Making Religion Matter in Fantasy RPGs

Religion is a powerful force in any culture and difficult to ignore when creating a gaming setting. Here's some things to consider when incorporating religions into your campaign.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The Question of Gods​

When we look at religion from a gaming perspective, the most interesting thing about it is that in many settings, the existence of deities is not in question. One of the most common arguments over religion is whether there even is a god of any form. But in many fantasy games especially, deities offer proof of their existence on a daily basis. Their power is channelled through clerics and priests and a fair few have actually been seen manifesting in the material realm. This makes it pretty hard to be an atheist in a D&D game.

While the adherents of any faith believe the existence of their deity is a given fact, having actual proof changes the way that religion is seen by outsiders. In many ancient cultures, people believed in not only their gods, but the gods of other cultures. So to win a war or conquer another culture was proof your gods were more powerful than theirs. While winning a war against another culture can make you pretty confident, winning one against another culture’s gods can make you arrogant. Add to that the fact you had warrior priests manifesting divine power on the battlefield, you are pretty soon going to start thinking that not only is winning inevitable, but that it is also a divine destiny. Again, these are all attitudes plenty of believers have had in ancient days, but in many fantasy worlds they might actually be right.

Magic vs. Prayer​

If a world has magic, it might be argued that this power is just another form of magic. Wizards might scoff at clerics, telling them they are just dabblers who haven’t learned true magic. But this gets trickier if there are things the clerics can do with their magic that the wizards can’t do with theirs. Some wizards might spend their lives trying to duplicate the effects of clerics, and what happens if one of them does?

The reverse is also interesting. Clerics might potentially manifest any form of magical power if it suits their deity. So if the priest of fire can not only heal but throw fireballs around, is it the wizards that need to get themselves some religion to become true practitioners of the art? Maybe the addition of faith is the only way to really gain the true power of magic?

Are the Gods Real?​

While divine power might be unarguably real, the source of it might still be in contention. A priest might be connecting to some more primal force than magicians, or tapping into some force of humanity. What priests think is a connection to the divine might actually just be another form of magic. As such, it could have some unexpected side effects.

Let’s say this divine power draws from the life force of sentient beings. As it does so in a very broad way, this effect is barely noticed in most populations. A tiny amount of life from the population as a whole powers each spell. But once the cleric goes somewhere remote they might find their magic starts draining the life from those nearby. In remote areas, clerics might be feared rather than revered, and the moment they try to prove they are right by manifesting the true power of their deity, they (and the townsfolk) are in for a very nasty surprise.

Can You Not Believe in Them?​

There are ways to still play an atheist character in a fantasy game. However, it does require more thought beyond "well I don’t believe in it." That's a sure way to make your character look foolish, especially after they have just been healed by a cleric.

What will also make things much tougher is having a character that refuses to benefit from the power of religion due to their beliefs. They might insist that if they don’t know what in this healing magic, they don’t want any part of it, especially if the priest can’t really explain it outside the terms of their faith. That this healing works will not be in doubt. So are they being principled or a fool? If the explanation for magical healing isn’t "this is just healing energy" but "it’s the power of my deity, entering your body and changing it for the better" the character might be more reticent about a few more hit points.

When it comes to deities manifesting on the material plane, it’s a little harder to ignore them. But this isn’t always evidence of the divine. A manifesting deity is undoubtedly a powerful being, one able to crush armies and level cities, but does that make them divine? While the power of a deity is not in dispute, the definition of what is actually divine in nature is a lot muddier. This is ironically harder in a fantasy world where lich-kings, dragons and powerful wizards can do all the same things many deities are supposed to do.

What Are Gods?​

So we come back to the question: Whether you are a cleric, adherent or atheist, of what actually is god? What quality of them demands or inspires worship beyond the fact they are powerful? Plenty of philosophers are still trying to figure that one out. While in a fantasy game their existence and power may not be in question, whether they are holy or even worthy of trust and faith might be much harder to divine.

 

[Helldritch]

But there is nothing inherently "terrible" about believing on gods, or not believing in gods. "Terrible" would be human sacrifice, slavery, racism and the like.

This is not what was in question. It was a player mocking an other player. In this case, an atheist mocking the cleric about his god. That is simply not acceptable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is not what was in question. It was a player mocking an other player. In this case, an atheist mocking the cleric about his god. That is simply not acceptable.

Mocking another player is being a jerk, not being an atheist.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All religions spread. The proselytize thing is more or less important depending on the faith and each individual.

Not true. Many polytheist religions don't. That is why the monotheist religions so easily displace them.

 

[Helldritch]

Not true. Many polytheist religions don't. That is why the monotheist religions so easily displace them.

Which is not all of them. My statement stays. All religions spread. Successful or not. That the Monotheist religions were better at it is of no consequences. History proves that religions tend to spread until something stop them. Be it an other religion or something else.

Mocking another player is being a jerk, not being an atheist.

I fully agree. Making an atheist when there is a cleric amount to being a jerk. In a party where there are no cleric, making an atheist is "strange" for a game like D&D but quite acceptable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Making an atheist when there is a cleric amount to being a jerk.

No, it's not. Mocking a cleric is being a jerk, believing the cleric is wrong but accepting them anyway is being an atheist. Because if you are an atheist what other people believe doesn't matter.

I am an atheist. Most of my family are Christian. We love each other just fine and have never, ever mocked anyone's beliefs.

 

[Helldritch]

No, it's not. Mocking a cleric is being a jerk, believing the cleric is wrong but accepting them anyway is being an atheist. Because if you are an atheist what other people believe doesn't matter.

I am an atheist. Most of my family are Christian. We love each other just fine and have never, ever mocked anyone's beliefs.

I, myself, am an Agnostic. My whole familly is Christian. So I can relate to you up to a point. The only thing is... it is the rare atheist that do not mock or persecute religion. At least, that is my experience so far.

 

[Hussar]

But there is nothing inherently "terrible" about believing in gods, or not believing in gods. "Terrible" would be human sacrifice, slavery, racism and the like.

Terrible or not, it's still delusional from a D&D perspective. ((Note, I'm presuming baseline D&D, not settings where the gods are unknowable like Eberron - that's a different kettle of fish))

In Scarred Lands, not following the gods actually harms people. It lessens the power of the gods who were needed to defeat the Titans. You don't have the luxury of sitting on the fence in that setting. Not believing in the gods in that setting is akin to not believing in gravity.

In Forgotten Realms, an athiest cannot be ressurected - pass straight to the Wall of the Faithless, do not pass go. Again, not believing in the gods has direct, measurable impact.

But, in any case, we're not going to agree here. ((Granted, I think in the real world, we are both 100% on the same page and I do completely understand where you're coming from)) To me, making an atheist character in a group with a cleric, druid or paladin is just being a jerk right out of the gate. Particularly in light of insisting that the other player must never do anything about it. That you can make a character that is diametrically opposed to the other character, but, no one is allowed to do anything about it and has to 100% accept it is not something I want to see at the table.

Never minding that the DM is in the same boat as well. If the DM thinks that the gods would not help you, then he's a jerk DM. If the player thinks this, they're a jerk player. But, for some reason, the player that's the root of this problem is never seen as a jerk.

 

[Cadence]

Edit: Skip this and go to #409 below and then #418 to get back closer to the topic of the thread, hopefully for good.

A character who denies the existence of the cleric's deity is pretty much in the same boat as the character that worships a hated deity. Playing an atheist character in, say, Forgotten Realms, in a group with divine characters is no different than playing a priest of Gruumsh when you know the other player is playing an elven priest of Corellon.

Let me rephrase a bit on reflection.

Player A is playing a cleric in the group. Everyone know that. Player B comes in an declares he wants to play a cleric of a faith diametrically opposed to Player A's faith. Not only that, Player B insists that Player A accept this, not react in any negative way, and so must all NPC's the group meets as well.

Is Player B being reasonable?

Declaring yourself an atheist automatically makes you antagonistic. Declaring yourself an atheist and then demanding that the cleric provide healing for you (and NPC clerics as well) is not a healthy table environment.

I, myself, am an Agnostic. My whole familly is Christian. So I can relate to you up to a point. The only thing is... it is the rare atheist that do not mock or persecute religion. At least, that is my experience so far.

The atheist doesn't have to announce it or antagonize the believers. They can simply be quiet about it... Like lots of them IRL. You are both personally sounding like anti-atheist bigots by insisting they do so in game or that most do IRL. Not particularly better than those who want others to accept racist or sexist actions in game or who say all whites or minorities or Christians are racist, sexist, or bigots, IRL. It's offensive. And repeatedly using insane as a bludgeon is verging on ableism. If the character is a jerk, they're a jerk. Being an atheist or not following the faith doesn't imply that.

 

[Staffan]

All religions spread. The proselytize thing is more or less important depending on the faith and each individual.

Again, no they don't. Historically, polytheistic religions usually kept to themselves – "These are our gods, and they help us. You can't have them."

And these (save for the Wheel of Time) are all healers with the either the skill Medicine or herbalism. Nothing in relation with miraculous healing. The WoT is a special case. Can we say that the One Power is quite close to be a religion when you read how people revere it? It is quite akin to the "light" in World of Warcraft. In fact, it is almost a copy of how the "powers of the light" are treated in both Diablo and WoW.

In Avatar and Codex Alera healers are clearly using magic to heal. They might not call it magic in Avatar, but by any reasonable definition bending is magic.

In Elfquest, healing is clearly called out as "magic" by those using it. It seems to be psychic in nature, and skilled healers can use their powers to alter flesh in different ways.

I'm not super familiar with the Wheel of Time, but their Light seems quite separate from the One Power. You even have religious orders who believe the One Power is evil, and who seek to eradicate its users.

We are talking about D&D here.

You're the one who said "But it is also a very bad choice for 5ed as most if not all examples of Fantasy usually put the true healing in the hands of clerics/druids."

My point is that making healing a religious thing is very much a D&D thing – not exclusively so, but it's definitely not the default in fantasy.

And making it an exclusively religious thing in D&D is bad, because it "forces" each party to have a cleric in a way that having a fighter or wizard isn't forced. And a cleric is connected to the setting in a very different way than other characters are, which in turn puts constraints on setting building.

One of the things I liked about 4e was that healing was not a Divine thing anymore , but instead a Leader thing. For in-combat healing, a Warlord, a Bard, an Artificer, an Ardent, or a Shaman would work just as well. For out-of-combat healing (e.g. restoring limbs, curing diseases, and such), you had ritual magic, but healing rituals were based on the Heal skill, not the Religion skill. Religious rituals were mostly divination-type effects like Speak with Dead, Consult Mystic Sages, or Loremaster's Bargain.

How other games approach healing just shows how healing has devolved into giving bards healer capacity. What have these games in common? No real gods. We suppose that the "gods" exists in these games, but it (or they) are silent.

No gods? In Exalted? Exalted is full of gods. Every village, every field, every tree has a god. There's even one character type that's designated as specifically working for Heaven's Bureau of Fate. But these are not gods that heal people (unless that's part of that particular god's schtick).

And Runequest is also full of gods. For some characters, choosing which god to worship is a major character decision, because it is usually through cults you have access to magic – mostly not directly divinely powered, but because that's the kind of common/spirit/battle magic the cult teaches. And sorcery is generally an intellectual pursuit, but just as capable of healing as battle magic is.

Ars Magica takes place in medieval/mythic Europe. Religion is a pretty strong force, but that doesn't prevent magi with skill in creation and/or body magic from healing.

Earthdawn has Passions that serve pretty much the same purpose as gods. They even give power to some of their worshippers, called Questors. But those powers are based on what the Passion is about. Only Questors of Garlen (the Passion of Hearth and Healing) can Heal. A Questor of Jaspree would instead speak to animals and make plants grow, and a Questor of Thystonius would make their allies stronger and protect them from harm in battle.

And if you want to name game systems, Palladium has cleric as healers, Role Master had this as well, OSRs (the whole bunch of them as there are more than one) have this feature as well. So nope D&D is not alone in this approach.

I count Palladium and Rolemaster as D&D descendants (Rolemaster moreso) as they are clearly attempts to "fix" D&D. Older editions of Rolemaster even have lots of space devoted to using the rules with D&D. I'm not familiar with the OSR movement, but my impression is that most of them are attempts at recapturing the feel of early D&D.

Which is not all of them. My statement stays. All religions spread. Successful or not. That the Monotheist religions were better at it is of no consequences. History proves that religions tend to spread until something stop them. Be it an other religion or something else.

Again, Jews don't proselytize. You can convert to Judaism, but it's a fairly arduous process, and you don't have Jews knocking on doors trying to sell you on their version of God. And I've never heard of Shinto missionaries either.

 

[Helldritch]

The atheist doesn't have to announce it or antagonize the believers. They can simply be quiet about it... Like lots of them IRL. You are both personally sounding like anti-atheist bigots by insisting they do so in game or that most do IRL. Not particularly better than those who want others to accept racist or sexist actions in game or who say all whites or minorities or Christians are racist, sexist, or bigots, IRL. It's offensive. And repeatedly using insane as a bludgeon is verging on ableism. If the character is a jerk, they're a jerk. Being an atheist or not following the faith doesn't imply that.

Thank for putting me in the same bag as bigots and intolerants. I did say that in my experience, most atheist are often quite vocal about god not existing. And I repeat, my experience. Yours may differ, but so far, I have seen enough atheist claiming that those that follow god are complete delusional idiots to know that they can be as toxic as religious zealot people. Read what an Agnostic is. And check what some communist regimes did against religions. They claimed to be atheists.

I never said all atheists. Jeez...