• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General The Generic Deities of D&D

noko

old hag of a DM
It seems that a common assumption in D&D is one of characters who practice a form of monolatry. Whilst acknowledging other deities, a character – if they revere a god at all – will typically focus on a single tutelary or patron to the exclusion of other divinities: e.g. my character worships Heironeous. Greyhawk in some ways established this standard, but I suspect that this monolatrous tendency has its basis in pulp fantasies like Conan, where the protagonist has a particular patron deity.

In the case of clerics – or other classes with explicitly cultic functions – this single-minded devotion to one deity is cogent (although not necessarily necessary). Outside of a priestly context it seems a little odd, given what we know of how people have behaved historically when a smorgasbord of cults are available to choose from, and when there are no dogmatic controls on the types of worship permitted.

In fact, we would expect many individuals to be members of any number of cults, and at the very least invoke a variety of gods for various purposes. In this context, salvific cults don’t so much vie for devotees, as offer an opportunity for a kind of multiple Pascal’s wager; new or fashionable cults are exciting; orgiastic cults – if unrestrained by some other moral voice – are predictably popular.

Religious gatherings also offer an opportunity to socialize: an initiate exting a vault after a Mithraic mystery on Monday might plausibly turn to their neighbour and arrange to meet them at the Herculean rite on Wednesday or the Bacchanalia on Friday. Late Classical Antiquity offers a model for a culturally relaxed form of polytheism, where perhaps some kind of practice might be mandated (e.g. you must offer sacrifices to the patron deity of the royal house, or venerate the emperor), but none is forbidden (otherwise, it’s up to you).

Historically, monolatrous practices evolved in Bronze- and Iron Age ethnopolities and city states, where a particular deity had a strong association with a geographical region and/or the tribe or group which inhabited it. They developed and changed as states began to centralize and the machinery of priesthood became more influential; societies came to attach more-and-more power and significance to their ethnodeity.

Like many other conceits in a typical D&D-verse, ideas about worship are a mixture of the achronistic, the ahistorical, and pure fantasy.
There are all sorts of accounts extant of members of polytheistic societies gadding about on religious pilgrimages, hitting all the shrine sites and festivals and just having a grand old time. Maybe there should be more of that sort of thing in D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

gyor

Legend
It seems that a common assumption in D&D is one of characters who practice a form of monolatry. Whilst acknowledging other deities, a character – if they revere a god at all – will typically focus on a single tutelary or patron to the exclusion of other divinities: e.g. my character worships Heironeous. Greyhawk in some ways established this standard, but I suspect that this monolatrous tendency has its basis in pulp fantasies like Conan, where the protagonist has a particular patron deity.

In the case of clerics – or other classes with explicitly cultic functions – this single-minded devotion to one deity is cogent (although not necessarily necessary). Outside of a priestly context it seems a little odd, given what we know of how people have behaved historically when a smorgasbord of cults are available to choose from, and when there are no dogmatic controls on the types of worship permitted.

In fact, we would expect many individuals to be members of any number of cults, and at the very least invoke a variety of gods for various purposes. In this context, salvific cults don’t so much vie for devotees, as offer an opportunity for a kind of multiple Pascal’s wager; new or fashionable cults are exciting; orgiastic cults – if unrestrained by some other moral voice – are predictably popular.

Religious gatherings also offer an opportunity to socialize: an initiate exting a vault after a Mithraic mystery on Monday might plausibly turn to their neighbour and arrange to meet them at the Herculean rite on Wednesday or the Bacchanalia on Friday. Late Classical Antiquity offers a model for a culturally relaxed form of polytheism, where perhaps some kind of practice might be mandated (e.g. you must offer sacrifices to the patron deity of the royal house, or venerate the emperor), but none is forbidden (otherwise, it’s up to you).

Historically, monolatrous practices evolved in Bronze- and Iron Age ethnopolities and city states, where a particular deity had a strong association with a geographical region and/or the tribe or group which inhabited it. They developed and changed as states began to centralize and the machinery of priesthood became more influential; societies came to attach more-and-more power and significance to their ethnodeity.

Like many other conceits in a typical D&D-verse, ideas about worship are a mixture of the achronistic, the ahistorical, and pure fantasy.

I love Pathfinder 2e idea of getting to choose a Pantheon instead of a single God for Clerics and others.
 

That's crossing the line on forum rules, but in short...no, it wouldn't necessarily change a thing from the real world.

In terms of actual human behaviour, I tend to agree as far as the peasantry/unwashed masses go. But I think that the psychological positioning of someone who worships a deity and actually gets divine power to cast spells is likely to be rather different.

Clerics in D&D wouldn't suffer from doubt in the same way that we do. Questions like "Do I really believe in Heironeous? What is the Oracle trying to tell me? Am I interpreting his will correctly?" are moot.

The kind of power that Clerics have in D&D really has nothing to do with faith, in the way that we construe it. And, whereas in our world, we can reasonably label cult leaders as narcissistic sociopaths; the same is not true in D&D-land, where there is no reason for a cult leader to be particularly maladjusted - I mean they might be, but they needn't be.
 

noko

old hag of a DM
In terms of actual human behaviour, I tend to agree as far as the peasantry/unwashed masses go. But I think that the psychological positioning of someone who worships a deity and actually gets divine power to cast spells is likely to be rather different.

Clerics in D&D wouldn't suffer from doubt in the same way that we do. Questions like "Do I really believe in Heironeous? What is the Oracle trying to tell me? Am I interpreting his will correctly?" are moot.

The kind of power that Clerics have in D&D really has nothing to do with faith, in the way that we construe it. And, whereas in our world, we can reasonably label cult leaders as narcissistic sociopaths; the same is not true in D&D-land, where there is no reason for a cult leader to be particularly maladjusted - I mean they might be, but they needn't be.
Much, much better if they are sweetly reasonable and then kill you, all jolly with a knife.
 


Parmandur

Book-Friend
In terms of actual human behaviour, I tend to agree as far as the peasantry/unwashed masses go. But I think that the psychological positioning of someone who worships a deity and actually gets divine power to cast spells is likely to be rather different.

Clerics in D&D wouldn't suffer from doubt in the same way that we do. Questions like "Do I really believe in Heironeous? What is the Oracle trying to tell me? Am I interpreting his will correctly?" are moot.

The kind of power that Clerics have in D&D really has nothing to do with faith, in the way that we construe it. And, whereas in our world, we can reasonably label cult leaders as narcissistic sociopaths; the same is not true in D&D-land, where there is no reason for a cult leader to be particularly maladjusted - I mean they might be, but they needn't be.

5E has done a good job bringing some inscrutability back into the Divine, making it a little more like RuneQuest than Marvel Comics Asgard.

In the real world, people runa a gamut from irreligious to superstitious, in a D&D world I don't see that fundamentally changing.
 

Anyway, wonder if there are any resources out there beyond this post to inform how to build a culture that reflects multiple deities as noted in your post?

Keep religion fluid. Have conflicting accounts. Avoid an overarching cosmology.

I would suggest there is a tendency – perhaps a temptation – for DMs to invent a myth cycle which describes the beginning of their world, to detail the role and functions of their deities within it: to invent a cosmology, and then engage in a kind of mythopoeia. This then comes to describe the metaphysical reality of the game world. I submit that this is a mistake.

It’s hard not to blame Tolkien – or rather, his literary emulators – for this trend. Tolkien himself is savvy, and there is the – sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit – notion that the received cosmology which we have is only that one which was moderated by the Elves. It contains elements of unreliable (perhaps alien) narration and maybe we shouldn’t really trust it one hundred percent. Tolkien then refracts this further through the lens of Hobbits (Translations from the Elvish by Bilbo Baggins), and then, implicitly, through himself. It is this untrustworthiness – or rather, the unverifiability – which gives myth its real emotional power.

Deities fragment, syncretize, recombine and die. Mortals may be deified, and deities may be historicized. Mythological figures are very fluid.

E.g.: Ba’al Hadad was a popular storm god in Phoenicia from the Late Bronze Age onwards, and in Ugaritic sources appears as one of the Sons of El, the supreme god of the Canaanite pantheon. Hadad was associated with a mountain (Mount Zaphon), was invoked as a war god, and – most importantly – was linked to fertility and the return of the rains in late summer; his fertility role was mythologized in an annual dying-and-rising cycle. When anthropomorphized, Hadad appeared as a bearded man with bull’s horns and wielding a thunderbolt; often, a bull was used to represent him iconographically. The later Interpretatio Graeca naturally drew an equivalence with Zeus.

El, who was also represented by a bull, and was likewise described as living on a mountain, was, over time, “absorbed” by Ba’al Hadad in the northern Levant. Despite being regarded as the chief of the gods, El was distant, and this pattern of rejecting otiose supreme deities in favor of more glamorous storm gods is rather common. Storm-and-war gods had a more immediate appeal, and their cultic promulgation was invariably linked to dynasties which claimed some descent, special link, or patronage from the warrior-deity. To add insult to El’s injury, Hadad later appropriated El’s consort, Atiratu (Asherah). Hadad’s sister (sometimes sister-wife), Anat, a fierce warrior-goddess, was syncretized with Atiratu to form a composite deity, Atargatis. El and Asherah were subsequently discarded altogether; they were “dead.”

A deity might be superceded as the leader of a pantheon, leaving its status ambiguous. This seems to have happened with the Norse god Tyr, who was originally the same supreme deity as the proto-Indo-European *Dyeus. At some point, Odin assumed the mantle of war and leadership: presumably, this usurpation accompanied the ascendancy of a group who already venerated the one-eyed god. Tyr now had to be described in terms of a new relationship: sometimes as the son of Odin and Jörd, sometimes the son of Hymir; sometimes, Tyr is used as a kenning for Odin himself, but his status is often otherwise uncertain.

Sometimes, deities are “adopted” into pantheons: this may occur during periods of migration or conquest (the deities of the displaced are usually negated, but one or two may endure and be recast in the world-view of the conquerors). Trade may also bring encounters with new cults to the attention of established societies; if the popularity of a new deity grows, it can be incorporated into and harmonized with an existing pantheon – at least to some degree. Dionysus and Heracles are both ancient mythological figures, originally hailing from the Middle East, who were absorbed into the Olympian pantheon. Dionysus always retained an atavistic, ecstatic character incongruent with the other Greek deities. Traces of the Heracles legend – a hero-deity bearing a club, questing for apples, mastering lions and snakes etc – are present in Mesopotamia from the Third Millennium BCE. Heracles – especially in his solarized manifestation – is continuous with Ninurta (->Nimrod), and Shamash (->Samson); they share the same ancient mythic prototype.

D&D tends to have much clearer boundaries, and has less fluid figures. So I would suggest blurring boundaries and liquifying your deities.
 

Hoffmand

Explorer
In terms of actual human behaviour, I tend to agree as far as the peasantry/unwashed masses go. But I think that the psychological positioning of someone who worships a deity and actually gets divine power to cast spells is likely to be rather different.

Clerics in D&D wouldn't suffer from doubt in the same way that we do. Questions like "Do I really believe in Heironeous? What is the Oracle trying to tell me? Am I interpreting his will correctly?" are moot.

The kind of power that Clerics have in D&D really has nothing to do with faith, in the way that we construe it. And, whereas in our world, we can reasonably label cult leaders as narcissistic sociopaths; the same is not true in D&D-land, where there is no reason for a cult leader to be particularly maladjusted - I mean they might be, but they needn't be.
I would just say that if some healing god or cleric came down with hands glowing and healed my sick grandmother that my family would be a devout follower of that god forever. That’s basically why I think it would make a very huge difference. Maybe that would not sway some. But I think most it would.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I love Pathfinder 2e idea of getting to choose a Pantheon instead of a single God for Clerics and others.
I like the idea too, but its not inherent to just Pathfinder. You can/could do that in any edition, based on the world setup and mythos.

I feel thats always been an RP choice as opposed to a mechanical one.
 

Hoffmand

Explorer
I like the idea too, but its not inherent to just Pathfinder. You can/could do that in any edition, based on the world setup and mythos.

I feel thats always been an RP choice as opposed to a mechanical one.
Why not worship 2 pantheons or all the gods. In some religions you didn’t want to offend any gods, even a nation you were at war with. And not even unknown gods.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top