Divine intrigue overused...!

[Number47]

....(even the secular US is constituted under God)....

Sorry, I can't let that one go. This is a popular misconception. No God or Creator is mentioned ANYWHERE in the founding documents of the United States. Pre-constitution, the Declaration of Independence was the only semi-official document that mentioned a "Creator"

 

[Black Omega]

Sorry, I can't let that one go. This is a popular misconception. No God or Creator is mentioned ANYWHERE in the founding documents of the United States. Pre-constitution, the Declaration of Independence was the only semi-official document that mentioned a "Creator"

Let's not get into the real world, hm?

Really, in a fantasy world with clericsdrawing powers from their gods, it's almost impossible to simply leave out religion. And the higher level a cleric or paladin gets the more important they are and the harder it is to stay out of religious politics and chruch matters. Gods actually showing up should be exceedingly rare.

In Rokugan, there reallyaren't gods in the traditional fantasy campaign sense, but even so, the group finds all sorts of reasons to visit the temple. And one character is trying to start a new cult there...who knows what will come of that..

 

[DoctorB]

Some people here have implicitly made this distinction, but campaigns revolving around gods are different from campaigns revolving around religion. My own world does not have the gods taking very active part in the world, but religious confilct is the prime motivator of the story.

The most important thing, as always, is that the PCs are the ones who are doing the most important acts in the story.

I keep toying with the idea of a campaign in which the gods really do take a regular and active PERSONAL part in the world. Meeting gods on a regular basis might be interesting. It would be hard to maintain the previous paragraph though.

 

[bwgwl]

i'm of the same mind, DoctorB.

my current work-in-progress world only has 3 dieties -- one lawful, one neutral, and one chaotic. worship of the lawful god predominates most of the "known world" with a very Islam-like religion. the gods themselves are aloof and distant from the world, only interacting in mortal affairs via granting divine magic. the gods have never been known to speak directly to mortals, nor visit the Material Plane. they don't have avatars. they don't really even have physical forms. they just are.

however, now with Dieties & Demigods and the Epic Level Handbook out, i've got an idea for a campaign world based more on the Greek mythology model: epic heroes in a world where the gods interfere with mortal affairs on an almost daily basis. might make a nice change of pace.

 

[Umbran]

DoctorB beat me to it...

Let us not confuse the machinations fo the gods with the machinations of the clerics.

There are divine-caster NPCs and PCs in the world. The people, by simple fact of divine spells being available, will be religious. It's then terribly difficult to plausibly eliminate religion as a driving concern. Religion is a driving concern in the real world, how could it be any less in this fantasy realm?

 

[Sigma]

I agree, I'm not a big fan of god-driven games either. Especially not games where PC's are secretly children of the gods or some such thing.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm curious as to why the assumption is implied that homebrews feature god-meddling at a higher rate than published settings. I've never found this to be so.

In my experience, no, there is not a preponderance of this situation. I've yet to see it, as a matter of fact.

 

[SableWyvern]

I suppose you could have called my last campaign god driven.

Certainly, the PCs were acting under divine mandate. Unfortunately for them, they weren't entirely aware of this for the better part of the campaign. And even when they were, they weren't really sure exactly what it was their gods wanted them to do, or how to go about it.

I think the important thing to keep in mind when running a religous-driven campaign (and, I include god-driven in this comment), is that the PCs still need to be able to make their own decisions. Conversely, if a lowly 2nd level cleric is told by his church that his god has chosen him to save the world, expect him to ask for a hell of a lot of assistance, maybe even giving a few orders (I'll guarantee it will happen if he's my PC, anyway). IOW, make sure you have a way of stopping the PC power-levels from scaling out of control.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm curious as to why the assumption is implied that homebrews feature god-meddling at a higher rate than published settings. I've never found this to be so.

In my experience, no, there is not a preponderance of this situation. I've yet to see it, as a matter of fact.

A couple of PCs in my current homebrew would love a bit of god-meddling. The paladin's main goal is simply to try and get people to believe that Heironeous actually exists, or, for those who do believe it, to convince them that he also happens to give a rat's rear.

 

[Al]

I see a small problem. Everyone here seems to assume that because clerics are the most powerful fighters and that they can heal people, they are the natural ones to take charge. This is emphatically not the case.

There can be a myriad reasons why clerics would not be running the show:

1. They are not the best leaders. Admittedly, they have above average Charisma and Diplomacy as a class skill. But aristocrats generally put their highest stat in Charisma and have an arsenal of social skills. Thus, the masses may be more inclined to follow the traditional aristocracy.

2. A good church would not abuse its power, or necessarily seek more. Someone cited the example that 'if your wife is pregnant and you don't want to risk her death in childbirth' then you would serve the clerics. Well, this seems strange. If the clerics are serving a good god, then surely they should help irrespective of the power that they garner (an evil church would be a different matter, but the original hypothesis is a good church). Granted, a good church has healing powers, but a good church would not abuse those to gain secular power.

3. Polytheism. The example of the Catholic Church's power of medieval Europe has been cited, but this is because it was monotheistic. In a (usual) DnD setting, there are multiple gods, and hence no single church would have nearly the same amount of influence. One could argue that as a result of living in an increasingly multicultural society, the power of the Christian Church over the West is in decline.

4. Neutral leaders. Following on from above, a single church would risk alienating other churches if it alone has significant secular power. In a polytheistic world, a neutral (say, aristocrat) leader may act as a unifying force: by not specifically adhering to any one religion, he allows all of them to live in harmony. (Of course, it is possible that have 'aligned' leaders *and* multiculturalism: e.g. the UK, which despite having an established Church of England still acts tolerantly to other religions.)

5. Traditional Reasons. People could follow their leaders out of tradition or a constitution. Just because clerics have power to heal and might on the field it does not mean that they would have overall control: they may play second flight to an ancient monarchy to whom the common folk have undying ancestral respect (for example).

6. Magic Saturation. In a high-magic world, it is possible that the novelty of the 'miracle' effect would wear off. If, tomorrow, the Pope (say) were to raise someone from the dead, then it would be a big bolster to Catholicism. Yet we live in a non-magical world ('fraid so, folks), so this would be 'out of the ordinary'. In a world where even the village cleric can heal mortal wounds, the mystery and marvelment at magic would soon fade.

Just six quick reasons why I feel not all countries would be theocratic. Feel free to demolish them!

Incidentally, medieval Europe was greatly influenced by the Catholic Church, but it was not a theocracy per se. The Church did not actually control the lands, but merely have a large amount of influence- and recalcitrant kings could always ignore that influence and advice.