1. The gods are real, but their ability to interact on this plane could be limited or enhanced by belief. And if you kill a god, something or someone will take its place. Thus, it behooves the gods to be active participants in the world. The citizens of my world may not agree on what the gods are like and what they want from us, and (especially for the shadier ones) may worship different aspects of a god — but there’s no doubt but that the gods exist and may intervene.

2. Much like fiends and devils and such, the gods are otherworldly, and on this plane we can only see an image of the gods. They chiefly interact with the world by infusing it with divine energy. They soak up the belief and redirect it into activities that make sense for them. And when they appear in physical form — which is pretty rare — they use avatars that do have limited abilities. But the gods do not have any limitations, just habits and customs and agreements with each other. If you piss off a god, and don’t have another god watching your back, you are unlikely to survive the week.

3. Clerics and paladins and other holy folk are those who have both a particular aptitude for channeling divine magic, and a particular affinity for a particular deity. If you really dig the natural world, you’re going to drift toward Gaea, or Herne if you prefer ethical hunting. Sailors tend to worship the sea god because they spend a lot of time on his turf. However, a sailor returning to dry land would make some offering to the Earth Mother. Armies tend to worship a god of honorable and orderly combat, but also make a sacrifice to the god of berserkers so that battle frenzy doesn’t overtake their plans.

4. In the end of the campaign, my players had to ultimately decide whether to seal off the world so that the fiends and devils and demons couldn’t enter it directly anymore; the cost was that the gods would be unable to intervene directly in mortal affairs. Ultimately they went the Babylon 5 route and said “get the hell out of our galaxy”.

Even worse, however, is that my writing wasn’t good enough to actually convey my real point. Let’s see if I can do better. DocRyder said “The “religious hokum” of most games is not just hokum in most games, because they do assume that the gods are real. That’s a long standing staple of the fiction our games are based on.” I totally agree. The intent of my first response was to ask the question: why should this be the case? Why do games assume this? And, the follow up: what if they didn’t?

I think a game that was entirely based around various fictional polytheistic religions and their politics and motivations, where PCs played various stripes of religious leaders, warriors and so on and wielded typical RPG divine powers — but where an intrinsic properly of the game world was that _none_ of the squabbling religions in the game were real — would be extremely fascinating.

Such a game would follow the “perception defines reality” concept mentioned in the article, but would not necessarily follow the “religion does not have to make sense” principle. This would help avoid the main trap of the “perception defines reality” idea: PCs that will inevitably build “religions” where the perception is “I am the absolute master of time and space” or something similar, and the “perception defines reality” idea makes it so.

If, however, the game states outright that its religions are actually all false, you can use different principles. For example, you might follow an “in order for the divine power to work, it must be internally consistent”. This would still allow the various religions to go their own way (and be inconsistent with _each other_), but still have a somewhat “rational” approach to divine magic. I don’t really know how this would work, but it would be pretty interesting.

I should have noted, also, that polytheist cults are even more unusual than I initially painted them. It is true, for instance, and as you said, that one would petition one god for rain, another for protection from disease, and so on. However, if one god failed in a particular instance, then another god would be sought out! This is possible because polytheist gods are rarely, as they are often painted in games, limited to a small area of action*. For instance, Apollo was originally a god of healing (and seems to have developed from Nergal, the plague god, who was also called Aplu Enlil “Son of Enlil”). His connection with disease, which was understood as a consequence of contact with “bad air”, or miasma, caused him to be associated with wind. The connection with wind caused him to be associated with wolves (you see, wolves lair in caves that are the mouths of underground streams during the dry season, from which air flows out. This breeze was seen as the breath coming into the world from the Underworld, and so Apollo also became the psuche “breath” of the World, and represented by wolves, who could be interpreted, due to the abovementioned lairs, as messengers from the Underworld. Thus, we find Apollo Lykeios “Lycian Apollo”, whose name is also connected with Lykos “wolf”). His later syncretization with Helios as god of the sun derives from these other characteristics (and possibly a connection with healing herbs that had psychoactive properties, causing him to be associated with “shining”), by connecting wind with sun. Which doesn’t even begin to cover all that there is to know about Apollo, such as his connection with poetry, his thematic and iconographic connections with northern European gods like Wotanaz (or Odin), the werewolf cults I mentioned, and so on. (Much of this material is derived from Daniel Gershenson’s Apollo the Wolf-God.) The point of this long digression being to show how a simple initial conceptualization (plague, healing) can turn into a very wide range of affinity (the Sun, spears, wolves, wind, mice, poetry, serpents, prophecy, etc, etc – much of which I’ve edited out for purposes of relative brevity).

As I said, it’s a subject which is very important to me.

I’d also have to agree with the above commentator who mentioned HeroQuest and other Glorantha-related materials (such as RuneQuest) as getting it mostly right. A GM could also easily use the HERO System to develop something along the lines of what I mentioned in my first comment, since it focuses on the aspects which affect the game directly, and not on the underlying cosmological assumptions, leaving those for description rather than mechanics (similarly, GURPS should do well here). I’m still learning The Burning Wheel, so I don’t know how well it would approach these concepts, but I suspect (based on reading Burning Sands: Jihad) that it could handle them well.

*one polytheist mystic of my acquaintance has expressed this by noting that, while no two gods are the “same”, any particular god can encompass all of existence. In this way, to take Japanese examples, Sarutahiko-no-Okami is the greatest of all kami. This does not preclude Amaterasu-no-Okami from being the greatest of all kami, nor prevent one from experiencing pure enlightenment through the exercises of the Shugendo mountain ascetics (who are connected with tengu cults).

I guess I’ve got some research of my own to do.

of course, we played it fast and loose but it involved a few real-world concepts:
1) acceptance of existance. you had to be and do. the bigger the better.
2) worshipers. aside from people just accepting existance, there had to be people devoted to you as a cause.

of course, you also had to be sponsored by another deity, so in a way it was played out like an exclusive club, a throwback to Roman times.

One important aspect which game designers and gameworld authors would do well to observe is that “belief”, in the sense used by monotheist and atheist thinkers, is not a definitive or even necessary aspect of polytheist religions. It is unimportant to those religions to have a unity of thought on the nature of a god or gods. What these religions do require is a unity of action. This is called “orthopraxy”, and is distinguished from “orthodoxy”.

The degree of orthopraxy in a particular culture’s expression of polytheist religion varies. For instance, in the Roman Empire, the only orthopractic requirement was acknowledgment of the Emperor’s Genius (which was what got the early Christians into so much trouble). Any other cult was up to the individual, and the Empire didn’t really care much (the Druids were an exception, but that seems to have been due to the organization serving as a hotbed of rebellious activities). Similarly, in modern Japan, different Shinto shrines (Jinja), and different “Sects” (Kyouha) have differing ideas on the nature of the kami, cosmological speculations, etc., but community and personal rituals follow largely similar patterns. Individuals will participate in various personal rites (for instance, observing the “critical year” ceremonies, or various types of purification), and communities will enact larger rituals (such as parading portable shrines through the area, making the first Mochi cakes of the year, and so on). In addition, “Folk Shinto” (Tsuuzoku) represents the many local cults which are not part of the Jinja Shinto system, nor part of the various Kyouha, such as Tengu-worship. (This overview doesn’t even begin to touch on the influence of Buddhism and Christianity in modern Japan, as that would complicate the discussion needlessly.)

So, what worldbuilders might profitably do is to designate various communal rituals, which serve as a social glue for the various communities. Then, various apotropaic rites can be designed for individuals to protect them from evil spirits or other calamities. Finally, rites of devotion to local spirits (think of dryads, the Scottish gruagach, or Japanese tengu), who can act just as any other spirit in the campaign. On top of those three fundamentals, add in specific cults, such as a warrior society who transform their members into werewolves (a common European institution, actually, occurring from Livonia to Ireland, Scandinavia to Greece – though what is meant by “werewolf” is a complex topic). Evil cannibal cults can be designed, who might use cannibalism as the basis of their special magics (such cults have existed in various areas, including Iron-Age Europe and the Pacific Northwest of North America), not to mention local cults whose spirits of devotion are diseases or other demonic forces. Given these, there can be various social organizations which interpret these various practices in terms of ancient myths of creation and exercise political and social power. These organizations can also serve as educational centers, providing the sorts of knowledge which make a person into something more than a mere survival machine, such as philosophical knowledge or even some type of science (or “natural philosophy”).

Some useful sources of interest in regard to polytheist religious forms:

The Deities Are Many – Jordan Paper
A World Full Of Gods – John Michael Greer
Religion And Magic In The Life Of Traditional Peoples – Alice and Irvin Child
The Fairy-Faith In Celtic Countries – W.Y. Evans Wentz
Essentials Of Shinto: An Analytical Guide To Principal Teachings – Stuart D.B. Picken
Shamans, Sorcerers, And Saints: A Prehistory Of Religion – Brian Hayden
Death, War, And Sacrifice: Studies In Ideology And Practice – Bruce Lincoln

I see what you mean, but why wouldn’t evil people worship a god that mirrors their greed, ambition, bloodlust, etc.? A good god would see through their superficial, lip-service ‘faith’ and not grant them squat. Also, if powers spring from belief, then couldn’t the ordinary peasant who believes in Evil Deity (in the way many Christians believe there is a Satan) get access to spells via said deity? To me, devotion seems more important, in D&D terms. A farmer would be devoted to a god related to agriculture and the sun while a merchant would be more devoted to a god a fortune and economics. However, if belief is the issue, then both could get access to spells from Evil Deity.

Ultimately, though, does the issue of belief even factor into normal D&D since it’s pretty well established as truth that various gods exist? People simply know; is belief necessary?

Does that make sense? :-/ Thoughts?

(Sorry, I can’t avoid discussing stuff like this. I have a Philosophy degree – this is about all I can do with it.)

The “religious hokum” of most games is not just hokum in most games, because they do assume that the gods are real. That’s a long standing staple of the fiction our games are based on. In Mage the Ascension, even though magic always has the same source, how you access it, what foci you use to get to your will engaged is never considered “hokum”.

Boiled down, what I’m saying is that the derogatory words you are in regards to religion are displaying a certain shortsightedness we’ve been trying to avoid in these discussions to this point. I personally feel it would be best if you were to consider different phrasing from here on out.

Something about polytheistic religions of Earth’s past that must be understood and perhaps applied to RPG settings is that gods within a single pantheon served different functions depending on the pantheon. In the Hellenic pantheon and society, all the gods were at least placated throughout one’s life, depending on what you were doing or how you made your living, as Telas mentions in his example. However, you had few (if any) priests of the Pantheon. Priests focused on a single god, as that focus and devotion supposedly gave them some of the power of the god in question (such as the Oracle of Delphi, a priestess of Apollo). In Norse faith, Odin was worshipped as a god of kings, and thus only by kings. The average viking was a commoner and thus a follower of Thor, as Thor was a commoner’s god. We understand that the average viking hoped for Odin’s valkyries to take him to Vahalla for his afterlife, even though he followed Thor. He also likely prayed for Hela to ignore him, or not visiti disease on him, again placating a god that wasn’t one he followed.

So, taking these ideas to the 4E pantheon, anyone fascinated with magic as an art might worship Corellon, and those who favor magic as science would follow Ioun. Those folks would be interested in the power those particular gods impart on their followers, and thus be devoted to them. The man on the street (say, an architect) might give some offering to a priest of either god in hopes of being protected from some fell magic, but be a follower of the teachings of Erathis, god of civilization.

I think the best use of deities in an RPG setting is Glorantha for RuneQuest. The gods are vastly important and well woven into the fabric of the societies described. There are no atheists in Glorantha.

Why?

In our own real world, the most “logical” explanation for why these different families of gods generate such paradoxes (e.g. conflicting sun gods, et. al.) is a very simple one: none of these gods really exist, and are dreamed up by _people_, some of whom have used these fictions to control and manipulate others.

Why isn’t there a fantasy world where this is the case, too?

The standard answer for a D&D type game is that, well, “divine magic” has real effects, so it must have some legitimacy, but this explanation doesn’t really hold water. Sorcerers can generate “arcane magic” without a man behind the curtain. Suppose those who cast “divine magic” are really doing the same thing, they just have to dress it up with religious hokum to _convince themselves_ that it will work.

@Rafe – I chose belief over devotion because I don’t think many folks would devote themselves to an evil deity, at least when compared to the good side of things. But if you merely believe in the evil deity (and who doesn’t?), then he too has a source of power. Of course, if devotion and faith are just ‘belief dialed up to eleven’, then both can work, too.

Patrick and Argokirby – No comment necessary…

@Peter K. – I’ve always justified D&D Clerics as the religion’s ‘sword arm’. Non-adventuring clerics are more focused on the things you mention, just as non-adventuring wizards are more involved in research and experimentation. But as you note, it can be a bit of a stretch… I believe the “Cleric as Sorcerer” class is the Favored Soul in D&D, but I’m not sure which 3.5 sourcebook it was in.

@NeonElf – I too, always thought Clerics would be more appropriate as ‘spontaneous casters’.

This entry has been simmering on my mental back-burners for a while, and I finally decided just to post it even if it’s not fully cooked. Thanks for the comments (and any future ones!); they’re great feedback.

Outside of that, I have to admit I agree to a degree with pretty much everything said here. Religion frequently gets brushed to the side, unless you make it a central point in a story. I created a religion who worships intelligent magical items as gods, in conflict with another religion who believes those “magical items” are unfairly imprisoning a soul which should be returned to the afterlife. Of course the only way to release the soul is to destroy the item, which puts a strain on the relations between two groups. Ahhhh Good times.

Religion can really make a setting, with rites and festivals, and things like that. Unfortunately it’s not something I’m too great at doing. I was a cleric in Ravenloft and our GM had a neat way of involving us in a religious situation. “The darkest night” is a night where all lights are doused so as not to bring the attentions of the other side, a night where the veil between here and the afterlife is particularly thin. We had crossed the borders of Ravenloft regions and lost our sense of time, thinking it had already past we gleefully broke into a boarded up inn and light all the lights to stay the night…. the resulting fight left the party scattered and running for the safety of the dark. LOL

I do run clerics as spontaneous casters anyway. It never made sense to me that a list of prayers has to be memorized at the appropriate time. You’re a representative of a religion/diety and are basically asking for a favor. I told our full cleric he could ask for anything and burn a spell slot of a particular level and see if it worked.