is a protection racket. "Give me worship and tribute or I'm going to break your boat." She cares literally about nothing else and I find it hilarious. Her cleric don't have to be CE either in my opinion, she could have clerics who genuinely want to help keep people safe but are still forced to work with her like a mob boss. Ilmater in comparison is a very selfless and generous god who asks for very little of anythying in comparison but is likely to have a lot higher standards for a cleric than Umberlee ever would. I'm probably just biased though because I don't think complex religions are ever super important for the games I'm normally a part of.
I´m kinda biased in favor of your comment, the way that religion works in DnD as "transactional" is actually unique in it´s own way and gives way to a different way to view those things, but again, I´m biased as an atheist, seeing gods as overpowered noble wizards with more spell slots is just natural to me instead of a "misterious force of nature"
I feel the Eberron setting does this pretty well. The main religion of Khorvaire is the faith of the Sovereign Host, which at first seems to be your typical polytheistic faith. However, in Eberron, it is deliberately vague as to what happens in the afterlife and if many of the gods believed in by people are real or what their true nature even is. Back to the Sovereigns, they are typically depicted as being of the same race that is dominant in the region (humans in most of Khorvaire, dwarven in the Ironroot Mountains, etc.), but there is a minor sect called the Ascendant Wyrm that takes the faith of the Sovereigns quite literally, but believes they were dragons who became gods when they defeated the overlords in the Age of Demons. Members of this sect believe that by emulating a Sovereign, one can assume their mantle after death. Then you have the Three Face cults, which worship two of the Sovereigns and one of the Dark Six. Speaking of which, anyone who believes in the Sovereign Host also believes in the Dark Six, and vice versa, but worshippers of the Six see them through a different lens. Vassals of the Host are disgusted by the Mockery, the god of treachery and terror and generally all the bad stuff in war, but those who revere him call him Dol Azur, the Lord of Victory. A quote from a follower in universe: "Imagine a hundred hounds pursuing two wolves, challenging the wolves to face them in honorable combat. One of the wolves is brave: they turn and fight beneath the sun and are torn to a hundred pieces. The other wolf is wise and knows a simple truth: I cannot beat them at once, but in the darkness my fangs are as sharp as theirs." And that's just the dominant religion on the main human continent. There's also the Path of Inspiration on the other continent of Sarlona, which is an interesting take on the Religion of Evil trope since if you're not aware of what the endgame of the Inspired is, there's not really much in the Path of Inspiration's doctrine that seems like much of an affront to morality. Back on Khorvaire, the Church of the Silver Flame reveres a force that predates human civilization, but the organization itself has its share of zealots and corrupt officials. And while nobody doubts that the Silver Flame does indeed bind the overlords, many do question its true nature. Vassals of the Host believe that it was created by the Sovereigns, and that revering the Flame is silly. Followers of the Silver Flame believe that virtuous souls will join with it after death, but there is no hard evidence. Speaking of the afterlife, it is well known that one of Eberron's Outer Planes is Dolurrh, where all dead souls travel unless they've been trapped for some reason. There, they go through a fading process, which most people believe is the transfer to the true afterlife. Followers of the Blood of Vol religion specifically deny this, believing Dolurrh is the end.
But perhaps the biggest thing is commentary by Keith Baker on how he runs his games. Khorvaire is based on the philosophy of "wide magic, not high magic", and that goes double for divine spellcasters. Player characters have their cleric spells work as they would elsewhere, but player characters, by definition, are exceptional people. When the average citizen of Khorvaire needs magical healing, they don't go to a temple, they go to a Jorasco hospital and pay money to a trained magewright doctor. Temples are for counseling and the sort of services religious institutions offer in the real world. When divine magic does happen, it is rarely something that was planned in advance, and can almost never be repeated. There are exceptions. The Keeper of the Flame is normally a 3rd level cleric, but within the walls of Flamekeep Cathedral, she is a 20th level cleric (for high level NPC casters, Keith Baker suggests playing them as larger than life beings). Oalian, a 20th level druid and leader of the Wardens of the Wood and effective head of state of a nation that seceded from Aundair during the Last War, is literally a tree. The Ascendant Councilors of the Aereni elves are solid ghosts who are often 13th level clerics, but if they leave their manifest zone without an entourage of worshippers of their religion, they'll stop existing. Generally speaking, high level NPCs either have some sort of hard limit on them confining them to a specific place or are villains.
I highly recommend reading Dune. Primarily God Emperor of Dune. It covers some of these topics you brought up I believe you would love it You can just jump in to GEoD. Most of the lore is recapped anyway
I think a reason why the polytheistic style (especially the Green style one you mentioned) is so popular is due to a desire to have it so there's some clear understanding about who is responsible for what. Why would a god of healing work as a god of war, why would a fertility god work as a god of death? Generally speaking though I prefer monotheistic religions with various sects or sub-aspects. In one campaign its known for a fact that a top god, Jadoria, exists since he's source of all magic and every race talks about him, as well as his angels who are the primary source of magic. Problem is he's left, and the three last witnesses of him each say he wants different things. One says he wants the species to achieve enlightenment, another says he wants them to destroy evil, and the other says he wants them to obey the laws and be orderly.
I agree I want to see more TTRPGs with ancient, unknowable deific forces that tow the line between lovecraftian beings and faustian pacts. Like you WILL loose or give up something for follwing them, and what they ask of you will be different each time but you don't know how bad it will be. alternatively... maybe gods that don't actually do anything for you until you die could be something. The deafening silence would compouind what you said about it having to be faith and not 100% absolutely objective fact.
My buddy runs a game where the gods all united with a scheme. They convince the largest empire in the setting that there was only one god, The One, and using the faith in The One they managed to prop up those that had few followers. So The One had many different types od clerics all rolled into the clergy and Aasimars seen as saints and demigods often taken in by the church and raised by it. Incidentally arcane magic was outlawed... Because the empire and church where subverted by extremely powerful wizards who worked in the shadows to subvert it and ensure no one else could rise to challenge them. The gods don't really care cause the worship still comes in despite the religion now used as the cabal's personal attack dogs against any would be wizard. I don't have the space to do the full explaination justice but I do play a life cleric and dealing with this is interesting.
An issue with Greek-style pantheons is in some fundamental misunderstandings Westerners have with them. Christian/Faith-based, organised religions have sort of skewed our views on what religion or the gods look like, and modern attempts to recreate the pantheon often confuse the two. Differences include the public vs. private aspect of religion (Greeks considered religion to be part of community building, and didn't have so much of a personal relationship with their gods), demonstrative vs. faith (Greeks prayed and expected something to happen, and if it didn't they prayed to someone or something else), and decentralised vs. organised religion (Greek religion was largely organised by amateurs, part-time priests, and shared amongst the populace as part of community practices which also leads to significant divergences or local flavours of common archetypes). You also have concepts like patron gods of specific places, peoples, or things that might share archetypal features with other gods, but are limited to a specific place. There's a lot of interesting things to consider with a Greek-style pantheon, but most of it is complicated and difficult to easily put into a neat little box like "this is the god of war, everyone knows him and he does exactly what you think he does."
Ive always gone with the "multiple monotheistic religions and they are all real and true with a great deal of exaggeration." Direction. Or "even if it isnt true, the belief the person has in the thing gives it power."
When I first started playing DnD, I was quite disappointed with the cleric class. It was 3.5e at that time and there were no satisfying descriptions of the pantheon and how a cleric interacts with their deity other than gaining a list of spells to choose from (which was mostly the same for each deity). Later I started working on my own system (still not finished after over 10 years), but I find it very hard to come up with things that are interesting in terms of player agency (transactional) and provide solid guides for DMs to use to create the feel of gods that are vastly powerful and incomprehensible. It seems to me that trying to build meaningful belief into the rules/foundation of a TTRPG is as paradoxical as real faith. The approach that was most popular among my players was just rolling 1d100 with some modifiers (how strong is your belief?) and then the DM coming up with some (or no) effect depending on how high the result was. However, this simple and free form approach is hard to balance and extremely dependent on the DM. Then I switched to a mechanic where characters gain favors (the ability to perform some supernatural feat) from deities when they hold rituals at spiritually significant places or drive the goals of a deity forward. Still testing that one out though.
What I dislike is how "The gods are real" in a fantasy setting tend to simplify things and lead to a dismissive attitude. Theology is very fascinating and I find that this requires flawed believes and flawed distant dieties. - A lot of the mysticism and genuin spiritual exploration I feel is lost in vanilla D&D where miracles are just magic spells and gods can be demanded to do things - bur if course not too much because its still a game.
Agreed! I think in a polytheistic setup it should create even more complex interactions but for whatever reason it's incredibly simplified. Maybe it's one of those things that people claim to want in their games but when they're forced to engage with in a specific way they realize it's actually not what they want though. Idk!
Dude, I agree with you on several levels, but you have GOT to put the titles of whichever movie clips you use in the corner, I really want to watch them now The only one I've already seen is Excalibur
Fantastic treatment, very well done. What movies did you take these clips from? I recognize maybe half of them (some strong favorites) but not some of the others.
This video is a masterpiece. You can cut a 30-second clip at any point and will contain more wisdom than some 1 hour long videos on theology you can find on RUclips.
in my homebrew there is a large array of gods for different cultures and was like classic dnd, but the twist was that they were actually all just 7 chief demons masquerading as gods, giving out power and gifts to distract and lead people away from the real one god, who was forgotten by mankind (thanks to the work of the demons playing gods). Those who discover this forgotten god have their eyes open to the truth but now they will be directly targeted by the demons who chiefly want to remove anyone and any record of the forgotten god.
I think the main thing with the polytheistic way that most tabletop games set up their religions is that they aren't true to any real polytheistic religions. For one the transactional nature in most games is one sided. Characters pray to their gods, but they don't *give* the gods anything. Historically people would give sacrifices, or they would swear oaths. "I will do x for you, if you provide y for me". Too few games play around with this kind of transaction. Also gods should often just ignore player characters. Additionally characters wouldn't just select a single god to worship out of a pantheon. That's not how polytheism works. You workship all the gods and bring sacrifices to them when you need their aid or to avoid their wrath, even (and maybe especially) if they aren't your personal favourite god.
I dont feel like religions and faith are like a "transaction" in these games, because transaction would mean the character is giving up something and internalizing the faith in themselves through that. Mostly it is just you asking and the God gives you something, that is not a "transaction". A prayer or praying is not a currency, sacrifice in one form or another on the other hand is.
I think your perspective is basically post-reformation Christianity. Themes like doubt, conflicting interpretation and faith is typical aspects of contemporary Christianity. So I think what you suggest makes the world more similar to reality. It's not a bad approach if you do it right, but it's a view of religion that's very modern and European.
This is easily fixed by having actual Dogma that is complex for my campaigns i use multiple pantheons that have conflicting ideals based on culture even throwing in Lovecraftian deities and forcing your character to question who is actually answering their call.
I agree with your dissatisfaction with the way religion is typically utilized in roleplay gaming. That said while I personally like the philosophy of unanswered prayers as divine tests, in the context of a player-dm relationship it can get potentially... problematic 😛 because in that context there is a real person who would act as the "god" who is-or-is-not going to answer those prayers. Which could potentially go to a person's head lol
I mean a large portion of the problem comes from divine casting. Having faith is a lot different when you can make miracles happen on command with your prayers, or hang out with a friend who can. It's not like having faith in god as a normal person, its like having faith because you're Jesus. Your character is a literal conduit for the divine in some cases, so treating it like this nebulous abstract thing can't work in the same way when you are performing the miracles. I think a lot of the problem comes from the idea of player classes and the equivalent of high level npcs being almost everywhere in games. It forces the supernatural abilities of the PCs to be reletively commonplace, and if someone performing miracles is an everyday thing in the world, then it stands to reason that the gods granting those miracles are a little more normal and real and tangabile in the world.
I think in tabletop games the gods are used mechanically through class leveling. The cleric goes up a level and gets new spells, no trials or uncertainty. Its a simple transaction every morning when you choose what spells to prepare. A more complicated system as you describe is incredibly gray and not suited to all players. If gods aren't present, and remain silent, then atheism is going to sprout like daisies. Whats the difference between a wizard and a cleric to a common peasant? Both have powers that defy reality, but at least the wizard can teach it. This system would require players to have faith, and require GMs to develop a multifaceted religion with multiple interpretations all so maybe one or two players can engage with it. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but it feels like a step away from good vs evil and towards grimdark.
Atheism being a faction of the world is perfectly fine, nothing was said to the contrary. You seem to be trying to make an argument for something that nobody denied lmao. Saying that the system would require the players themselves to have faith is objectively wrong however and quite literally misunderstands the entire point of roleplaying.
@TrillTheDM Fair, I think you gave me a lot to think about in the video and expressed my very loose thoughts here in the comments. I should have let it settle more before engaging. Thanks for the response
Going to kinda-sort disagree with you here. I totally agree in that, if you want faith and belief to matter, then, yes, divine silence is important. The problem is, by default, divine silence is not only not a feature in most fantasy RPGs, but most especially D&D and its kin. The gods grant powers, and some of those powers include the ability to communicate in some way with the god directly, even if it's via a somewhat limited means at lower levels. D&D clerics don't need faith or belief. They know their god is as real as the local baker. The big problem I have with the way most D&D campaigns run their gods is that they are *not* Greek enough; in a proper polytheistic world, there is no such things as a false god. A particular god may stand in opposition to your god, but that doesn't make then a false god; that god is just as real as yours. It might make them an enemy god, or a rival god. Or it might not. Evil gods are just as real as Good gods. And it might be important to offer such deities propitiation so they don't cause trouble. Just because you worship Marduk doesn't mean you're not going to invoke Pazuzu to keep his baby-stealing wife out of the nursery. In a proper pantheistic system, there is no one-god-fits-all, and offending a god can be dangerous. Hence the Roman shrine to the Unknown God.
I love how religion is done in A Song of Ice and Fire. You have some vague lost hyperpaganiam from the Weirwoods and Old Gods, and some catholic-esque institutionalized 7 Headed version of the holy trinity with the Seven
I'm a little over two minutes in, and I agree with very little of what you've said. Yes, the transactional nature of the way players interact with deities is a problem. Yes, there should be a personal, individual dimension of existing in some kind of uneasy, non-static tension with one's faith. The pantheon design is not just over-used (it is definitely that) but it is also badly designed in general. Even if it didn't have major design problems, I'd say it is still vastly over-used. However, I think making the gods vast and unknowable, and allowing a great deal of room for reasonable differing interpretations, is a huge mistake. I think you should start back in reality, and ask, _what is the point of religion_ ? All answers from edgy atheists will be considered incorrect, for obvious reasons. Even if I qualify that question by adding "_to the religious_" at the end of it, I would still get a bunch of stupid, narcissism-fueled answers. Instead of launching into a long explanation of what the point of religions is, I will simply say that religion is the process by which humanity unites with God. That is the point. That is, in fact, what the word religion means. One of the Latin roots, "religãre," literally means 'to tie fast," as in to strongly and securely bind together. The other Latin root, 'religo,' can simply be summed up as having great respect for the sacred. Those who _practice_ a religion do so with the intent that they will reach an end-point that looks something like them being joined to the sacred supernatural, that their consciousnesses will be elevated to the heavenly. Taoists and Buddhists tend to be better at this than Christians or Muslims (but Christians and Muslims exist that do this too, and the apostle Paul talks about one such case in the New Testament), but the point of religion is, simply put, _knowing God_ . Corporately, religion is about _sharing the God that one knows among one's fellow believers_ . You take what has transformed you, the experiences you had in the heavenly, with that elevated consciousness, and bring that _back down to earth_ with you for others, and if you are part of a corporate expression of religion in that way, you can be confident that as you are prepared to share with others, so others will be prepared to share with you, which, not coincidentally, will help you on your religious journey of drawing closer to the sacred, as you sharing with others will help others, others sharing with you will help you. That is, to the religious in reality, _the point of religion_ . Now, ask yourself, _what should that look like in fantasy_ ? Imagine a cleric that gets their understanding of their deity from _actually interacting with the deity_ . Sure, they have dogma, they have a sacred text, but reading about a person is not the same as meeting them. "You search the scriptures, and in them you think you have life, and indeed they are that which testify of Me, but you are not willing to come to Me that you might have life." How might meeting a _God_ change someone? How might it change a practical follower of a religion but otherwise not initiated into what it means to know that God? How might it change a cleric? Imagine a religion that only accepts clerics from ranks of people _who have actually had a personal face-to-face with their God_ . Imagine if they expect you to learn doctrine and dogma _from that God_ , and otherwise refuse to instruct new initiates? What if the point of the instruction is itself learning how to commune with divinity in that way? It shows who is suited for the mission and who isn't. Or a deity descends from the heavens and declares that he is looking for a bride, and has his sights set on a particular mortal (happens all the time in Shintoism). Imagine a character having to go through the experience of being chosen to be a being not unlike the Virgin Mary. We can do things like that because we're looking at fantasy. If there is to be conflict, or growth, for a character of faith in that kind of light, then it should be about _that particular struggle_ , about realizing the pinnacle and goal of their religion, of the reason why they follow the tenets of their religion in the first place, which, again, should not be some watered-down stand in for secular philosophy, like 'go travel a lot.' Okay, why am I traveling? 'Because it's good for you and I get more divine power the more people who engage in long travel, I rule the roads.' So you existing or not has no practical difference whatsoever? Okay, god of travel, I'm going to stay at home and be a recluse because I don't care if traveling is _good for me_ or not, and I certainly don't care if it makes you stronger. 'But I can offer you so much.' I don't need anything you can offer me. Some god you are. Let's try that again; Okay, why am I traveling? 'Because at the end of your road, you will finally be able to meet me.' Okay, why do I want to meet you? 'You will know why when you meet me; I could tell you the why right now, but it wouldn't mean anything to you, certainly not the way it will mean something to you after your journey is over.' Okay, can't you at least give me a hint? 'Fine; when we finally meet, you will realize it isn't our first time meeting face-to-face, and that we used to know each other.' What do you mean, we used to know each other? Who are you? 'The only way you will find and understand those answers, is if you start traveling and meet me.' There, I just made Fharlanghn actually interesting by reinventing him in a manner to much more closely resemble the way gods function as described in sacred texts, and yes, this can be done with every deity in any fantasy setting, not just the god of travel. The Greeks used to talk about being "possessed by Ares," or other Olympian gods. One was essentially considered to be united with Ares in one soul if they lost themselves in a fight, if they gave themselves completely to the act of battle, so that the practice of war expressed itself through their bodies. Remember that Latin root, "religãre," to tie fast? The bond doesn't get closer or stronger than that. The difference between a mere worshiper, and a priest of a God, is that the worshiper follows that God's tenets and is trying to draw closer to the divine in some way. The priest, is the one who serves as a connecting tie (there it is again) to the worshiper and the God, "speak to God for us" said the Israelites to Moses. That's what clerics in a fantasy setting should be; they should be the liasons between gods and peoples, not divine merchants or glorified secular counselors and philosophers. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of _any of this_ at your play table, don't include gods in your setting. Don't use them. Or if you're going to use them, go with the 'atheists are right' route, and every single worshiper of a deity in that setting, is simply incorrect and there are no gods. There are only, at best, powerful entities pretending to something resembling real divinity, which is how most people run fantasy tabletop RPG 'gods' in the first place anyway.
I really hate pantheons as an idea, because buy and large they didn't exist. You make a good point that they're not conducive to engaging RPG gameplay, and they're also really not helpful for understanding historical reality. There was never just a "Greek pantheon" or a "Roman pantheon", people in polytheistic societies were constantly engaging with other peoples and incorporating new ideas into their belief systems. It's pretty well-documented that the Greeks and Romans worshipped foreign gods when it was convenient, or through being introduced to them via trade networks, conquest, etc. For example, Aphrodite was an adoption of the Phoenician goddess Astarte, who was herself an adoption of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, and many Romans worshipped Mithras, Isis, and Sabazios (Persian, Egyptian, and Thracian gods respectively) and, to bring things back to TTRPGs, this had a tendency to create some interesting conflict and tension within Roman society that could pretty easily be reinterpreted through a more fantastical lens. And while I agree with you that faith shouldn't be shown as transactional, it doesn't necessarily need to be demanding either. Polytheistic relationships were generally perceived as reciprocal, and "relationship" is key: the intention of worship was to develop a real relationship with a deity, not merely to use a deity as a crutch for when things get bad or you otherwise need some kind of divine intervention (this is why sacrifices in the Roman Empire were such a huge political sticking point; from the Roman perspective, by refusing to worship the state-appointed deities, you were putting not just yourself but the Emperor and the state as a whole at risk). A really good channel dedicated to polytheism, Ocean Keltoi, has a number of videos that go more into detail about the whole "relationship" dynamic with deities from a theological perspective.
Just because there are several gods in the wold, they don't have to be from the same pantheon. Like in that exchange from Conan the Barbarian where Conan and Subotai are debating Crom and the Four Winds. Or read the Old Testament. (Paraphrased from memory and a different language), there is a passage where the enemies of the Israelites are debating that the god of the Israelites is a mountain god and therefore would be at a disadvantage when fighting in the planes. Or the faith of the Israelites has been periodically weakening, making them easy prey to their enemies. God would then choose a judge to help the Israelites and restore their faith.
“Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!”
God Conan was a great movie
I want to bring two ideas I use when dealing with worldbuilding religions in fantasy:
It is particularly weird that a genre that so heavily draws from medieval Europe often has such a flimsy and superficial relation with faith. I understand that thinly veiled catholicism feels weird and lazy and from a mechanical point of view monotheism goes against the notion of domains. A way to solve this within a christian way is actually to use saints, which in a way are much closer to the smaller domestic gods of romans. A cleric following the path and phylosophy of a saint makes a lot of sense.
When dealing with pantheons, it also makes a lot of sense that every culture in the setting has their own, with a lot of overlap but also slight differences. When romans got into contact with germanic tribes, they described Odin as Mercury. Similarly, there is a clear ancient relation between Thor and Zeus. Having gods with slightly different names and functions across the world makes a lot of sense in terms of culture and worldbuilding. It can also be interesting to explore how different cultures relate to the same concepts. Even if there is a sun god that is shared across cultures, it would make sense that its placement and mythology would vary slightly from a tropical civilization to one that lives in the polar circle. Doing this suggests there has been migrations, and cultural exchanges, which gives the impression of naturally emerging cultures. It also makes oddball gods pop up even more, since they make for an interesting break in the mold!
True with the "flimsy and superficial relation with faith". There are two shortcuts or hacks to religion though:
1. Why does someone follow a religion? The 3 Bs of religion: Believing, Belonging and Behaving.
2. Why do organized religions establish themselves as they do: Those in power or profiting from it have an incentive to keep things the way they are.
What you said, for example, with some religions taking over others by reframing their holidays, gods and saints is a consequence of the two. This is why Christmas, for example, is on a certain day and not on another.
Saints were a powerful tool in converting pagan beliefs because of the similarity to pantheon religions. Santa Maria in Mexico is still set up like that to this day. Catholicism also emphasizes the mystery of faith, which is lost in 'transactional' systems.
I think having gods take multiple names and faces across cultures is going to be a lot to remember for most players. Make sure your players want to remember all of the intricacies of a convoluted faith before you make it.
There is literally no relation between Thor and Zeus other than the fact that Thor's the god of Storms and Zeus throws lightening as a weapon.
Thor is a brash, but overall kind God who is the patron of farmers, common laborers, and common warriors. Mjolnir, The Crusher, requires that even Thor wear a magic belt and ring just to wield it and isn't even where Thors lightening and thunder come from. Those are from his chariot racing across the sky; pulled by his immortal goats which he eats as spare rations, which they then regenerate from.
Zeus, if connected to *ANY* of the Æsir, is connected with Tyr, who used to be the chief of the Æsir before Odin was (based on archeology, not on any myth).
Tolkien did that, he had the one true God, Eru Illuvatar, and then he had under him multiple Maiar with different domains like the Greek pantheon, with the Satan figure being a rogue Maiar.
I think using a pantheon is so common for two main reasons.
1. It is the defeault set up within the rules. It was how Deities and Demigods was set up, and it works well with the default way the Planes are set up if you are using those things.
2. More importantly, it is unlike the ways people are practicing religion today. The more in line you bring faith in your game to one of the big religions, the more it is going to feel like a commentary. Most players are quite illiterate theologically and don't have the tools to interact and discuss real world belief systems in a constructive manner. OR they have very strong beliefs and may not appreciate having to discuss something similar to their beliefs, even if it is not the same, every game night.
You're spot on. While the D&D approach to polytheism is the default, it's not an accurate reflection of how real people in antiquity interacted with their gods anyway. In tabletop RPGs, we often have to make compromises, and faith ends up being one of them. You could certainly create complex, moralistic faiths that mirror real-world religions, but doing so risks overcomplicating the game and potentially making your players uncomfortable. It’s similar to running a large-scale battle: you could spend hours on detailed planning and use complex, historical wargame rules, but unless your group enjoys heavy simulation, it’s likely to feel like a slog. RPGs naturally simplify complex ideas to keep the game flowing and fun.
I agree with you on everything except people being theologically literate there's tons of people who will condemn religions as backwards and anti progress, and wont listen to any othe viewpoints. for example, r/atheism has about 3 mil followers (for perspective thats just under 1% of the US population)
@wildlifeecology-xy6dw I specifically said illiterate, as in the average person could not hold a meaningful conversation on theology. The average person has never read the Bible, or Quran, veydas, etc.
Basically people aren't capable of having a deeper rp experience than "dur me bonk goblin".
@@jacobdavidlet Though this may be true, introspection exists. It would suggest that people willingly shut themselves off from the consideration or exercise in such things. I think it has to be fear of believing as I've never heard an answer to it besides an emotional response in the negative. I'm sure there must be, but again, I've not come across it personally.
Totally agree. The problem is that the way religion works in most fantasy settings is that there isn’t any faith. Gods are 100% real and knowable, and communion with them is perfectly understood. That’s not faith, that’s certainty.
But Deities do exist in ikr.
@@t.k7five084
Let's say for a second that you're right.
They're still not knowable, and communion with them is at beast rare and not fully understood.
@@jorenvanderark3567 I'll agree it's not well understood, especially by laymen.
But I don't think it is actually that rare. It's just usually not the sort of thing that gets press.
I have a friend who was a hardcore atheist when we met, but he had a dramatic religious experience that made him a Christian.
Again, nothing a reporter could really go on, but for those who know him it is very striking.
Personally I've always been a believer, but since I started taking my faith more seriously I see God everywhere.
It's very hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it, but it's not rare.
As someone who has jumped from Mesoamerican religious study to Old World religion and occultism, religion is incredibly potent for the development of character and worldbuilding in ways most writers unprepared for (let alone DMs or players). Understanding the mythological personae of the gods as a bunch of undying wizard bureaucrats who hold executive authority over the powers of nature is much easier than wrestling with the notion that the personae _belong_ to the principles, not the other way around. Zeus is easier to deal with if he's just a dude who throws lightning bolts and is kind of an ass, instead of a skinsuit worn by the font of the Storm, which may have no agency and cannot behave other than it does. The idea that the gods have a different structure than the magic-man-of-the-thing, or that gods might be heterogenous in structure, is often too intimidating for people.
There's another consideration, which is how fair it is to other players. I'd love to roleplay my Old-Testament-style Kobold prophet going out into the desert, sacrificing a bull, then scattering its entrails and other viscera out in an imitative ritual of his deity creating the star signs (which, to the faithful, is _not_ imitation of but _participation in_ the essential creative act). But, how much of the session time is that occupying and how bored/alarmed/ill am I making the other players? Not just this but strong moral convictions beyond "Don't steal from/kill vaguely-defined innocent people," and "Slavery bad," usually don't play well at table, no matter how fun they might be to explore.
Its simple: most people, ESPECIALLY so-called 'nerds' (or whatever weirdoes have been replacing real nerds in their spaces) have a very distorted view of religion and mysticism born of the factors of how modern society think and is organized. Add in the simple fact that having a list of Gods with domains as a cheap way to allow Cleric options that are flavorful on the surface but conceptually very shallow and you get most handling of fantasy religions.
Religion in fantastical setting is either used as vague window dressing or, when it is used in it its often reduced to an antagonistic force because of the very modern idea of religion=anti progress and anti-thinking.
Modern views of religion also have a heavy focus on those conflicts between religion and religious sects. Starting simply, Christian isn't the same as Muslim. To a more complicated Baptist isn't the same as Catholic. Then, to violent conflicts, like the various crusades to modern conflicts still influenced by religion. These conflicts, big and small, are what you want to explore with this system so people's views on it will come up.
Atheist players, especially those with difficult or traumatic experiences with religion, are more likely to see these conflicts as being as petty as the Greek conflicts you're trying to avoid.
You both read the same book but interpreted paragraph 6 on page 43 differently, so now you hate one another?
You both think that somebody from your respective faiths stood on this rock at some point, and now you're going to war over who gets the city built on that rock?
These are gross simplifications, but it's how some people feel, and it's the reaction some players will have to your world.
@grinninggoblin3698 This is kind of a strange point to make. What somebody thinks objectively outside of the game does not matter. If the character is bought into the world, their character is not going to be an atheist just because they themselves are. Meanwhile the Greek style conflicts are petty both objectively outside looking in but also through the lens of character. This is a key difference. If somebody told me they had a traumatic experience with religion or something and it impeded their ability to play in a game with an emphasis on religion, that player would simply not be allowed within the campaign.
Prince of Egypt(in case you don't want to read) is the perfect example of what i expect from religion in games.
The DreamWorks movie?
@@TrillTheDM yes
@@Cbev1994 What exactly about it is what you are looking for? Or do you mean the story of Exodus, but it is easier to have people watch a movie than get them to read the Bible?
@jacobdavidlet the story of Exodus but people may find it easier to watch the movie adaptation, yes
@@jacobdavidlet Moses was probably more torn up in the movie because he was raised as Ramses's brother. In Exodus he's raised as his cousin - and his actual mother was his wet nurse, so it wasn't some surprise that he was Hebrew.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments here. I wonder if part of the problem is in RPG's are created within a modernist and dare I say materialist paradigm. So all faith, monotheistic or pantheistic is simply transactional. Even the ancient greeks doubted their gods, and had things like the Eleusinian Mysteries, which there really isn't an equivalent in modern role-playing games. The modern view on a religions faith is that it is inherently personal and up to the individual. Which meshes well with getting your +1 to X, or proficiency in your personal deity's favored weapon. Ancient faith made claims on not just the individual, but laid out a cosmic vision for the world that the individual could participate in. Ritual is not just to effect internal change, but is seen as an externalization of said religion.
To me, the gods in rpgs seem cut off from really leaving a mark on that reality. For example, in curse of strahd it always bothered me that there were powers that could carve out a pocket dimension of reality and trap peoples souls there, regardless of the influence of any other deity. It was like the gods didn't really influence the world or reality other than just giving players little stat bonuses. Which meant that the player characters can't be part of anything bigger than themselves, and faith boils down to personal gain! I felt it would be much more interesting if everyone in Barovia had participated in some kind of dark pact with strahd, and you were sent to weaken that pact and redeem those you could so the outside forces of good could finally crush that little pocket dimension of evil. At least that would feel more interesting to me than having the gods just shrug and look the other way.
From what I’ve read, what’s really interesting about Greek/roman paganism was that while there’s the sense that the gods are divided, flawed, petty, and fickle, there’s also the sense that the gods are favorable towards the moral (though pre Christian morality was pretty different than ours). They were very human, but if you were immoral enough you risked being divinely punished. This doesn’t make much sense until you realize that the pagans weren’t nearly as organized as the Christians and Jews, so their theology didn’t really have the internal consistency that Christian and Jewish scholars would work so hard to pursue (and often fight wars over). When Julian the apostate tried to make a unified pagan pseudo-church to compete with the Christian church, it just didn’t work.
@@samurguy9906 I would add, the roman's gods originally were not immoral at all. Romans activly disliked the storise some greek wrote about their's gods and only after they started adapting the greek style of religious practice when they started writing more human like gods. Originally roman gods were more protector to one-one action, like god of harvest, god of gates, god of cooking etc. etc. Other interesting thing is thet romans belvied thet the gods especailly favored rome as a city/state over other people, this made them unique compered to the greeks who had patron gods, but not neccesirly belvied thet their's city was the most special place on earth.
I write historical romantasy so religion is a huge part of my characters’ lives.
The MMC in my upcoming Civil War romantasy novel is a devout Catholic and was even studying for the priesthood but enlisted in the Army because he was in seminary out of family obligation.
He’s okay with being Catholic and he definitely struggles with his faith…and I found it added a great deal of depth and complexity but wasn’t preachy or dogmatic and it also highlighted the story’s themes of love, duty, honor, sacrifice and the struggles of being good and doing good in a time and place where survival is the law of the land.
Well written religious struggles should have a place at the fiction table. It adds so much.
Ever since I started with D&D in university I’ve shied away from making gods too present in the world. Majoring in Philosophy exposed me to just enough medieval theology to make me appreciate the complex debates that arise when there is a possibility for ambiguity about what is dogma and what is heresy; and the interplay this creates between holy texts, clerical institutions and individual beliefs.
Not that I ever found the time to flesh out centuries of fierce theological debate on aspects of religion that might seem trivial to most people just living their lives. But I at least wanted (and still want) there to be space for that in my game worlds; for people to debate the will of the gods, rather than just asking them.
The real question that remains though is how to actually bring faith to life for the players like you describe here.
My opinion to answer your question is by making it of consequence. Not that you should enforce any sort of interactions but providing incentives to engage. Not through material rewards but through experiential rewards.
I read somewhere that specific to 5e one of the most popular classes is warlock, specifically because of the interaction with their patron. I think people see those kinds of interactions and want in. That's not to say you should make the gods directly interact or converse with the players but by providing them SOMETHING the others don't get as a result of not engaging with faith.
@@TrillTheDM The relationship between warlock/patron is what I typically imagine to be a perverse reflection of what should be the ideal relationship between the pious/deity relationship. I think the reason why a lot of folks think it's fun is because they're guaranteed time in the limelight and usually given pretty pointed objectives with obvious consequences. That's the opposite of what you can expect with a typical faith-based relationship with a deity.
I agree that maybe having more tangible or mechanical feedback would make players want to engage with a deity/saint more. Currently 5e doesn't really offer any way to do it, other than some homebrewing on alignments... "back in my day, paladins were lawful good!". The warlock/patron relationship is purely mechanical, and therefore transactional, whereas a faithful/deity has nearly no mechanics associated, relying mostly on RP. I'd almost make the argument that what brings faith to life is what the player brings to the table, very much mirroring real life, but that doesn't automatically make it fun for folks who play with those who are less-faith-inclined.
It's possible that the playstyle of people who interact with gods in RPGs is simply a reflection of [religion in current year], and people dont take it seriously in game because, like others said, most people have little to know actual knowlege or piety in their personal lives. We can't fix the game for a problem that exists outside of it.
In my homebrew setting using Pathfinder 2e as a base I have three "types" of gods. The modern gods callled the "Pantheon" who are actually just really powerful ascended mortals with egos and rule kingdoms as god-kings. They're the most up front but also the weakest.
Then there are the Old Gods that embody and rule over aspects of nature and reality. They're less understandable, more abstract and generally fearful and awe inspiring.
Then there are the Primordials, which make up a creation trio that other, less powerful entities often refer to as the "true gods" but to mortals they are distant and obscure.
Layers of faith, mystery and perspectives make for interesting interactions. One of my players characters was a staunch follower of the New God of Duty and Justice, but when confronted with a cult of an old god that protected a village from monsters using blood sacrifice (not full on murder but bloodletting) they were forced to grapple with the morality of what they were taught was evil, ect.
I really liked this video. To ne a lot of your points echoed sentiments or ideas I've picked up on while studying Tolkein and Chesterton, ESPECIALLY the last point you made about silent intervention, if any. I've been world building for some time now and am starting to write stories for the project and your video really got me to consider both possibilities and pitfalls. Again, really good video and thank you.
Appreciate the kind words.
On a separate topic to my last comment; what stops Lich gods?
If the true gods are silent snd inactive then other powerful entities may fill that slot.
A lich has incredible powers that can be taught or learned, can be spoken to directly, and asks very little. A lich can save crops from drought by changing the weather, or cure wounds by brewing potions. Potions that can also be taught.
The lich is wize, knowledgeable, and immortal. All they ask is a human sacrifice every now and again. You probably have plenty of criminals you were ready to hang or burn so thats perfect.
Plus the Lich can raise an army of the dead, no one dies in war because they're already dead. Plenty of warriors with faith in the lich would happily be buried knowing their body will rise to defend their city.
Thats only one example, but really any creature powerful enough can replace the gods in a more clear and direct way. Whats to stop true gods from losing all their followers because they chose to remain silent?
This kind of reminds me of Babylon, Rome, and Egypt where their rules would declare themselves gods just because they were immensely powerful in this world.
So in short, there's nothing to stop them from doing that. Like in our world, God allows certain things to happen due to free will but he also is a big component of consequences of your actions.
Not to get too into discussing Christianity and Judaism, but for example in Daniel God speaks to King Nebuchadnezzar through Daniel saying that "All authority in this world comes from Me and what I allow, and I can take it away just as easily." This is the summarization of it anyway.
Oftentimes God allows these things due to our free will, while He is present and acting he prefers to limit Himself to allow us to grow and learn from our collective mistakes.
Like how a child learns by doing and seeing what happens kind of thing.
With the Lich declaring themselves a god the question you have to ask, sure they could do all these great things, but would they? Power tends to corrupt mortals, not always, but usually. It takes an absurdly strong moral code to not get corrupted by power like look at politicians or even RUclipsrs for how true that is.
To prevent this corrupting influence they tend to need to believe in a moral code much greater than themselves in whatever way that takes. And really hold to those beliefs. And even if they do, there's no guarantee that even those morals won't get corrupted over time. History is littered with people performing atrocities who first started out with only the best of intentions.
That's an interesting idea for a lich being a ruler of a kingdom/city state. Good idea for both the villain or more neutral part of the worldbuilding. Even without that lich being actively worshipped/being a state relligion ruler like that would be treated by it's subjects with nearly relligious zeal. You don't even need human sacrifices in such scenario, just bodies. People die all the time, from old age, accidents and the like. Lich like that would be a pretty darn good ruler assuming that in your setting necromancy is not poisoning the land nonstop. If it's just a magical tool it'd allow a lich to create stable kingdom with absolutely massive army.
This is what happens in the Dark Sun setting.
The Gods are gone, and a physical veil makes inter-plane travel nearly impossible. In a world as barren and as brutal as Athas, only the Sorcerer Kings rose to power, granting boons to their most loyal servants, while always being wary of them, lest one believes they can supplant the Sorcerer.
I wouldn't have them only ask a human sacrifice every now and than. I would have them start out sounding reasonable but their demands become more and more outrageous over time.
They don't have it in them to just not ask for the most outrageous act of twisted devotion they think they can get away with. If they had the temperance for that, they would never have become lichs in the first place.
The very hubris that starts them on this path inevitably leads them to their own destruction.
This is NOT too far! It's always good to push creativity outside of the comfortable boundaries. I, personally, have never seen this approach! And I'd be curious to try it out!
That isn't to say our group has always used a pantheon. We've had everything from no gods at all, to a heaven/hell pseudo-Christian setup, to the typical pantheon.
I think this can be a touchy subject for some people, which is why it might be done less. Or perhaps people think it has to be the conceit of the whole world or something.
Either way, thanks for the video!
The only things that i don't agree, and maybe is just a misunderstanding, is on the more "transational" nature of the gods: african diasporic religions and icelandic sorcery (for example) have this very practical and very transational nature, still maintaining however the more "mystic" and mysterious, and even comunal aspects.
Imho a videogame that have a more occult vibe to the divine is "Fear and Hunger", both of the two chapters, where the gods usually fluttuate between sentient agents and raw forces of existence, without setting on either.
For the rest, i absolutely agree on creating "pantheons" that are more soft, more mysterious, and why not more ruthless kind of divinity: in my Savage Worlds game, Sanguinaccio is a faithful young man of Yacopse, the god of destruction (and a bunch of other stuff), and he have a really interesting view on him and his operate. For him, the god of destruction is a messianic entity of liberation through violence, and he plays the ritual and the divine gift accordially, seek fight not in a generic nihilist way but trying to kill bigger and more powerful (both physically, magically and socially) enemies (in particular monsters) for having the approval from the God.
I don't necessarily mind the transactional nature in theory because I think even in non polytheistic approaches there is a transactional nature even if it isn't as direct as the Greek style approach. I just think it's a heavy crutch that DM's will rely on. Instead of making the faith matter and putting emphasis on the (imo) right parts of religion and faith, instead it'll be handwaved in favor of a transactional set up. Do X receive Y.
@@TrillTheDM I'll say that it more about the fact that gods became some sort of bankomat that an actual agent, a force that if isn't truth it's really close to it. Polytheistic pantheon have a place, at the same time a more "soft" approach to world build can help to create the right amount of mysticism. And also, people should think of what themes want in their campaign and in their world build before ripping off the greek patheon without aknowledgin the cultural implication of it.
@@azaelvonhohenheim9570 Absolutely! I think that's a great point in addition to the video. Too many people look at the Greek pantheon approach as the default because of obvious system build ins (D&D being most egregious) and don't consider the larger implication in the setting.
This is a deep well that can go on for a while. When you've got such a meaty subject, don't be afraid to take a few more minutes to explore it further. I'd recommend The Great Courses "Myth in Human History" if you have an Audible account. It's easy to look at RPGs and pick on Pantheons, but they were far more typical of a belief structure than the monotheistic ones. You and I agree that faith/belief in RPGs is generally meaningless, particularly on the transactional nature you put forth to some extent. The transaction is mostly one direction, deity to faithful, with faithful to deity getting hand waved as many things do. Sure, there are some instances where so-called requirements of the faithful are listed, yet hand waved (not enforced), much in the same way that shopping for equipment gets hand waved. The big challenge with larger-than-life cosmic entities, which are more like forces of nature without regard to human sensibilities, is just that. Why would such a thing even know of the character's existence? Why would such an entity, even if it acknowledges a character's existence, bestow upon them or imbue them with any form of power?
Another aspect is that it has nothing to do with RPGs; it's us, not it. To play the faithful is to play with more constraints or restrictions, not what you could "gain access to," but what the character does and should not do in the game? A cleric who refuses healing to characters who kill everything they encounter. A druid who distributes punishments to those who kill animals unnecessarily. It's a subject that can quickly illustrate why the moral dilemma is avoided in favor of what's "fun." For an actual game example, you can look no further than the early iteration of the Paladin, when Lawful Stupid was uttered because alignment and class restrictions became conflated with character personality and play style. When playing the faithful faithfully, you, the player, would be challenged to believe what faith means and how to roleplay it.
Great video and a good subject; keep going.
@@stochasticagency Yeah I don't have any issues with the pantheon approach generally and actually think there's an insane amount of potential with it, should you have the time for it. It's moreso the implementation that I've seen.
I agree fully with your second point. The further I get into playing and exploring TTRPGs though the more into these restrictions I am. Serious restrictions with heavy consequences that essentially force me to really dig in to understand and play a character.
Appreciate it and I'll definitely give that course a look! Thanks for the suggestion.
@@TrillTheDM You've definitely put substantial effort into this and your other works. They're thoughtful and not just dismissive or reactionary. I encourage you to extend them a bit more, not jump to 1/2 hour, but this one could have gone to 15 minutes, and your active subscribers would still watch the whole thing. I, too, have been exploring play constraints by looking at what it means to play in "The Sandbox as a living reactionary world."
Looking forward to the next upload.
I haven't finished the video yet, but I know a conundrum I had when thinking about religion in my own setting (a sci-fantasy setting I mostly use as a D&D setting): Sectarian conflict within a religion, and corruption of good religion in a setting where Paladins and Clerics exist and objectively do get powers from their deity.
For example, in real life people of the same religion can have very different beliefs about what their deity wants of them, and you can have "dueling zealots" if you will.
For example, a character like Zachary Hale Comstock from Bioshock Infinite, in contrast with someone like John Brown. Both would be equally fanatical, and they'd both *absolutely* hate each other.
I needed a way to have "evil" Paladins of Good-aligned Deities. What I went with is that, while Paladins and Clerics do objectively get their powers from deities, it's not easy to prove which deity you're getting your powers from and it's quite possible for someone to deceive themselves on the matter. Thus, the setting's Satan-figure actually has a large number of fundie loons acting as his Paladins.
Interesting approach!
The "gods" in my setting are more like impersonal lenses through which the Divine Intellect shines. There are six and they come in matched pairs. Memory and Prophecy are two, for example. They are basically responsible for the way mortals perceive time. Give and Take are another pair. They influence how people interact with each other, and are called Domination and Submission by some. They're more like archangels than gods. The actual god is the Divine Intellect itself, which is the impersonal force of intelligence and order.
The question of doubt is interesting to me as well. Since, in my settimg, you can look up to the sky and see the face of god, aka the Mind's Eye. Whether god exists or which is the true god is irrelevant. People have a much more direct connection with the divine than we imagine for a typical fantasy setting. Different religious traditions are more about interpretation. Layered on top of this are traditions of ancestor worship, natural spirit reverence a la Shinto, and a bunch of other crap.
Amen Brother! - This is how religion is and how it matters not just to actual people but in stories meaningfully reflecting on religion.
Any and every belief can see that.
Really good video! Oftentimes religion is just seen as a different spell techtree for Clerics instead of a vibrant and living part of an RPG world.
I disagree with your little sentence on doubt. Gods can be real and present, but the doubt can still be there: Are they really helping? Really interested? Really good? What do they really want? And so on.
I think it pays to look closer into the different forms of atheism for that one. For example, in a world where gods definitely do exist, misotheism could take really strange forms.
@@monkeibusiness Specifically I meant doubt in their existence but I agree with what you've said and probably could've been a bit clearer in the video.
Doubt could take all kinds of forms. Doubt in the relationship, doubt that their Faith isn't strong enough, doubt about the representatives of the "real and present" deities, doubt that they have acted appropriately while representing the deity....
Needs to be managed by the DM for any of this to be relevant
You can also bring the concept of dead gods in to cast doubt on them. What if there were past instances of interloper gods subjugating and killing a local deity and absorbing their domain and adopting their underlings and followers? If something theological or divine goes wrong some may start to question if their god has abandoned them or their church or society due to someone taking over. Or worse what if their god is dead and their prayers are being offered up to the conqueror that decides to act in defiance to their new subjects?
The fact that a god can even be killed may rise to a sect of atheists or anti-theists that denounce the gods as nothing but powerful inter-planar wizards not worthy of devotion! This is actually already a faction in the Planescape setting and the concept is super sweet and was even the motivation for a resurrected PC-turned-BBEG in our long-running campaign!
People doubt things naturally in the material sense. It would need to be something more to doubt what is considered more than human and that usually manifests as doubt when one does not gain something in return or need met. Verses in the Bible say that despite miracles the people still rebelled or felt abandoned by God because he didn't make life entirely comfortable or weren't taking responsibility for their actions. Crisis of faith is different in that a vow is made between that god and individual and seems to be forgotten or betrayed. It could be a test and they do not see it. But when gods are acting just as human as their creations, the doubt is far more human in nature and different from dealing with others in that the consequence could be supernatural.
>"If the god is the person of a principle, like the Storm, do they have their own agency? Do they actually have a capacity for judgement, or are they bound by their natures to behave exactly as they will? What if, in this instance, they must defer to the other principle? My god may be righteous, but does that mean in this instance they are correct?"
Lots of things you can do with that.
This video is spot on. I personally want to bring inter-religious and inter-dogma conflicts. It’s intimidating but it feels needed.
Just a pet peeve of mine but ppl have a really poor cultural understanding on greco-roman religion and how it was irl. And many historical aspects of it are basically what you describe, with deities holding power of seemingly opposite domains, like Dionysus being a god of madness yet also of sobriety, or Apollo of health yet also a plaguebringer. There were mystery cults that claimed to hold special knowledge of or connection to specific deities. Sometimes certain cults, even those of really mainstream deities were outright banned anf persecuted bc their worship was seen as breaking social cohesion (such as with Dionysus again, where his cults also focused on gender and class equality, social liberation, etc. It got banned in many greek kingdoms before being watered down and co-opted as state religion in many of them, but later on this didnt stop the romans from banning it and putting to death every single worshipper in the city due to its views on the social roles of women).
Even religious conflict, though it was WAAYYYY rarer back then, than with the later monotheistic religions, it did kinda happen a couple times:
. Once the state oracle of Rome declared that a crisis could be solved by bringing the relic of a certain deity to their own temple, so the romans invaded the city that had it when it refused to give it up.
Another ocassion is when the greeks encountered the jews during their conquest of Persia, Alexander interpreted their religion as them worshipping Zeus and accepted them, one of his succesor generals believed the israelites actually worshipped an evil deity called Typhon, or the "anti-Zeus" and sought to helenize them (which led to the revolt of the Maccabes eventually).
Pythagoras (the famous mathematecian) was also a mystic and was leading a cult that the locals of his area found to be so weird they chased him and his cultists out of their city, killing them when they could.
I enjoyed your essay and wanted to share my own experience with religion and faith in D&D.
I don't know about other DMs but it's become hard for me to want to put much effort into writing religion/faith elements for campaigns. The last campaign I attempted I really wanted to explore the nuances of faith as a concept: how it helps people, how it hurts people, how it shapes society and day-to-day life, ect. I spent long hours writing a very comprehensive mythology surrounding nine greek-esq lesser deities and their relationship with a mysterious, remote, abrahamic-style "overgod." I was very upfront to my players that religion--and its uncertainties--were central to the setting, and that the plot heavily revolved around unraveling the truth about the overgod.
Unfortunately what I found was that aside from the cleric none of my players really engaged with the religious elements. Most of them were either ambivalent/uninterested whenever the faith elements of the setting came up. I weirdly ended up with a party that seemed to have *zero* opinions on religion either for or against. Any interaction in the setting involving religion/faith usually boiled down to: "Huh. Well anyways..."
Love the vending machine analogy and the thought that it's more interesting when domains conflict - like Christ's commitment to both love and justice. Thank you for the video - favorited and subscribed.
Based on what you describe at the beginning, I don't think it's the polytheism itself that left your character's beliefs feeling unchallenged. It's certainly not a Greek setup, because the polytheism in these games doesn't really reflect the complexities of the Greco-Roman gods.
Instead, I think you hit on the real problem when you addressed the transactional and gamefied nature of religion in fantasy TTRPGs. The issue you found at the start of the video stems from the fact that these religions don't serve the purpose of worship for the characters in many of these games. Instead, they're inherently mechanical in their use. You gain benefits from worshiping a chosen god and are often set up against rival churches or rival domains because that's what your chosen god's blurb in the book says.
Obviously, that isn't how real world polytheistic religions work. People may have worshipped a favored god based on where they lived or their family lineage, (Athena for Athens, for example) but it was still the expectation and the norm in polytheism to show at least some reverence and a level of respect to ALL of the gods. Even the ones viewed as villainous would be respected and feared for what the people believed they could do, including the disasters they could bring.
TTRPG polytheism doesn't do this. Instead, our games often treat the individual gods as if they have their own unique faiths wile also being part of a greater polytheistic network. It's basically a trimmed down form of monotheism built within an equally trimmed down polytheism for the sake of the game's mechanics. This then feeds into the issues of lacking complexity and poor verisimilitude because this setup makes the conflicts feel largely artificial. Instead of working as part of the setting, it works more like a byproduct of the game's mechanics.
If you have time, I'd recommend looking at WFRP's religion. Warhammer Fantasy has, in my opinion, one of the best systems of religion because of how much you question it and how almost no priests except the best actually have any type of divine powers. By nature of the setting, it's hard to confirm if the gods are real, stolen and repurposed from different cultures, old beings of an alien civilization, or purely alive because of humans' faith as the setting seems to imply all of these conclusions and brings religious characters into a crossroads with conflicting evidences. It's a refreshing change from D&D 5e transactional religions where there is no type of doubt of the gods' existence or intent.
Actually, we do know that the gods in Warhammer are man-made in a sense, as humans can become gods and enough "belief", or emotion can create gods. They are both beyond men in reference to the Chaos gods, but subject to them as well as less belief in them takes away their power. It's a slightly different take, but it's been done before in a number of works. Remember, Warhammer "borrowed" a lot from other IP. You can see the same concepts used in Japanese media.
Dude how do you keep hitting bangers, you are preaching to the choir exactly everything I've been trying to push in narrative building
TRILL, voice of the people!
Appreciate that!
The biggest problem with faith in various fantasy settings is that... there is no faith. There are gods, but there is knowledge about them, not faith. The fact that they exist is as obvious as the fact that the sun shine.
Most people have no clue about how the religions are formed. How the basic believs are created on the basis on what society does and most important what it observe and cannot explain. And how they later evolve into larger beings.
I love factions so I love the idea a different denominations or sub factions within a organization
The Greek polytheism for standard generic high fantasy isnt the issue: actual Greek polytheism was virtually nothing like it and is interesting in many of the ways you seem interested in.
They had multiple Sacred Wars, and so many conflicting philosophies and some were atheistic or had alternate views that generally opposed the mainstream god cult practices and then there were the mystery cults, which were so important to the rise of Christianity.
So the issue is essentially dull game mechanics not doing anything with their inspirations and sources
Maaan, your content is all killer, no filler!!!
I think one problem in fantasy pantheons is that gods have personal names such as Pelor, Lolth and Malar. When by themselves, those names -- words -- mean nothing.
I think it retains a sense of mystery if a god's name sounds more like a title. "The Adversary" from Shadowrun has a very evocative name; you can guess what his deal is without knowing anything about him. Yet, it sounds a bit off if a god is only known by their title, like they're so great and distant we can only describe them by what they do -- not by any personalized name.
Also, it helps to differentiate them from mortals that there is 0% chance of mixing up an NPC named Pedro and a god named Devourer of the Night Sky together 😄
Very well written!
I think divine silence is only a test because how else could a mere mortal see it? Silence means giving up faith or holding to faith, and thats the point of faith. And the outcome is coloured by perception - often becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy either way, because, well, we tell ourselves stories to live, and we get caught up in our own life narratives.
Thanks for the thought-provoking video!
Andrei Rublev footage = automatic like
@@threemeters1425 it's a great film!
@@TrillTheDM my personal favorite, ever!
that bell episode was the most awe-inspiring sequence i've ever watched. it inspires me to this day 🙏
I agree wth many of you arguments. Religion is usually way too simple and non personal in fiction and fantasy especially. However one thing I thing is missing, and that is the fact that in many fantasy settings, the gods are real, sometimes even material and are able to very clearly communicat their will, their creed, their motivations and what do they want from their followers in exchange for their power, miracles etc. Religions in our world however are usually plagued with many interpretations, manipulations, scarcity of sources and first and foremost doubt. Why would a cleric in fantasy setting doubt his faith or his god, when he for a fact knows, that the god exists and what the god wants? Sure I say this as a not so much religious person, but still, in fantasy there often is very tangible evidence of gods existence and their will. That takes some of the guessing and doubts out of the equation. Otherwise, great video, enjoyed it and once again it made me doubt my own worldbuilding and made me think about throwing it out the window.
So happy to have found your channel! You truly have understanding and it's a delight to learn from you. Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much!
actual ancient greek religion was way weirder and more complex than dnd polytheism, the way dnd polytheism works is garbage (as you yourself point out) but it isnt based on any historical religious faith or practice
Yeah, if you're going to go the polytheism Greek setup route then you should absolutely emulate the real thing.
I agree with this so much. In the campaign setting ive been working on, the "gods" of old died with the birth of the world and what was their power became diffused across the whole world. I find it way more fun to think over how a religion or divine being would work when you wal away from standard dnd mold.
I've seen this in a few settings. I believe the Eberron setting handles the idea of faith well and challenges the DM and players to come up with their own ideas. The other setting was a homebrew one I played back in the 90s. The DM made anyone playing a cleric or religious character come up with their own ideas and why.
I don't believe every religion in a fantasy world needs to be a deep, complex struggle... but I also don't believe the opposite. A world where there are many different religions, some complex, some simplistic, most unrelated to one-another, is more intetresting, I think. Like how Sazed describes the world pre-aescention in Mistborn
I fully and wholly agree with most of the video's points, and most of the comments I have read so far: The problem in most modern fantasy, RPG and P&P is that nothing is actually done with the concept of faith, and that 'gods' are just another mechanic to forward a character's progression. There is no actual 'religion' or even 'philosophy' involved. It just is there, because the numbers (or the plot) demands so, or at best, because it gives characters a 'flavor'. And the general knowledge of most people what religion and faith actually are mostly derives from either experiences with very modern views of religion/faith, or a very pop-culture'y view (which overlaps with what people think of 'morality', as has been discussed in other videos I've watched here).
There's no 'depth', so to say, as there is no actual understanding of the concept, nor of the deep, interesting storytelling tools said depth would offer.
Still, as I watched and read comments and am now commenting, I keep remembering one line I spoke at a recent larp, portraying my paladin in a discussion with one of her pupils, if I recall correctly:
"I believe, because I *know*."
In context: she has been raised to be faithful to both a catholic-inspired church and by proxy to a stand-in of an abrahamic-like One-God. While her faith in said church shattered once she started to actually study the holy texts and see how the leaders would either disappear or escape in a time of ultimate crisis, she witnessed first-hand the miracles of said god and his angels to the point of being chosen first by the angels, then the very god, as priest and then paladin. She is aware that she knows nigh-nothing factual of The Powers That Be, but she has felt their presence, even literally spoken to some. She *knows* that gods (not only the creator-god, but several others as well) exist. She *knows* there are powers beyond her understanding, both allied and antagonistic. She *knows* her first-hand experiences are so ridiculous that she'd not believe her own life-story if she hadn't lived through all those experiences herself. But she *knows*. And *knowing* all that, despite her being nothing more than a puny mortal with infinite flaws, and even being aware that angels, too, can make mistakes, her faith is only strengthened.
She fights not for The One True God(tm), even if her freely and honestly given oaths bind her to said god's will and creation. She fights not for The One True Faith(tm), though she basically founded a new religion and is trying to spread it, as she knows what this truth means. She fights for the very concept of life, creation and goodness. She fights, so that others will not need to endure her suffering. Sie fights, so that others may live in peace and prosperity and need never know of the horrors beyond mortal understanding. She prays, never expecting anything in return (or at most a pat on the head with a sense of "You can do this without our help" if she does ask for aid), and yet there are, time and time again, answers. She prays, and is always, from the depth of her heart, grateful for all of creation, all aid granted, all opportunity to make things better for everyone. Every thanks she gives is not a hollow recital of some ancient scripture, but is spoken genuinely with whatever words come to her mind, brought to her by understanding and *knowing*. She does not burden herself with traditions passed on for generations, but rather with her own desire to be devoted to the powers that decided that she, somehow, is *more* than anyone else, that have faith in *her* to do what is necessary against the foes of creation.
She struggles. A lot. About a lot of things. All the time. But her faith has only been strengthened by proof. The divine exists. And she tries her very best to press abstract understanding in to mortal words and mortal teachings. And she is so, so afraid, that her words will, sooner or later, be pressed in to man-made doctrine, only become a new corrupted church, and ultimately lead again to pain, loss and failure. Not to mention of her being aware of all the enemies she's made simply by existing, being a folk hero, a 'self-declared' saint, a woman in power or just a *way* too efficient tool of the Powers That Be against their antagonists.
In the end, the characters don't know their gods and philosophies are just numbers and/or interesting plot hooks for some random humans to have fun. The characters believe and doubt. This is how I came to learn dealing with faith in roleplay in a way that I enjoy it: Never expecting or demanding proof or answer, and respond with appropriate awe if answer is given, even if, or especially when, the gods are factual entities. Or, well, they might also respond with open denial and many following struggles. Depends on the setting and character in the end.
Thank you for this channel. I will continue to peek in to some other videos!
This is a great video. I agree. Fascinating topic. I think this depiction of religion would work even in pulpy style games.
A cool follow up video would be examples from movies, books, campaign materials, etc.
I would guess the “medieval authentic “ style of DnD would be one of the best places to start.
Love this one!!! Will deffo keep in mind these takes for worldbuilding!
In my world gods are alien, enigmatic and yet somewhat tangible and even human, because they were, some of them, once mortal. They have certain elements and beliefs and domains that are consistent from sect to sect, but each temple and shrine of the greater cults (which is what they call organized religion in my world) also has some different opinions and views (unless looking at a god who is associated with truth, like Humal, one of several death gods who does not boast or lie). On top of that, toil and struggle between cults and those who would house them serve to stir doubt in people, and that encourages mortals to find faith in all its facets, thus maintaining balance between the cults of Law/Singularity and Chaos/Entropy. Additionally, mortals devoted to one god can perform rituals re-enacting (and sometimes even changing) myths and deeds of their god for esoteric boons. Like for example Humal the Sword God, who has rituals associated with severing ties, battling undead and winning great battles in a time before, after, and between mortal time.
Thank you for this video. It put a lot of what I desire from tabletop religions to words.
I currently play a character that is part of the clergy of a polytheistic setting, but I’m fortunate enough to have been Christian for so long that I can play a zealous character that has never directly interacted with his god.
A thing I find frustrating is how gods always seem to be one category of thing. It’s always a very dualist perspective. You have the material world, and then the gods who sit above or outside of it, who influence events.
Additionally, the influence of these gods is very transactional, there’s little room for gods/religion to be useful on a personal level. The Paladin prayers to the war god, repeating a parable of another knight, their sword gets stronger. Compared to say, the Paladin tells themself the parable of the knight, because it reminds them that there have been warriors like them, who struggled against similar odds, and still persevered. It’s this camaraderie and hope that makes the Paladin swing their sword a little harder, makes it bite a little deeper.
I believe the forgotten realms originally had a religion more like you descripe, TSR changed that. Probably to make it easier to explain to other people. That's the most importaint thing, there are probably enough tables that have a religious system simular to what you describe but when you want to sell a setting to people you need something that can be described to any person from any background on maybe 10 pages.
Theology is such a fascinating topic, and you were hitting a lot of points that my professors were talking about in college, such as God being just wish granter and butler, which is false.
Can you list all the movies you used? I haven’t seen many of them and they look really interesting.
I was actually writing a setting recently with a monotheistic religion for a custom ttrpg I'm making, the religion had risen to rebel from another religion that had crueller practices, using a god just called "Justice", that has many vague connotations that also could involve every individuals ideas of justice, I had a few different sects set up with opposing ideals and different preferred champions of the religion. so I enjoyed this video showing that you have some of my same problems with how ttrpgs handle religion
One huge problem I have is working that religion into mechanics as I really dont want to do what others do and have it basically be a wizard but also I feel like I must have something, some abilities influenced by faith, one way I've thought is having a priest class that can use specific equipment only accessible through their connection, so they basically have holy relics they can use that impart some bonuses but even parts of this dont feel right I'm contemplating having religion be more a background thing but I would like to have priestly/crusader characters as classes
I remember early on in my world-building project I decided that it didn't make sense for a Fantasy world with a medieval cultural structure to still have an outdated pagan religion. So in my fantasy world, the main fiber religions consist of two contrasting monotheistic and three other religions that worship abstract ideas or goals rather than Gods. I find this much more interesting than a copy and paste pagan religion. But I'll give you credit if you create a really creative pagan pantheon or since you're fantasy world in something equivalent to the bronze age.
I love this video. Theology has always been a personal enthusiasm of mine. And from that aspect i think this is a very cool video.
However I think the reason things like faith can be upsetting for ttrpg players is because players tend to prefer a greater degree of freedom within a world and an amount of personalization. A strict adherence to even the basic tennants of belief and faith can be upsetting to people who value freedom. Which we tend to value in this day and age.
I think faith is a part of life people can struggle with daily
It’s a deeply concerning thing to think about
I think pantheism answers questions about yourself in a much more favorable comforting way as well I find.
Pantheism is a lot more inclusive and has been used as a tool for empire building for a very long time. If an empire accepts your god they accept your people. If an empire does not accept your god they expect you to convert
It is not often that people will go back into pantheism once they’re a monotheist.
Great video! I’ve done a lot of collaboration with players to build and create deities before campaigns and they become part of my home brew world.
I’m DND, it often only matters to Paladins and Clerics, but if Warlocks and Bards etc. are worshiping the same god, it can get real fun and real weird
I enjoyed this quite a bit.
Oh ye of little faith, you fear to believe and find yourself believing not a thing but that belief itself is bad. But one must have beliefs & even the denier must have something to believe. Otherwise life & meaning simply fall apart. Whether it is faith in God, the belief the sun will rise tomorrow, that patterns will be kept, schedules remain the same, that your politics will win out, that your friend is doing what you asked them or even something as mundane as believing that the man selling you a shirt is selling you what he claims to be selling you. At the end of the day, believing something that has no provable 100% certainty is just that: Believing. And that in itself is faith. Be it in a moral principle, a law, a relationship or literally anything else. It's knowing how faith forms that is important here. Because faith as it stands is a highly versatile thing.
For some people, faith may be rigid and for others fluid. It may bend but never break, or it may shatter and be forged anew. Some see faith as a cloak you change as needed, but that isn't faith but rather the duplicity to change oneself as a means of power & avoidance is a reflection of belief in a different kind of faith. The faith of one man is bound to be different from that of another simply because everyone is different. Hence why the saying that each is to their own form of worship, for each has their own relationship with God (or gods, or spirits, or taco bell, or whatever else they believe in) has such meaning.
Religion should reflect the culture,society and people of a region,their history and (where applicable) their creation. But Faith should reflect the individual, a society may be known as a theocratic state but that doesn't mean the Faith of every person there is a carbon copy of one another. If anything, a theocratic state is bound to have varied interpretations, familial practices & traditions, localized holdouts of old or new traditions & Faith in the state may be emphasized as being Faith in the patron deity, saints, spirits, or whatever it is that the theocracy has its religious body built around.
One of the reasons I like Cosmic Horror for instance is that regardless of your beliefs or what Faith you hold, exposure to the eldritch will inevitably shatter your mind & corrupt you. Whether mentally or also physically may vary, but the idea that exposure to the Truth of reality, the 100% confirmation of beliefs, can be a soul shattering experience is what I find highly compelling. The heroes of such stories often struggle immensely, trying to balance their own wavering faith against the harsh challenges of what they believe in,being proven undeniably true or false with both having grave unforeseen consequences. Whether that truth is that "Gods exist, what I believe is our God also exists. However he is a raving madman & our reality is his dream. Furthermore, I have discovered our world is filled with things that merely knowing can harm not just our minds and bodies, but our very souls & existence." like with Azathoth. Or "God exists, but unfortunately we are NOT his favoured creation nor even high on the list. We may have been created by him or one of his creations, but now we find ourself at the mercy of things beyond comprehension that I find myself with the questions: Did God create these horrors I see that see us as but ants underfoot? Or did they come from somewhere or something else? Both cases find me mourning, for He cannot save us or will not save us from them."
But yeah, Faith & Belief are complex. Religion isn't a cookie cutter. And these things are tied to individuals as much as societies & have roots somewhere. Whether it's the maddened ancestors carving idols of the slave masters that would eventually change into saintly familial figures, worship of those who came before & the reverence of their blood running through our veins, worship of the diabolical gods so that they don't do unspeakable things & smite us for our irreverence, or a casual relationship with the deity that sits in the idol atop their temples & may visibly aid those who facilitate that deities own goals,attract their interest or simply entertain them. I find gods that take active participation in events need to have set limitations lest they become a giant plothole or source of convenient deus ex machina. Which is one reason I enjoy small gods like spirits, a spirit of a river may be fearsome in that river but cannot leave the shores of the river without losing much of their power. Much as a nymph may be bound to her pool or grove. The great sea spirit may grant you favour on the seas, but their moods may be fickle & in their vastness they may literally just forget you exist. God may grant a vision to a Saint who then can perform miracles, but its also possible they performed them under their own merits & their remains hold miraculous powers because God wanted to help the Saint aid others after their passing. A sort of loophole if you will or a system of laws. ex. "A deity can only interfere with mortals if requested by the devout after their death, but the interference is limited to the body or immediate possessions of the deceased." Things like that don't just help set-up stories, they help shape the world & make things more interesting!
I take fun and interesting over gritty realism any day. :P If you can have both it is all the better.
I think the best god related thing in DnD in recent time was the Piety system from the Theros book. It was an idea that allowed everyone in the party to actually connect with that part of the lore, not just the Paladins and Clerics, but most importantly it rewarded the characters for roleplaying. People made homebrew expansions for it.
Thing is, thinking about it, every party member should probably have a god. The relationship between a god and their followers is their teachings, so really and truely a god would be their character's core belief given a face. Is your character a nihilist? They worship Shar. Power Hungry, Bane, do they have a tragedy in their past from which they want to heal, maybe they worship Selune. A god for your character and your character's faith and doubt with their god can be an external representation of their own internal struggle.
I acrually liked that you could refuse so much the existence or influence of the gods that you could literally develop a certain resistance againts it, so Theros doesn´t even make you have to actually be a full on believer.
Excellent premise you got me right out the gate 😆
I think the problem is the lack of conflict with other religions. We know what our faith is when it’s challenged. One religion for a setting without contest is boring. However, having multiple religions with the divine silence gives a lot to a world and emulates real life.
Most settings don’t have gods by any proper definition. They don’t create their domains, they govern things in ineffective ways and ultimately can be deposed or replaced. These aren’t gods but really old or really strong bureaucrats over vague concepts. The fact they’re material is even worse since that makes them less divine than an Angel in real religions. You’re right that these relationships are transactional, it’s because they’re less like a covenant and more like a corporate sponsorship.
I like this take. Thank you.
I agree that the gods would be more interesting if they were more complex as you explained.
Sadly D&D, PF and other popular fantasy TTRPGs rules don't allow for such complexity.
Kinda hard to role play such a thing as faith and its complexity when the rules tell you that a cleric lvl 1 can literally save a man from the brink of death by holding their holy symbol and saying a few words.
You would have to change the rules of classes such as clerics, paladins, warlocks and the like to such an extent that they would be something completely different.
I keep finding videos here that are well in line with what I've been thinking
I'm in your mind. Stealing your ideas.
@@TrillTheDM well, as long as it makes good content, I suppose I don't mind
Once you make faith matter, your setting becomes so much easier to develop. Nations, politics, wars, conflict between peoples. It isn't just 'they're izardmen and obviously aren't friendly to humans' instead it becomes 'they're pagan worshipping savages who are a moral threat to our society and therefore justifys any actions against them'
Warhammer figured this out decades ago. Because their characters put value in their faith (which represents a set of morals), conflict between factions becomes more realistic and grounded. Even in a setting as over the top as Warhammer.
@@chulitna5838 Exactly! Doesn't matter what type of system you go with ultimately, what matters is that it is consequential.
I fully agree. Religion shouldn't be reasonable or even logical. Gods shouldn't be understandable, nor should they be directly in contact with mortals - they are simply too vast, too much above the physical to not make one's head explode from just trying to comprehend them. Unknown, cryptic god creates room for interpretation and that interpretation then provides ground for conflict. I'd even go a step beyond: there doesn't have to be many gods. One god understood and seen in different light will reflect in how religions look like.
Loved the video, couldn’t agree more. I’m trying to come up with a different take on religions for my next campaign. One that involves different clashing beliefs that tie into the world in more meaningful ways than each god just having a domain. And for that I think belief and doubt are needed. But I’m struggling with how to justify clerics and paladins reliably casting divine spells granted by deities. Sure, I could ban them or use a different system, but I haven’t given up yet on the idea of a clever explanation for these mechanics. What is your take on this?
This is a tough question, especially if you're sticking to creating a setting specifically with a game system in mind (D&D, Pathfinder, etc) because those systems have a very specific sort of fantasy they deliver on that doesn't necessarily line up well with the video.
I ran 5e in a setting without Gods. In that setting I explained that Paladins were so motivated by their oath that they manifested aspects of it. Their "Will" was so great it enabled a different kind of magic, not necessarily divine. Same thing for Clerics, they were so devoted to the domain of their choice. That was the most satisfactory answer I could come up with for my setting at the time but it did feel hamstrung by the system itself. I'm sure there are others with much more clever answers.
interesting topic as usual. all the best
I don't think I've ever had too much of a problem with how religion works in D&D. Passive religion is perfectly serviceable, but demanding active faith should be more prominent with clerics and paladins and such. But it a campaign has little to do with there particular religion, then having a whole narrative arc around it might not be particularly easy depending on the god I guess.
One campaign I think about wanting to run is centered around the cult of orcus trying to besiege a fortress controlled by The Raven Queen and she tasks the party with carrying a mcguffin from somewhere and taking it to the shadowfell to destroy the bonelord. A whole complex narrative arc about Sune or Torm would be difficult to fit in to this in my mind. It's hard to keep the Raven Queen vast and too unknowable here because I intended her to be directly setting up this task, and other gods a cleric might worship aren't really relevant to this conflict. Maybe Kelemvor or something.
Some gods more than others especially go very far into being defined by their transactional worship, which I think can be fun when it's compared to gods that aren't as much like that. Umbrelee is one of my favorites because her entire religion is a protection racket. "Give me worship and tribute or I'm going to break your boat." She cares literally about nothing else and I find it hilarious. Her cleric don't have to be CE either in my opinion, she could have clerics who genuinely want to help keep people safe but are still forced to work with her like a mob boss. Ilmater in comparison is a very selfless and generous god who asks for very little of anythying in comparison but is likely to have a lot higher standards for a cleric than Umberlee ever would.
I'm probably just biased though because I don't think complex religions are ever super important for the games I'm normally a part of.
I´m kinda biased in favor of your comment, the way that religion works in DnD as "transactional" is actually unique in it´s own way and gives way to a different way to view those things, but again, I´m biased as an atheist, seeing gods as overpowered noble wizards with more spell slots is just natural to me instead of a "misterious force of nature"
I feel the Eberron setting does this pretty well. The main religion of Khorvaire is the faith of the Sovereign Host, which at first seems to be your typical polytheistic faith. However, in Eberron, it is deliberately vague as to what happens in the afterlife and if many of the gods believed in by people are real or what their true nature even is. Back to the Sovereigns, they are typically depicted as being of the same race that is dominant in the region (humans in most of Khorvaire, dwarven in the Ironroot Mountains, etc.), but there is a minor sect called the Ascendant Wyrm that takes the faith of the Sovereigns quite literally, but believes they were dragons who became gods when they defeated the overlords in the Age of Demons. Members of this sect believe that by emulating a Sovereign, one can assume their mantle after death. Then you have the Three Face cults, which worship two of the Sovereigns and one of the Dark Six. Speaking of which, anyone who believes in the Sovereign Host also believes in the Dark Six, and vice versa, but worshippers of the Six see them through a different lens. Vassals of the Host are disgusted by the Mockery, the god of treachery and terror and generally all the bad stuff in war, but those who revere him call him Dol Azur, the Lord of Victory. A quote from a follower in universe:
"Imagine a hundred hounds pursuing two wolves, challenging the wolves to face them in honorable combat. One of the wolves is brave: they turn and fight beneath the sun and are torn to a hundred pieces. The other wolf is wise and knows a simple truth: I cannot beat them at once, but in the darkness my fangs are as sharp as theirs."
And that's just the dominant religion on the main human continent. There's also the Path of Inspiration on the other continent of Sarlona, which is an interesting take on the Religion of Evil trope since if you're not aware of what the endgame of the Inspired is, there's not really much in the Path of Inspiration's doctrine that seems like much of an affront to morality. Back on Khorvaire, the Church of the Silver Flame reveres a force that predates human civilization, but the organization itself has its share of zealots and corrupt officials. And while nobody doubts that the Silver Flame does indeed bind the overlords, many do question its true nature. Vassals of the Host believe that it was created by the Sovereigns, and that revering the Flame is silly. Followers of the Silver Flame believe that virtuous souls will join with it after death, but there is no hard evidence.
Speaking of the afterlife, it is well known that one of Eberron's Outer Planes is Dolurrh, where all dead souls travel unless they've been trapped for some reason. There, they go through a fading process, which most people believe is the transfer to the true afterlife. Followers of the Blood of Vol religion specifically deny this, believing Dolurrh is the end.
But perhaps the biggest thing is commentary by Keith Baker on how he runs his games. Khorvaire is based on the philosophy of "wide magic, not high magic", and that goes double for divine spellcasters. Player characters have their cleric spells work as they would elsewhere, but player characters, by definition, are exceptional people. When the average citizen of Khorvaire needs magical healing, they don't go to a temple, they go to a Jorasco hospital and pay money to a trained magewright doctor. Temples are for counseling and the sort of services religious institutions offer in the real world. When divine magic does happen, it is rarely something that was planned in advance, and can almost never be repeated.
There are exceptions. The Keeper of the Flame is normally a 3rd level cleric, but within the walls of Flamekeep Cathedral, she is a 20th level cleric (for high level NPC casters, Keith Baker suggests playing them as larger than life beings). Oalian, a 20th level druid and leader of the Wardens of the Wood and effective head of state of a nation that seceded from Aundair during the Last War, is literally a tree. The Ascendant Councilors of the Aereni elves are solid ghosts who are often 13th level clerics, but if they leave their manifest zone without an entourage of worshippers of their religion, they'll stop existing. Generally speaking, high level NPCs either have some sort of hard limit on them confining them to a specific place or are villains.
Fantasy religion is an opportunity to explore complex themes, but most people don’t think deeply about it
Even just a few seconds in. Yes, finally someone says it.
I highly recommend reading Dune. Primarily God Emperor of Dune. It covers some of these topics you brought up
I believe you would love it
You can just jump in to GEoD. Most of the lore is recapped anyway
Love the Dune series!
I think a reason why the polytheistic style (especially the Green style one you mentioned) is so popular is due to a desire to have it so there's some clear understanding about who is responsible for what. Why would a god of healing work as a god of war, why would a fertility god work as a god of death?
Generally speaking though I prefer monotheistic religions with various sects or sub-aspects. In one campaign its known for a fact that a top god, Jadoria, exists since he's source of all magic and every race talks about him, as well as his angels who are the primary source of magic. Problem is he's left, and the three last witnesses of him each say he wants different things. One says he wants the species to achieve enlightenment, another says he wants them to destroy evil, and the other says he wants them to obey the laws and be orderly.
I agree
I want to see more TTRPGs with ancient, unknowable deific forces that tow the line between lovecraftian beings and faustian pacts.
Like you WILL loose or give up something for follwing them, and what they ask of you will be different each time but you don't know how bad it will be.
alternatively... maybe gods that don't actually do anything for you until you die could be something. The deafening silence would compouind what you said about it having to be faith and not 100% absolutely objective fact.
My buddy runs a game where the gods all united with a scheme. They convince the largest empire in the setting that there was only one god, The One, and using the faith in The One they managed to prop up those that had few followers. So The One had many different types od clerics all rolled into the clergy and Aasimars seen as saints and demigods often taken in by the church and raised by it.
Incidentally arcane magic was outlawed... Because the empire and church where subverted by extremely powerful wizards who worked in the shadows to subvert it and ensure no one else could rise to challenge them.
The gods don't really care cause the worship still comes in despite the religion now used as the cabal's personal attack dogs against any would be wizard.
I don't have the space to do the full explaination justice but I do play a life cleric and dealing with this is interesting.
An issue with Greek-style pantheons is in some fundamental misunderstandings Westerners have with them. Christian/Faith-based, organised religions have sort of skewed our views on what religion or the gods look like, and modern attempts to recreate the pantheon often confuse the two.
Differences include the public vs. private aspect of religion (Greeks considered religion to be part of community building, and didn't have so much of a personal relationship with their gods), demonstrative vs. faith (Greeks prayed and expected something to happen, and if it didn't they prayed to someone or something else), and decentralised vs. organised religion (Greek religion was largely organised by amateurs, part-time priests, and shared amongst the populace as part of community practices which also leads to significant divergences or local flavours of common archetypes). You also have concepts like patron gods of specific places, peoples, or things that might share archetypal features with other gods, but are limited to a specific place.
There's a lot of interesting things to consider with a Greek-style pantheon, but most of it is complicated and difficult to easily put into a neat little box like "this is the god of war, everyone knows him and he does exactly what you think he does."
I recognize a couple of the b-roll films (“Becket” is so based imo), but several are unfamiliar. Can anyone do some ID?
Ive always gone with the "multiple monotheistic religions and they are all real and true with a great deal of exaggeration." Direction.
Or "even if it isnt true, the belief the person has in the thing gives it power."
When I first started playing DnD, I was quite disappointed with the cleric class. It was 3.5e at that time and there were no satisfying descriptions of the pantheon and how a cleric interacts with their deity other than gaining a list of spells to choose from (which was mostly the same for each deity). Later I started working on my own system (still not finished after over 10 years), but I find it very hard to come up with things that are interesting in terms of player agency (transactional) and provide solid guides for DMs to use to create the feel of gods that are vastly powerful and incomprehensible. It seems to me that trying to build meaningful belief into the rules/foundation of a TTRPG is as paradoxical as real faith.
The approach that was most popular among my players was just rolling 1d100 with some modifiers (how strong is your belief?) and then the DM coming up with some (or no) effect depending on how high the result was. However, this simple and free form approach is hard to balance and extremely dependent on the DM. Then I switched to a mechanic where characters gain favors (the ability to perform some supernatural feat) from deities when they hold rituals at spiritually significant places or drive the goals of a deity forward. Still testing that one out though.
What I dislike is how "The gods are real" in a fantasy setting tend to simplify things and lead to a dismissive attitude. Theology is very fascinating and I find that this requires flawed believes and flawed distant dieties.
-
A lot of the mysticism and genuin spiritual exploration I feel is lost in vanilla D&D where miracles are just magic spells and gods can be demanded to do things - bur if course not too much because its still a game.
Agreed! I think in a polytheistic setup it should create even more complex interactions but for whatever reason it's incredibly simplified. Maybe it's one of those things that people claim to want in their games but when they're forced to engage with in a specific way they realize it's actually not what they want though. Idk!
@@TrillTheDM
I just thought of nice way to sum it up: TTRPG religion likes to take everything from religion but the key part - spirituality.
Dude, I agree with you on several levels, but you have GOT to put the titles of whichever movie clips you use in the corner, I really want to watch them now
The only one I've already seen is Excalibur
Divine silence isn't silence. It's the answer that you don't want to hear from the place you don't expect at the moment you don't want to wait for.
please make like a list of the movies you use for these
Fantastic treatment, very well done. What movies did you take these clips from? I recognize maybe half of them (some strong favorites) but not some of the others.
This video is a masterpiece. You can cut a 30-second clip at any point and will contain more wisdom than some 1 hour long videos on theology you can find on RUclips.
in my homebrew there is a large array of gods for different cultures and was like classic dnd, but the twist was that they were actually all just 7 chief demons masquerading as gods, giving out power and gifts to distract and lead people away from the real one god, who was forgotten by mankind (thanks to the work of the demons playing gods). Those who discover this forgotten god have their eyes open to the truth but now they will be directly targeted by the demons who chiefly want to remove anyone and any record of the forgotten god.
I think the main thing with the polytheistic way that most tabletop games set up their religions is that they aren't true to any real polytheistic religions. For one the transactional nature in most games is one sided. Characters pray to their gods, but they don't *give* the gods anything. Historically people would give sacrifices, or they would swear oaths. "I will do x for you, if you provide y for me". Too few games play around with this kind of transaction. Also gods should often just ignore player characters. Additionally characters wouldn't just select a single god to worship out of a pantheon. That's not how polytheism works. You workship all the gods and bring sacrifices to them when you need their aid or to avoid their wrath, even (and maybe especially) if they aren't your personal favourite god.
I dont feel like religions and faith are like a "transaction" in these games, because transaction would mean the character is giving up something and internalizing the faith in themselves through that. Mostly it is just you asking and the God gives you something, that is not a "transaction". A prayer or praying is not a currency, sacrifice in one form or another on the other hand is.
From what movies this 2:31 and 2:35 come from?
Really great video man! I completely agree!
I think your perspective is basically post-reformation Christianity. Themes like doubt, conflicting interpretation and faith is typical aspects of contemporary Christianity. So I think what you suggest makes the world more similar to reality. It's not a bad approach if you do it right, but it's a view of religion that's very modern and European.
This is easily fixed by having actual Dogma that is complex for my campaigns i use multiple pantheons that have conflicting ideals based on culture even throwing in Lovecraftian deities and forcing your character to question who is actually answering their call.
I agree with your dissatisfaction with the way religion is typically utilized in roleplay gaming. That said while I personally like the philosophy of unanswered prayers as divine tests, in the context of a player-dm relationship it can get potentially... problematic 😛 because in that context there is a real person who would act as the "god" who is-or-is-not going to answer those prayers. Which could potentially go to a person's head lol
I mean a large portion of the problem comes from divine casting. Having faith is a lot different when you can make miracles happen on command with your prayers, or hang out with a friend who can.
It's not like having faith in god as a normal person, its like having faith because you're Jesus. Your character is a literal conduit for the divine in some cases, so treating it like this nebulous abstract thing can't work in the same way when you are performing the miracles.
I think a lot of the problem comes from the idea of player classes and the equivalent of high level npcs being almost everywhere in games. It forces the supernatural abilities of the PCs to be reletively commonplace, and if someone performing miracles is an everyday thing in the world, then it stands to reason that the gods granting those miracles are a little more normal and real and tangabile in the world.
Not sure if this is good for my setting in particular. Maybe for others, yes.
I think in tabletop games the gods are used mechanically through class leveling. The cleric goes up a level and gets new spells, no trials or uncertainty. Its a simple transaction every morning when you choose what spells to prepare.
A more complicated system as you describe is incredibly gray and not suited to all players. If gods aren't present, and remain silent, then atheism is going to sprout like daisies. Whats the difference between a wizard and a cleric to a common peasant? Both have powers that defy reality, but at least the wizard can teach it.
This system would require players to have faith, and require GMs to develop a multifaceted religion with multiple interpretations all so maybe one or two players can engage with it. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but it feels like a step away from good vs evil and towards grimdark.
Atheism being a faction of the world is perfectly fine, nothing was said to the contrary. You seem to be trying to make an argument for something that nobody denied lmao. Saying that the system would require the players themselves to have faith is objectively wrong however and quite literally misunderstands the entire point of roleplaying.
@TrillTheDM Fair, I think you gave me a lot to think about in the video and expressed my very loose thoughts here in the comments. I should have let it settle more before engaging. Thanks for the response
Going to kinda-sort disagree with you here. I totally agree in that, if you want faith and belief to matter, then, yes, divine silence is important. The problem is, by default, divine silence is not only not a feature in most fantasy RPGs, but most especially D&D and its kin. The gods grant powers, and some of those powers include the ability to communicate in some way with the god directly, even if it's via a somewhat limited means at lower levels. D&D clerics don't need faith or belief. They know their god is as real as the local baker.
The big problem I have with the way most D&D campaigns run their gods is that they are *not* Greek enough; in a proper polytheistic world, there is no such things as a false god. A particular god may stand in opposition to your god, but that doesn't make then a false god; that god is just as real as yours. It might make them an enemy god, or a rival god.
Or it might not. Evil gods are just as real as Good gods. And it might be important to offer such deities propitiation so they don't cause trouble. Just because you worship Marduk doesn't mean you're not going to invoke Pazuzu to keep his baby-stealing wife out of the nursery. In a proper pantheistic system, there is no one-god-fits-all, and offending a god can be dangerous. Hence the Roman shrine to the Unknown God.
I love how religion is done in A Song of Ice and Fire. You have some vague lost hyperpaganiam from the Weirwoods and Old Gods, and some catholic-esque institutionalized 7 Headed version of the holy trinity with the Seven
I'm a little over two minutes in, and I agree with very little of what you've said. Yes, the transactional nature of the way players interact with deities is a problem. Yes, there should be a personal, individual dimension of existing in some kind of uneasy, non-static tension with one's faith. The pantheon design is not just over-used (it is definitely that) but it is also badly designed in general. Even if it didn't have major design problems, I'd say it is still vastly over-used.
However, I think making the gods vast and unknowable, and allowing a great deal of room for reasonable differing interpretations, is a huge mistake. I think you should start back in reality, and ask, _what is the point of religion_ ? All answers from edgy atheists will be considered incorrect, for obvious reasons. Even if I qualify that question by adding "_to the religious_" at the end of it, I would still get a bunch of stupid, narcissism-fueled answers. Instead of launching into a long explanation of what the point of religions is, I will simply say that religion is the process by which humanity unites with God. That is the point. That is, in fact, what the word religion means. One of the Latin roots, "religãre," literally means 'to tie fast," as in to strongly and securely bind together. The other Latin root, 'religo,' can simply be summed up as having great respect for the sacred.
Those who _practice_ a religion do so with the intent that they will reach an end-point that looks something like them being joined to the sacred supernatural, that their consciousnesses will be elevated to the heavenly. Taoists and Buddhists tend to be better at this than Christians or Muslims (but Christians and Muslims exist that do this too, and the apostle Paul talks about one such case in the New Testament), but the point of religion is, simply put, _knowing God_ . Corporately, religion is about _sharing the God that one knows among one's fellow believers_ . You take what has transformed you, the experiences you had in the heavenly, with that elevated consciousness, and bring that _back down to earth_ with you for others, and if you are part of a corporate expression of religion in that way, you can be confident that as you are prepared to share with others, so others will be prepared to share with you, which, not coincidentally, will help you on your religious journey of drawing closer to the sacred, as you sharing with others will help others, others sharing with you will help you. That is, to the religious in reality, _the point of religion_ . Now, ask yourself, _what should that look like in fantasy_ ?
Imagine a cleric that gets their understanding of their deity from _actually interacting with the deity_ . Sure, they have dogma, they have a sacred text, but reading about a person is not the same as meeting them. "You search the scriptures, and in them you think you have life, and indeed they are that which testify of Me, but you are not willing to come to Me that you might have life." How might meeting a _God_ change someone? How might it change a practical follower of a religion but otherwise not initiated into what it means to know that God? How might it change a cleric? Imagine a religion that only accepts clerics from ranks of people _who have actually had a personal face-to-face with their God_ . Imagine if they expect you to learn doctrine and dogma _from that God_ , and otherwise refuse to instruct new initiates? What if the point of the instruction is itself learning how to commune with divinity in that way? It shows who is suited for the mission and who isn't. Or a deity descends from the heavens and declares that he is looking for a bride, and has his sights set on a particular mortal (happens all the time in Shintoism). Imagine a character having to go through the experience of being chosen to be a being not unlike the Virgin Mary.
We can do things like that because we're looking at fantasy.
If there is to be conflict, or growth, for a character of faith in that kind of light, then it should be about _that particular struggle_ , about realizing the pinnacle and goal of their religion, of the reason why they follow the tenets of their religion in the first place, which, again, should not be some watered-down stand in for secular philosophy, like 'go travel a lot.' Okay, why am I traveling? 'Because it's good for you and I get more divine power the more people who engage in long travel, I rule the roads.' So you existing or not has no practical difference whatsoever? Okay, god of travel, I'm going to stay at home and be a recluse because I don't care if traveling is _good for me_ or not, and I certainly don't care if it makes you stronger. 'But I can offer you so much.' I don't need anything you can offer me. Some god you are.
Let's try that again; Okay, why am I traveling? 'Because at the end of your road, you will finally be able to meet me.' Okay, why do I want to meet you? 'You will know why when you meet me; I could tell you the why right now, but it wouldn't mean anything to you, certainly not the way it will mean something to you after your journey is over.' Okay, can't you at least give me a hint? 'Fine; when we finally meet, you will realize it isn't our first time meeting face-to-face, and that we used to know each other.' What do you mean, we used to know each other? Who are you? 'The only way you will find and understand those answers, is if you start traveling and meet me.' There, I just made Fharlanghn actually interesting by reinventing him in a manner to much more closely resemble the way gods function as described in sacred texts, and yes, this can be done with every deity in any fantasy setting, not just the god of travel. The Greeks used to talk about being "possessed by Ares," or other Olympian gods. One was essentially considered to be united with Ares in one soul if they lost themselves in a fight, if they gave themselves completely to the act of battle, so that the practice of war expressed itself through their bodies. Remember that Latin root, "religãre," to tie fast? The bond doesn't get closer or stronger than that. The difference between a mere worshiper, and a priest of a God, is that the worshiper follows that God's tenets and is trying to draw closer to the divine in some way. The priest, is the one who serves as a connecting tie (there it is again) to the worshiper and the God, "speak to God for us" said the Israelites to Moses. That's what clerics in a fantasy setting should be; they should be the liasons between gods and peoples, not divine merchants or glorified secular counselors and philosophers.
If you are uncomfortable with the idea of _any of this_ at your play table, don't include gods in your setting. Don't use them. Or if you're going to use them, go with the 'atheists are right' route, and every single worshiper of a deity in that setting, is simply incorrect and there are no gods. There are only, at best, powerful entities pretending to something resembling real divinity, which is how most people run fantasy tabletop RPG 'gods' in the first place anyway.
I really hate pantheons as an idea, because buy and large they didn't exist. You make a good point that they're not conducive to engaging RPG gameplay, and they're also really not helpful for understanding historical reality. There was never just a "Greek pantheon" or a "Roman pantheon", people in polytheistic societies were constantly engaging with other peoples and incorporating new ideas into their belief systems. It's pretty well-documented that the Greeks and Romans worshipped foreign gods when it was convenient, or through being introduced to them via trade networks, conquest, etc. For example, Aphrodite was an adoption of the Phoenician goddess Astarte, who was herself an adoption of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, and many Romans worshipped Mithras, Isis, and Sabazios (Persian, Egyptian, and Thracian gods respectively) and, to bring things back to TTRPGs, this had a tendency to create some interesting conflict and tension within Roman society that could pretty easily be reinterpreted through a more fantastical lens.
And while I agree with you that faith shouldn't be shown as transactional, it doesn't necessarily need to be demanding either. Polytheistic relationships were generally perceived as reciprocal, and "relationship" is key: the intention of worship was to develop a real relationship with a deity, not merely to use a deity as a crutch for when things get bad or you otherwise need some kind of divine intervention (this is why sacrifices in the Roman Empire were such a huge political sticking point; from the Roman perspective, by refusing to worship the state-appointed deities, you were putting not just yourself but the Emperor and the state as a whole at risk). A really good channel dedicated to polytheism, Ocean Keltoi, has a number of videos that go more into detail about the whole "relationship" dynamic with deities from a theological perspective.
Just because there are several gods in the wold, they don't have to be from the same pantheon. Like in that exchange from Conan the Barbarian where Conan and Subotai are debating Crom and the Four Winds.
Or read the Old Testament. (Paraphrased from memory and a different language), there is a passage where the enemies of the Israelites are debating that the god of the Israelites is a mountain god and therefore would be at a disadvantage when fighting in the planes.
Or the faith of the Israelites has been periodically weakening, making them easy prey to their enemies. God would then choose a judge to help the Israelites and restore their faith.