Cleric shenanigans (metaphysical, no right answers)

The Rogue Arcane Trickster has their defined "god" as agnostic. Now THAT takes faith!

Celebrim said:

As a pet peeve, the definition of Faith has evolved greatly over the last 150 years - at least as it has been presented in dictionaries. Early dictionaries, say those of the 19th century, presented a very different definition of faith than the one that has been trending to dominance among lexicographists over the last 50 years. My contention is that this evolution has occurred as the proportion of lexicographists who are pious has diminished, producing a situation where the people judging the meaning of the word "Faith" are increasingly the ones that don't have it.

This produces a huge disconnect in modern conversation between the pious and the irreligious, since the irreligious when they say "faith" are using something like your dictionary.com definition, but the religious and pious when they say "Faith" are using an entirely different older definition. The result is a massive disconnect where neither side understands what the other is saying, and which were neither side agrees to the others axiomatic claims. The two groups are literally speaking different dialects where words with particular sounds are related to one other, but convey very different meanings.

For example, the reason that I would tend to say that "Faith" shouldn't really exist in a fantasy game setting, is that the vast majority of fantasy game settings have some sort cosmology that is pastiche polytheism, and in general polytheistic religions consider correct ritual vastly more important than faith (if they consider faith at all) and what separates the clergy from the common worshiper is not a degree of faith, but the fact that the clergy possess the esoteric and often secret knowledge (to say nothing of the paraphernalia) necessary to correctly perform the rituals. The logic of that is based on the assumptions of polytheism, which do not require that the worshipper form an attachment to any particular deity. Monotheism holds faith higher than ritual, because it emphasizes in a way that polytheism doesn't, attachment to the person of a particular deity. (As Gene Wolfe recently died, the conversation between Severian and his deceased Master concerning government, and the faith of his three legged dog comes to mind here.)

Click to expand...

Ah, the difference between "faith" and "Faith". The first is simple belief, such as "I have faith in the system", while the other is more specific to religion.

I observe a similar lexicographic dichotomy: Piousness and Piety. To me (and as I'll use the here) one refers to public appearance and the other to actual belief.

The reference I was running off of used "piousness" and suggested that this was behavior, as in going through the motions of bowing, kneeling, chanting etc. at a ritual. Piety, on the other hand, is similar to Faith (with the capital letters), in that it's an inner reverence for what the rituals are supposed to convey.

My point on that topic was that a deity may like it if people make a show of belief, but can tell if it's more than just a show. Faith v faith (one with capitals and one without) is, I suppose, the difference between belief in the deity as separate from belief in the religion.

Sir Terry Pratchet played with this distinction in one of is books (can't recall the title off hand) when the deity Om decided to manifest in the mortal world and found himself trapped in the form of a tortise, and all but powerless. While the "Omnian Empire" was an iron fisted theocracy and a serious world power ruled by a church that no one dared challenge, very few actually believed in the deity in whose name the church operated. In the book it was only one person.

So I understand your position on "Faith", as practiced by religious adherents, and the distinction between that and the more common "faith" ( meaning simple belief). But even in the classic sense, the Bible makes the distinction clear. (Sorry to go there, but that was where we were going anyway.) The apostle Thomas had said he wouldn't believe that Jesus had risen until he could probe the nail holes in his hands, etc. When Jesus met him later and offered Thomas the opportunity to probe the nail holes and so forth, he finished with the comment: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.", or some words to that effect (sorry, so many translations, so little memory.)

Hence my choice of the "Belief without proof" definition. It's pretty much what the Bible attributes to Jesus, in that meeting.

Also, as a side note, that is the origin of the phrase "Doubting Thomas".

I will say that over the editions D&D has gradually started doing a better job of representing religions. For example, the way the 5e SCAG describes the day to day experience of religion in the Forgotten Realms is a polytheistic pantheon where everyone performs appropriate acts of ritual worship towards any deity that is relevant (including offerings to appease evil ones to keep their wrath away). But because of the wonky jerk-faced way they rule their crystal sphere, everyone also has to have a patron deity. So, the Forgotten Realms is both getting better at presenting believable polytheism...while at the same time reinforcing the D&D tradition of picking your own personal deity/religion. *shakes head*

I think Catholicism with patron saints is really our closest real world analogue to the way D&D does it.

Of course, if you try too hard you just fight against what the game/setting is doing, and you've got to decide how much is worth it. For instance, the main religion in many parts of my world explicitly has a medieval Catholic feel. Instead of patron saints you do have deities ("Immortals" as a call-back to BECMI), but it's really rare to dedicate yourself to one of them as in "I'm a follower of ____". Instead, each of them has a particular role to play in society. There are separate priests (the exception) for each deity, and some deities have multiple separate (or sub) orders of priests. The priests of one deity overseer local churches, perform marriages and funerals, and do the day to day things that one might expect a priest to do. Those of another counsel and attends to rulers and performs major civic rituals. Those of another run hospitals and orphanages and provide free healing. Etc. But everyone is part of the same religion, and everyone in the area literally "goes to church" at the same building. (Except the nobility. They get special treatment and are entitled and expected to attend worship meetings in the grand cathedrals of the Law-Giver unlike the average person.) Thieves and criminals don't have patron gods. They probably just aren't very devout people. There are evil gods, three of them in that pantheon to be exact, and they are explicitly viewed as enemies. Doing anything to appease them would get you in trouble. They have their own secret groups of followers that pursue different brands of evil goals. So basically I preserve the idea that you have various clerics serving different deities with each having their own hierarchy, while at the same time, average people don't choose a patron, and you don't have competing religions in the society. I really like the way it flavors the society without fighting too much against the way D&D has always worked.

Celebrim said:

e) Even if we approach the question from a simulation perspective, it's highly unlikely that extreme disparities exist between environments were adventuring occurs and the ones where it doesn't for two significant reasons. First, there would be economic pressure for leveled PC individuals to migrate from the area where adventuring occurs to the ones were it doesn't, because their skills in those environments would be rarer, more highly valued, and their disparity in power compared to the ordinary inhabitants would make more influential and able to assert their will on the population. In other words, there would be pressure for the leveled individuals to conquer the non-leveled individuals. This would also tend to immediately turn the locations where adventuring doesn't happen into areas where adventuring happens. Likewise, there would be economic pressure for monsters to desist in attacking areas where adventuring happens (and leveled PCs occur) and turn their attention to the areas where their plundering and depredations could not be easily resisted. Again, this would immediately turn the areas where adventuring doesn't happen into areas where adventuring does happen. Further, if we suppose that these populations of non-leveled individuals exist, we have to explain how in fact they are surviving in a world with creatures like ghouls and werewolves if in fact they have no real ability to resist such creatures. The obvious answer is that leveled individuals exist in sufficient quantitates and with sufficient organization to protect them from such common threats. The result is that even if we are purist to simulation of a so called gritty, "grimdark", pseudo-medieval setting that we are forced to concede that the only stable arrangement of society is one where "adventuring" occurs everywhere and leveled PC's exist in approximately the ratios established by the areas that have already been described and detailed by the game publishers.

Click to expand...

I confess I'm struggling to follow the detail of some of the conversations (which have drifted a bit from the original topic), but this particular logic path doesn't seem to jibe with my sensibility, or some real-world evidence.

The concept of gentrification simultaneously seems to support and undermine this logic. High level character moves to low-level area to "take over." Sometimes it's not really their goal to take over. There's just something attractive about the resources there, or they need the cheap labor of the unskilled masses.

But future high-level characters might be attracted to the same area for the same reasons (competition for resources), or to prove themselves (competition for superiority) or to simply be associated with that other high level person, which builds up a neighborhood of like-skilled characters.

In my own campaign, one of my NPCs, seeing all the loot the PCs were wandering around with, asked to join them in the hope of future spoils. Leaving behind a relatively cushy position at home, where he was guarding the equivalent of peasants.

But I am taking notes. More logic for different-minded personalities in the world.

merwins said:

I confess I'm struggling to follow the detail of some of the conversations (which have drifted a bit from the original topic), but this particular logic path doesn't seem to jibe with my sensibility, or some real-world evidence.

The concept of gentrification...

Click to expand...

Gentrification?

"Gentrification" is a process where by wealthy investors buy low value property in economically depressed areas in hopes of flipping it into high value property. There are both rural and urban versions of this, with the rural version usually involving buying farmland and building a golf course.

It has as far as I can imagine absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about, except in the sense that economic forces will always drive profit taking activities. And owing to the fact that it has become a political topic and hot button word/issue, I really have no desire to discuss anything in terms of "gentrification".

What logic, sensibility, or real world evidence is offended by the claim that people with concentrated military power tend to try to turn that power into political power, or by the claim that predators will tend to go where the prey is?

Celebrim said:

Gentrification?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm trying to stay away from all the political stuff and focus on the impact of high-level PCs moving into a low-level area. More of an abstraction/parallel.

Why bother moving into a low-level area except to retire? I don't want to boss over a bunch of locals who have little or nothing to offer me. I guess if there were enough of them to be cogs in a factory, but even then.... Usually I wanted something else. The view, some hidden magic, natural resources, etc.

The fact that I move in, maybe start training folks to do what I need them to, or bring in outside help -- that starts to stratify the population. The value that creates starts to pull in other high-level characters.

But I'm not moving to a low-value area just because I'm a high-value character... the population won't be able to compensate me appropriately unless my goal is to retire. Conquering low-level creatures provides me with a nothing-buffer against threats I might face. The only real value I see for a high-level character moving to a low-level environment is anonymity. And they've gotta work pretty hard to maintain that anonymity.

merwins said:

Yeah, I'm trying to stay away from all the political stuff and focus on the impact of high-level PCs moving into a low-level area. More of an abstraction/parallel.

Click to expand...

Ok, good. You had me worried there for a bit.

Why bother moving into a low-level area except to retire?

Click to expand...

Because in this model where 10,000 non-PC classed individuals exist for every one PC classed individual, all the social roles and jobs still exist - there are nobles, clergy, merchants, etc. - they are just not PC classed. So even if they are less wealthy than adventurers, with a 10,000 to 1 population advantage most of the wealth might still be in these regions. Why go carve out a kingdom in the wilderness, if you could carve out a kingdom where all the people are? Why try to lure peasants to your land in exchange for that 7 s.p. a month taxation rate and try to keep them from becoming dragon chow, when you could go where there are already lots of peasants and well developed land.

Moreover, people just like bossing each other around. They like imposing their will on people. If you don't want to boss over a bunch of locals, you can be sure that someone does - even if only as slaves.

But I'm not moving to a low-value area just because I'm a high-value character...

Click to expand...

Why assume that the place where adventuring doesn't happen is the "low-value area"? Sure, there may be lots of salvage (gold, jewels, etc.) in the area where adventuring takes place, but all the capital goods - arable land, orchards, livestock, labor, roads, canals, bridges, factories, craftsman, schools, etc. - are back in "civilization". Once you've built up your power base, why don't you just go back and take what you want from the mooks if its pretty much just mooks guarding it? Remember, if we have 1 in 10,000 demographics, then the in places where "adventuring is not happening" they have to have several orders of magnitude less than 1 in 10,000 PC classed individuals to make up for the density seen in places where the adventuring is happening.

Conquering low-level creatures provides me with a nothing-buffer against threats I might face.

Click to expand...

Why would you be facing threats? If you are denying that the predators go where the prey is, then by leaving the "areas where adventuring happen" to go to the "areas where adventuring doesn't happen" I can avoid all the threats. Why risk your life on the rugged frontier, when all the wine, women, and luxuries are back that way, free for the taking because the only thing guarding them is a bunch of 0 level men-at-arms? And even if that is not true, how is having a bunch of men-at-arms as a buffer less of a buffer than having no men-at-arms? Or, if you have already carved out your kingdom on the frontier, why are you worried you will have less buffer after conquering the Kingdom of Mooks? It's not like you have a buffer in the dungeon.

Paul Farquhar said:

There is no contradiction. Most priests are not clerics and don't cast spells, but those aren't detailed in the modules because there is no point fighting them. Only the small proportion that can cast spells are worth the time of adventurers. Things only get stat blocks if they can actually pose a threat or offer meaningful aid.

Click to expand...

Actually, come to think of it... Princes of the Apocalypse has plenty of "priests" who aren't clerics (or cleric-like NPCs). Each of the elemental cults have their own priests (Howling Hatred Priest, Black Earth Priest, and so on), and they all have stat blocks that look a lot like sorcerers - Charisma-based casting, spells mostly taken from the sorcerer list, and such. The cult leaders aren't clerics either - the closest class equivalents are wizard, sorcerer, druid, and monster/fighter. The only cultists with Wisdom-based casting are druids (two particular individuals) or monks.

Staffan said:

Actually, come to think of it... Princes of the Apocalypse has plenty of "priests" who aren't clerics (or cleric-like NPCs). Each of the elemental cults have their own priests (Howling Hatred Priest, Black Earth Priest, and so on), and they all have stat blocks that look a lot like sorcerers - Charisma-based casting, spells mostly taken from the sorcerer list, and such. The cult leaders aren't clerics either - the closest class equivalents are wizard, sorcerer, druid, and monster/fighter. The only cultists with Wisdom-based casting are druids (two particular individuals) or monks.

Click to expand...

Yeah, giving priests spellcasting from different classes isn't anything new, so it's the same basic principle of priests being casters.

Why not look act actual Polytheisms and their encounters with other Polytheisms as a basis for the understanding of the way people interact with their gods and why?

There is an HBO series called, if I recall, Rome. It follows the misadventures of an officer and an enlisted man from the Roman Army while the Republic fades into the Empire. It gives an idea of how they dealt with the ideas of gods along with how and when they offered prayers. When they were in other lands they accepted the local gods as real and were more "careful" since their own gods were so far away. They offered small sacrifices, and promised them as well, when they were in trouble or foresaw trouble. They would all but treat the interaction as a business deal, "Jupiter if I get through this I will sacrifice a nice fat goat to you." People had preferred "household gods" they gave regular sacrifices to, those whose actions had more of an impact on their lives. They might go to a temple on a special day to offer up a larger sacrifice but day to day observations were more personal. The pantheon of household gods might change if they thought a certain god favored them n some way they could add a statue to the family altar.

By adding in the actual force of the god projected through their clerics and paladins all you do is create more "proof" of the gods thus requiring less "faith". Gods may send those warriors to aid a community they see as under their wing to make the followers belief even stronger or maybe just to pay back all those sacrificed goats.

So since there is actual PROOF of a gods power FAITH isn't needed. It's more like BELIEF. These sound like technicalities but faith is defined as belief without proof. When a lightning bolt flies from the sky burning an outlaw into a crisp after you pray to your god of storm to save you who needs faith?

Edit: All of this is of course pointless and not worth arguing. I simply offer this as a possible interpretation one could use as a GM to simplify the extremely complex ideas behind religion, faith, belie and other such things.