Monster Pantheon vs Racial Pantheon

[Cbas_10]

I like what Green Ronin did with The Book of the Righteous. Instead of having different racial gods, they have one pantheon of gods, but different races might interpret those gods in different ways. For example, Canarak is a chaotic evil god of destruction, violence, etc. To humans, elves, and dwarves, he is probably just Canarak, and they probably represent him looking like an indistinct being of unspeakable evil. But to orcs, he is represented as the strongest, fiercest orc imaginable, and they call him Gruumsh.

I forgot about that book, but now that you mention it, I really like that Idea, as well. We've seen this at work in the Greek and Roman pantheons. And if the developers insist on writing stats for gods, I hope they are significantly stronger than characters with a few epic levels.

 

[Gundark]

SNOT!!! SNOT FOR THE SNOT GOD!!!!

I'm hearing the sound of Murlocs....nonononoononononononoononono

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't agree with the idea that seperate pantheons for different cultures akes sense, even looking at real world history.

If you read the writing of Herodotus, a greek who believed in the classical greek gods, you see he comments on Egyptian religions in his description of ancient Egypt. What he does not say is "the Egyptians worship different gods than us". Instead, he says "the Egyptians have different names for the gods". The religious differences are reconciled as different cultural interpretations of the same pantheon.

Another example is the syncretic religions of China and Japan, where Buddhism has been perfectly fused with local religions. In Japan, you can see the Buddha in a Shinto shrine, and Shinto gods in Buddhist shrines. Religious differences between pantheons are reconciled by fusing the pantheons and religious rites together.

As a whole, you can even justify the new 4E pantheon as a syncretic religion created when worhip of the Greyhawk human gods and Racial gods happens in a racially mixed society.

 

[wayne62682]

I would like to see an approach like the old Dragonlance game - the same core gods, but each race had different names for them. One would have to ignore the "established" racial deities, however, which I don't mind at all since apart from the major ones (Corellon, Moradin, Gruumsh, etc) I've never really seen them mentioned.

 

[psionotic]

The real question is whether deities are created by belief, or whether belief follows from boons or acts originating from deities. If its the former, than every culture should have its own gods. If its the latter, than they shouldn't. Now, they could have different names for the gods, and worship them in different ways, but in a world in which deities make a noticeable impact onto every day life, people are going to worship the ones that are clearly real over ones that no one has ever heard from or seen.

 

[Spatula]

The real question is whether deities are created by belief, or whether belief follows from boons or acts originating from deities.

Hey, that's what I was going to write.

If you read the writing of Herodotus, a greek who believed in the classical greek gods, you see he comments on Egyptian religions in his description of ancient Egypt. What he does not say is "the Egyptians worship different gods than us". Instead, he says "the Egyptians have different names for the gods". The religious differences are reconciled as different cultural interpretations of the same pantheon.

What did Herodotus say about the Egyptian gods that had no Greek counterpart? Were they just dieties previously undiscovered by the Greeks?

 

[TwinBahamut]

What did Herodotus say about the Egyptian gods that had no Greek counterpart? Were they just dieties previously undiscovered by the Greeks?

If I had his writings available to me right now, I would find you the examples, but barring that, I will just say that he didn't follow clear analogs. I found a lot of the conections he made to be strange, and were certainly not based on clear counterparts. As such, your question actually doesn't apply. Interesting, huh?

Also, as to the other thing being discussed...

I hate the idea of "gods created by mortal worship and belief". I wish that D&Dism would die an ugly, gruesome death. It is completely ignorant of and contrary to every major historical religion, and ruins any attempt to add a mythological or historical feel to D&D.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I hate the idea of "gods created by mortal worship and belief". I wish that D&Dism would die an ugly, gruesome death. It is completely ignorant of and contrary to every major historical religion, and ruins any attempt to add a mythological or historical feel to D&D.

And I agree, that D&Dism has been one of my pet peeves for decades. At the same time I think a lot of people reflect religions more familiar to them onto D&D deities and thus misunderstand their nature.

These are NOT omniscient, omnipresent, omnicompetent forces. D&D gods are just really big monsters/PCs/NPCs with great power that everyone wants to appease or show respect to in order for assistance, favor, or being ignored. Really there should be more gods than most of the settings include, as there would be some movement into the ranks of godhood by powerful PCs/NPCs/Monsters.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

If I had his writings available to me right now, I would find you the examples, but barring that, I will just say that he didn't follow clear analogs. I found a lot of the conections he made to be strange, and were certainly not based on clear counterparts. As such, your question actually doesn't apply. Interesting, huh?

He forget to say that if greeks and romans ended up worshipping similar gods (the romans adopted a good lot of the greek believes), it's NOT a copy fully. There is roman gods who reflect their own believes, with no equivalents, and the greeks adopted some gods thenselves, it is theorised (like Venus/Aphrodite, who may have been taken from more middle-eastern culture).

And even if, like in the indo-european large family, there seems to be a generic 'pattern', the same point.

This point is not too valid. There can be many pantheons... the divine don't always follow classic logic.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The examples of Greek vs. Egyptian vs. Norse gods doesn't really work for the D&D universe because these gods don't truly exist in our world the way that D&D deities do in the D&D universe. (i.e., Speaking regularly with their followers, granting spells and miracles, etc.)

Are you kidding?

Tell that to an Oracle, or a Pharaoh, or a sacrificial bride, or a holy warrior, or anyone who has ever "heard the gods speak" ever. In history.

For the believers, those gods DO truly exist in our world in every way that the D&D deities do in the D&D universe. People hear Jesus every day, and they also see him healing the sick (similar to D&D's "granting spells and miracles"), answering prayers, and generally being very, very active in the world.

When lightning emerged from the clouds, that was Zeus literally standing up there and throwing them for the Greeks.

D&D gods do *exactly* what real world gods have done: exist (if nowhere else than in the mind of the believer). They do so better than real world gods, even.

I think the de-specialization of deities is a very good idea. If a god is an orc, it shouldn't mean that he can only be worshiped by orcs, it should mean that an orc is the purest example of that god's philosophy that exists in the world, so he appears as an orc, and everybody knows why.

We don't need Ehlonna and Corellon unless they're very distinct. Corellon works pretty well by himself, because OF COURSE the god of the fey would resemble an elf, right?