A Textbook Of Unnecessary Setting Design (sorta)

[mhacdebhandia]

(I have also posted this to the Wizards of the Coast fora.)

A while ago I was contemplating designing a campaign setting of my own. One of the central hooks I was building it around was that the gods were remote - similar to Eberron, which looks like it's going to be the setting I actually end up running in if I can get some of my friends together over the summer.

The reason for declaring the gods remote was simple: In a standard D&D campaign, the gods are real, personal beings. Of course, as the Athar would hasten to point out, they might not be all that they claim to be, but their existence is demonstrable.

The problem for me is this: as a scholar of religion, I miss the possibility of conflict within a religion. In a standard D&D campaign, the threats faced by religious institutions and beliefs come from the followers of other gods, by and large - worshippers of Heironeous fight the followers of Hextor, good-aligned faiths are menaced by cults of evil deities, demons, and devils, and so on. While this is all fertile grounds for tension within the setting, and even churches with similar outlooks may clash - in Greyhawk, for example, Pholtus and St. Cuthbert have many common interests, but also share a rivalry - what I'd like to see is room for the literal hundreds of sects within larger religions to flourish in my setting.

The problem is that, in a standard D&D world, divination spells can easily resolve doctrinal disagreements. Heresy can't exist in that situation - at least, not without a generous serve of hypocrisy on someone's part. It's impossible to generate the kind of passionate disputation and commitment to one's beliefs that has so coloured human religious history when your god can and will just tell you who is right.

I can, and probably will, end up using the remoteness of Eberron's deities to great effect in that game, including factional disagreements. However, there's another element I want to throw into the mix.

One of the things I most loved about my studies at university was learning about new religious movements. Neopaganism, various imports and adaptations and appropriations of foreign (to the country in which the new religious movement developed) beliefs, the New Age, the whole spectrum of creative religious speculation and belief.

One of the most common doctrines you find in many new religious movements and across the spectrum of "New Age" belief is that everything comes from the same source. More than simply the rather common belief that, for example, Jews and Christians and Muslims worship the same God, this newer idea is that all religions ultimately partake of a universal truth to one degree or another - that Buddhism's fundamental message is the same as Judaism's, that Hindus and Wiccans have a lot in common, spiritually speaking.

Without getting into the merit of that belief - especially since actually discussing it at length would be off-topic and against the code of conduct - I want to use a part of that in my setting, combined with the fact that clerics and other wielders of divine magic need not worship deities at all.

Thus we have the beginnings of a cosmology: remote deities, deities which may not exist as real beings at all, deities which may just be the embodiments of certain metaphysical principles of the universe created by mortal minds to make those principles more accessible. Deities which may or may not be organised into pantheons - deities whose membership in or importance within pantheons might be bitterly, even violently disputed by some among their clergy - deities whose various factions of clerics might have some very different ideas about how to deal with clerics who worship the abstract principles their gods stand for but not their gods themselves - deities with religions as complex and interesting as I can make them.

So, as an example of the sort of thing I will post to this thread as my inspiration and energy allow:

• The Earth Mother is believed by her clerics to be the goddess of nature and all living things, especially animals and plants.
• Some of her clerics believe that the soil and rock of the world is her actual body, with living things being her garments.
• Some of her clerics believe that mortal cities are a blight upon her realm.
• Some of her clerics believe that it's possible for mortals to build their cities in harmony with the natural world, and work to convince society at large to make this a priority.
• Some of her clerics are vicious opponents of further human encroachment upon the wilderness, even when they aren't part of the minority calling for a complete destruction of cities and a return to natural existence.
• Some druids worship the Earth Mother as a symbol of the abstract forces of nature they revere.
• Some druids deride the Earth Mother as an unnecessary and inappropriate anthropomorphisation of the forces of nature they revere.
• Some druids consider the Earth Mother's worship a blasphemy against the uncaring natural world.

So, you know, it's complex. More when inspiration strikes.

 

[DanMcS]

The problem for me is this: as a scholar of religion, I miss the possibility of conflict within a religion. In a standard D&D campaign, the threats faced by religious institutions and beliefs come from the followers of other gods, by and large - worshippers of Heironeous fight the followers of Hextor, good-aligned faiths are menaced by cults of evil deities, demons, and devils, and so on. While this is all fertile grounds for tension within the setting, and even churches with similar outlooks may clash - in Greyhawk, for example, Pholtus and St. Cuthbert have many common interests, but also share a rivalry - what I'd like to see is room for the literal hundreds of sects within larger religions to flourish in my setting.

The problem is that, in a standard D&D world, divination spells can easily resolve doctrinal disagreements. Heresy can't exist in that situation - at least, not without a generous serve of hypocrisy on someone's part. It's impossible to generate the kind of passionate disputation and commitment to one's beliefs that has so coloured human religious history when your god can and will just tell you who is right.

There are any number of things you can do to forestall this divination problem. For instance, divinations might go to a solar or planetar whom the deity has placed in charge of answering that kind of thing; a celestial minister of information, say. That celestial, while wise, won't know as much as the deity. And if there is more than one being serving in this capacity, who sometimes partially contradict each other, presto, instant conflict.

As another example, the church of the Silver Flame in eberron draws its guidance from a paladin, coatl, and powerful fiend, all inhabiting the silver plane in the main temple. Orthodoxy says that the fiend was defeated and only the coatl and paladin speak to worshippers. Any number of heresies could result if the fiend was still present and sometimes spoke to its worshippers.

If you've read Sepulchrave's story hour, you'll see a great example of religious conflict within a lawful good church, involving heretics, relative truth, a god that is working out the kinks involved in being both completely lawful and completely good, temptation by fiends, and a darn good story to boot.

Lastly, what makes you think the god will just tell you what is right? Maybe it wants to stimulate insight and debate within the church. Maybe, from its very alien perspective, both are right, or neither, or it simply doesn't care.

 

[Insight]

There are any number of things you can do to forestall this divination problem. For instance, divinations might go to a solar or planetar whom the deity has placed in charge of answering that kind of thing; a celestial minister of information, say. That celestial, while wise, won't know as much as the deity. And if there is more than one being serving in this capacity, who sometimes partially contradict each other, presto, instant conflict.

As another example, the church of the Silver Flame in eberron draws its guidance from a paladin, coatl, and powerful fiend, all inhabiting the silver plane in the main temple. Orthodoxy says that the fiend was defeated and only the coatl and paladin speak to worshippers. Any number of heresies could result if the fiend was still present and sometimes spoke to its worshippers.

If you've read Sepulchrave's story hour, you'll see a great example of religious conflict within a lawful good church, involving heretics, relative truth, a god that is working out the kinks involved in being both completely lawful and completely good, temptation by fiends, and a darn good story to boot.

Lastly, what makes you think the god will just tell you what is right? Maybe it wants to stimulate insight and debate within the church. Maybe, from its very alien perspective, both are right, or neither, or it simply doesn't care.

Another possible wrinkle is that perhaps these divinations leave something to interpretation. There's no reason that the deities (or their intermediaries) speak in straight, plain language. Thus, we have the matter of an interpretation, and therefore conflict between rival religions.

Think about how differently Muslims, Jews, and Christians interpret the writings of the Old Testament, not to mention agnostics and atheists who read the same material. A single source, be it written or divination, need not be seen in the same light by different groups of people.

 

[Trainz]

Speaking of Story Hours, Piratecat's also had some sort of schism in a good aligned religion when the patron saint returned to the "living" . It made for interesting roleplaying moments.

 

[AuraSeer]

Another possible wrinkle is that perhaps these divinations leave something to interpretation. There's no reason that the deities (or their intermediaries) speak in straight, plain language. Thus, we have the matter of an interpretation, and therefore conflict between rival religions.

That's the way I usually go. I figure that the thought process of any mortal is going to be very different from the though process of an eternal being who literally embodies a concept.

In a previous campaign, I decided that the extraplanar languages would be almost impossible for mortals to comprehend. They're full of allegory, subtle metaphor, and abstract alien concepts, so translating them into any mortal tongue cannot be done exactly. The best you can do is an approximation, which makes things hard, because a simple difference in wording can lead to widely varying interpretations. (For an RL example, see the doctrinal variance among Christian denominations, all of whom use the same holy book.)

To go a step further, I borrowed from the 1E idea of alignment languages, and ruled that the extraplanar languages could be learned only by a creature with the appropriate subtype. A mortal could spend the two skill points and learn Abyssal, but unless he has the [Chaotic] and [Evil] subtypes, he will speak and understand only the most primitive pidgin. Translating a complex divination or prophecy could only be done with access to reference books and holy texts. (This explains why most divination spells only return "yes" or "no" answers.)

Oh, and I also gave the Good planes two different languages to mirror the Abyssal/Infernal split. Celestial became the language of Chaotic Good outsiders (eladrin), while Lawful Good outsiders (angels) spoke Angelic.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Well, the divination problem is already solved: when you try to ask questions about doctrine, the nature or existence of the gods, and so on, they just don't work. Summon outsiders to ask them, and they won't or can't tell you.

Of course, revelations still occur . . . but what they truly mean is never clear.

 

[Aaron2]

Thus we have the beginnings of a cosmology: remote deities, deities which may not exist as real beings at all, deities which may just be the embodiments of certain metaphysical principles of the universe created by mortal minds to make those principles more accessible. Deities which may or may not be organised into pantheons - deities whose membership in or importance within pantheons might be bitterly, even violently disputed by some among their clergy - deities whose various factions of clerics might have some very different ideas about how to deal with clerics who worship the abstract principles their gods stand for but not their gods themselves - deities with religions as complex and interesting as I can make them.

I kinda take a third view. My gods are very real personal being but they derive their power and influence from their worshipers* The gods are essentially mirrors of the desires of their congregation. For example, the egyptian pharoah Ramses IV (iirc) was killed by a snake. After his death he became the "patron saint" of snakes and people prayed to him for protection from snake bites. Thus, he gained power over snakes.

Similarly, if enough clerics of NatureGodA believe that cities are bad, then their god will accept that aspect into his being. I view the congregations almost as political parties, the various subfactions are fighting (with words, not weapons usually) for control of the heirarchy. The faction that gains control now gains influence over the god's domain. Thus, IMC, several gods went from good to evil because an evil faction gained control and purged the good clerics (some, of course, survive to fight on).

The problem with remote gods is that doctrinal disputes are essentially meaningless since neither side can win and no one can prove which side is right.


Aaron

*IMC A person's "soul" relies on spiritual energy created by living beings. A living person creates more than enough spritual energy for his own soul. Whenever he prays to, thinks about or remembers a dead person, that person's soul gets a little of his spiritual energy to keep on existing. If enough people think about you or worship you then your soul will gain power and you will eventually become a god. Likewise, if after you die no one remembers you then your soul will fade away. Thus bards have significant power over the afterlife.

 

[Starman]

The problem with remote gods is that doctrinal disputes are essentially meaningless since neither side can win and no one can prove which side is right.

Meaningless to who? People wouldn't be fighting over it if they thought it was meaningless.

Starman

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

You underestimate peoples ability to argue the facts. If anything, remote gods make conflict easier.


Good Cleric: I divine that god exists. Since I got this information from a divine spell that does not lie, it must be true.

Evil cleric: He lies! He just wants to convert you to his own selfish ends!

Aethiest: Both are lying, god dosn't exist.

Peasent: All magic is evil, they must both serve demons!

Peasent #2: Aww, magic don't exist anyways. All of ya are crazy.


In other words, how often do obviously guilty men go free in the real world, despite the EVIDENCE against them, People can ignore or disagree on facts, and thats even if they agree that the item in question IS a fact. Take the stereotypical ignorant masses from a mideaval society, and large groups will belive what one or two powerful individuals tell them. Proving to the Archbishop of one faith that another god is also real could be impossible in itself, even with magic. He won't take your word for it, and divining the answer himself would be blaspeamy. Even if you did prove it, he certainly won't admit it publicly.

 

[Someone]

Another option: "real" omni (or very) potent gods do not concede spells. They create and run the universe, and are embodiments of powerful forces of nature or philosophy (sp?). What some insignificants bits of flesh do is of little concern to them, though they still rule the afterlife and decide the final resting place of everyone.

So, if you want some help from a supernatural being, you turn to less powerful entities, the same way that when a gang bully your hot dog stand you don´t write a letter to the President, you go to the local police or private security (or pay the protection). Thus, clerical magic is less religious in nature, and priests of "real" religions are Experts, not clerics.