Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

[Agback]

Re: Commandments vs. Spirituality

To stay on topic, I think the classic pantheon idea works pretty well. The key to understanding it is to realize that religion has more than one function in a society.

Sure. But just because it works pretty well is no reason to use it every time. It might be worth looking further for something else that works as well or better. In this thread, I am suggesting that we examine the possibility that in a fantasy world the several functions of religion might be fulfilled by different features.

First of all any god (even a flawed one) who lays down commandments will lay down rules useful to their society of worshipers.

Why is that necessarily true? What's in it for the god?

Historically, gods that extolled incompatable virtues were simply not adopted by a society unless imposed through a conquering invader.

But in D&D, the god might lay down such rules by its own might, not depending on mortal conquerors. Why shouldn't it lay down a code that is incomplete for the needs of its worshippers?

There are exceptions; again, to take a lesson from the north, many of the agrarian Norse adopted Christianity simply because they thought its code of ethics was better. And it was--for them (if not for their viking cousins).

Other examples include the widespread adoption of Judaism in the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD, much of the spread of Christianity and Islam, the spread of Buddhism.... People find a satisfactory moral code powerfully attractive.

Ethics is one thing, and spirituality is another. No religion is complete without a source of spiritual experience,...

Excellent point! So if the power of the gods did not extend to providing a satisfying spiritual experience, what might society turn to instead? Drug trancing? Transcendental mediation? Tantric orgies? Shamanic drumming?

In a fantasy setting, I'm sure clerical spellcasting is also a powerful spiritual experience, in addition to providing potent personal abilities.

Why be sure of that? It need not be true. And perhaps the alternative assumptions will open up new vistas of possibility.

To conclude, a pantheistic fantasy setting is perfectly viable.

No disagreement from me. I just wish to point out that if you keep an open mind you might find something else that is also perfectly viable. And being unfamiliar, it might refresh your players' sense of wonder.

Familiarity need not breed contempt. But it does conduce to getting stuck in a rut.

Regards,


Agback

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Just as an aside...

Joseph Campbell = debunked Jungian crank.


All serious scholars of religion take Campbell with a large pinch of salt.

I am consistently amazed by the godlike reverance with which this man is regarded on these boards, as if he held the final word in the analysis of myth.

(EDIT: I am also a Jungian crank, but that doesn't make me right.)

Uhmm I just finished and submitted my PhD thesis and I had to take Campbell pretty seriously to do it. (NB. I didn't agree with him necessarily, I just had to take him seriously)

Perhaps "debunked" is little strong?

 

[jgbrowning]

Suppose that 'gods'- powerful supernatural beings- were manifestly real. But suppose that they (or at least some of them) were irritable, vengeful, venal, selfish, deceitful, and lusty. I expect that people would not consider them holy. And so people might treat them as merely superhumanly powerful neighbours. If such a god gave down a moral code in a set of commandments, people would say "Why should we obey these? His omnipotence doesn't make him right!" People would ask 'but is he a good and wise god?', just the way they ask about a philosopher.

But people have a great craving for moral certainty. If gods were real, and as irritable, vengeful, venal, selfish, deceitful, and lusty as mythology often makes them out, might not communities turn elsewhere, to non-deistic ethics or to imaginary supergods, for moral authority?
Agback

Sounds to me you are discribing hinduism. lots of venal, lusty gods and at the same time those who worship one, immaterial god. Neither of them say the other is wrong.

joe b.

ps. and before anyone says hindu "Myth" let me tell you people know Krishna and Kali are real. Just as people know Jesus is real.
Campbells' use of the word myth to describe divinity is an implicit lessening of divinity.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, I might be intimidated into worshipping him if he chose to threaten me. I'm no Mohandas K Gandhi. But it would be an outward show only: I don't think I could mean it. I might obey a god's commandments out of prudence or to prevent his revenge against my family. But I'm no Job either: I couldn't believe that a bullying god's might made his commandments moral even if I wanted to.

So I guess you see why I rated low for agreement with Ockham on the moral philosophy quiz.

Regards,
Agback

You'd worship him if he was omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnescient.

The real question here is how do you know? You dont. Ever.

joe b.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a valid idea for a campaign....you can, in theory, have social and religious things seperate, but not just because the gods don't meet some human-determined standard of goodness.

The US, in theory, has a political and social system mostly distanced from the ties of religion. One can live life almost entirely without having to believe anything. A fantasy world could have this as well.

You just should probably remember that "morality" is a rather recent invention. Gods don't have to be Good or Holy, by nessecesity...and they don't nessecarily "force obedience."

I mean, if someone popped into reality that could actually, in reality, *do* all of the things that gods were credited with doing, I think a lot of people would worship him. Heck, the ideal of Jesus has a lot of that...this dude who actually could heal the blind with a touch...and he was worshiped for it! Something tells me that if the Hulk was real, he'd probably be a god...same thing with any superhero. If we knew Bill Gates wan't a mortal just like you and me, we may suspect he's somehow higher or greater. Heck, often famous people in the US get acredited a status based on their behaviours in the public eye -- sports stars and actors giving morality lessons about drugs, voilence, and school suffuse any prime time viewing. They're often, at least subliminally, regarded as something more than your average human. People get surprised when they act just like everyone else.

What would humanity know of "right" behavior if all our pantheon was built of the stars of Friends telling us not to do drugs? Well, since they're supposedly better than us, they should know, right? So aparently, Drugs Are Evil.

And in D&D, by general default, the gods rely on the worship of the mortals to survive and power them. This isn't always true, but it is one reason why they might care. Another may be that the people are important, like favored pets, or that they hold some special place in the hearts and minds of the deity...like the humans given a "special role" in the creation story. Basically, it is up to each DM...

I mean, take a look at Deities and Demigods for some decent advice on pantheon-building, and a look at why gods may give a crap about their worshipers....most do. Even the evil ones enjoy their fans.

A religion, a set of beliefs, doesn't have to have it's moral code followed by the gods in it. Heck, even one god may lay down one moral code and then constantly violate it itself, being not beholden to such mortal constraints. Once again, you can look at a modern moral religion for that -- Christianity. Though the god lays down a code of moral behaviors for his followers, he himself frequently violates this moral code. "Thou Shalt Not Kill," especially.

The thing is...people worship what is seen as superior to them. It's human nature, to a certain extent...there are people who are better than you, worthy of your respect and admiration, should be obeyed.

In the game, this is theoretically possible...if the mortals have some source of morality outside of the influence of the gods (not a great possibility, but it could work), they could concievably regard the gods as imperfect...in theory, even the common man could be persuaded, if enough of his kings and emperors were.

Secular things would crop up for the events in people's lives. Marriage would be legal, having a kid would be a population consideration, courtship based on some idea of romance and love rather than the actions of the gods...

Very possible. But you would have to allow the mortals some way of precieving a different morality from the ones the gods enforced, and have it widely accepted.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Commandments vs. Spirituality

Other examples include the widespread adoption of Judaism in the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD, much of the spread of Christianity and Islam, the spread of Buddhism.... People find a satisfactory moral code powerfully attractive.

Agback

I personally find what people are more attracted to in any religion is the FACT that they are RIGHT. And of course everyone else is wrong. People eat that up.

I think more people converted to christianity, islam, and buddhism because of the nice advantage of being right. The luxury of picking a religion based upon a more satisfactory moral code is, generally, a fairly recent development in history. 1500 or so years ago you went to where the power was, and to what would give you power.

joe b.

ps. hasnt changed much, going to where the power is bit, you know. no hope in hell of having a muslim president in america.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Well, I might be intimidated into worshipping him if he chose to threaten me. I'm no Mohandas K Gandhi. But it would be an outward show only: I don't think I could mean it. I might obey a god's commandments out of prudence or to prevent his revenge against my family. But I'm no Job either: I couldn't believe that a bullying god's might made his commandments moral even if I wanted to.
<snip>

Agback

Not that I'm an expert, but this thread is too juicy for me not to take a major bite.

First of all, how powerful is this god you're 'fake' worshipping? If they can read minds, then your lip service may only serve to PO them even worse than if you didn't worship.

One of the things which has been left out of this discussion, I feel, and out of roleplaying in general, is what does the god want from humanity (elves, dwarves, whatever). In essence, what is the deity's agenda?

THis more than anything, I think, would influence the nature of the divine/mortal relationships going on. For example, what constitutes worship for a particular god? Getting down on your knees and praying may be enough for some deities, but I think the more bloodthirsty are going to demand a bit of sacrifice (you or someone else) before it even starts to qualify as worship.

This is one of the things that gets lost in a lot of campaign settings, especially FR. Reams and reams of information are provided on what powers and spells clerics get, but very, very little on what clerics are expected to do in exchange. And never mind lay worshippers or initiated non-clergy.

All of which leads me to my favourite bugbear (no, not the humanoid kind) - healing for hire. Clerics in D&D are, in too many cases, magic paramedics. Their main purpose is to provide healing to whomever pays (ok, I know that they get other spells & powers besides healing, but my statement still holds some water). Frankly, the vast majority of historical religions don't hold truck with this notion, I don't see why a religion with a demonstrably live and miraculous deity at its head would put up with it either. I mean, I keep seeing this scene in my head:

CLERIC: Oh great god <insert name here>, I call upon your power to deliver this fallen warrior, Zob the Mighty back from...

DEITY: I'm sorry, Zob who?

CLERIC: Zob the Mighty...who languishes...

DEITY: Never heard of him.

CLERIC: Well, no...but he made some donations to the temple before you see and now he's dead and...

DIETY: A few measly donations, why do you think I would bestow my miraculous power on him that? I have followers who are truly devoted to me, who honour me daily. What's makes this Zob so special?

CLERIC: Well, his friends are donating ten thousand pieces of gold, which will make your temple grander and wealthier and...

DEITY: and get you that Mace of Disruption you've had your eye on, hhmmm? DO not lie to me, for we are bound by the priestly oaths which you swore to me.

CLERIC: but...but....

DEITY: Not only will I NOT bestow this miracle upon Zob, but I shall take from you all the powers I have bestowed upon you for you impertinence, until you have atoned in a suitable manner (GM and not in the completely wussy cast a 3rd level spell way)...yada yada yada.


OK, not every deity is going to react in this way, but I can't help feeling that a lot will. I think what settings need is not more deities, but more ways to relate to deities, in detail. Religious practices, ceremonies, sacrifices, ways to please deities and consequences of annoying them.

Sorry but I think my rant hit an oil patch and slid out of control a little there.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Re: Re: Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

ps. and before anyone says hindu "Myth" let me tell you people know Krishna and Kali are real. Just as people know Jesus is real.
Campbells' use of the word myth to describe divinity is an implicit lessening of divinity.

Actually, it's a misinterpretation of Campbell's use of the word "myth".

THe common secular use of the word myth is "a story or proposition which is held by some to be factual but which is in reality false or fictitious." eg. urban legends.

The Campbell use of the word - and a use which is widely understood among myth theorists - is "a story, tale or other form of representation, which embodies something which is believed to be true." ie. the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Most Christians hold the resurrection to be true, irregardless of other systems of belief, like science.

OK - that was really academic, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[fuindordm]

Re: Re: Commandments vs. Spirituality

I am suggesting that we examine the possibility that in a fantasy world the several functions of religion might be fulfilled by different features.

I think this is entirely valid, and the world you described is also a logical one. In a fantasy setting it offers some intriguing possibilities. For example, do the stories people tell carry any tangible power (as for example, they do in Earthdawn)? Do the holy men perform miracles? If so, do this power come from their own enlightenment (e.g. Hindu mystics) or the faith of those receiving them (Jesus)?

Why is that necessarily true? What's in it for the god?

More worshippers? Seriously, if gods are entirely independent of their worshippers why do they interact with people at all? You have the Greek paradigm of bored immortals playing games with the puny humans to amuse themselves, true, but I think it makes for more interesting stories to assume that the gods want *something* from the societies they interact with. Whether it's souls for their army, the creation of an earthly utopia in their image, more personal power through focused worship (the FR model), slaves, or just amusement--if you have gods, I assume the gods have reasons. If they're getting what they need from that society, I think it's safe to say that they would promote its central ethics. Or perhaps they experiment with different societies to try and improve their return.

That could be an interesting plot line. God of big city has brilliant idea, lays down new commandments. Hilarity ensues.

But in D&D, the god might lay down such rules by its own might, not depending on mortal conquerors. Why shouldn't it lay down a code that is incomplete for the needs of its worshippers?

Because deities act in their own self-interest,
see above. The fist question to answer is what the deity wants out of its worshippers. The answer follows. Sure, there might be a deity that just revels in watching people do horrible things, and lays down horrible commandments to promote it. One would hope that in such cases there are also good deities to protect people from Big Bad. Otherwise you're basically living in Hell, and that's no fun, is it? And some moral codes certainly are incomplete in which case people turn to other supplemental sources or drift to the deity with the more satisfying moral code as you said.

Excellent point! So if the power of the gods did not extend to providing a satisfying spiritual experience, what might society turn to instead? Drug trancing? Transcendental mediation? Tantric orgies? Shamanic drumming?

Any or all of the above. Or they might forget about spirituality altogether, until a prophetic figure comes along to remind them of what they're missing.

Worship also takes many forms. There is propitiation (sacrificing to prevent something bad happening to you), adoration (loving a deity for its gifts and intrinsic perfection), gnosticism (trying to grow more spiritually connected with a deity through direct mystical experiences), to name a few.

There are an almost infinite number of possible fantasy religions. Here's your recipe for a god:

1)What does the god want of its followers?
2)What kind of spiritual experience, if any, does it provide?
3)What kind of behaviour does it expect?
4)How do the worshippers worship the god?
5)What does the god offer in return?

e.g. Odin:
1) to recruit the strongest warriors
2) none that we know of
3) virtues of loyalty and courage
4) propitiation
5) an exciting afterlife, with free beer!

Now, if there is anything missing in the religious experience that the god doesn't provide the worshippers will surely turn to other sources. The typical viking worships Odin as above, but might also (especially after settling down) turn to their wise woman for ethical guidance or community rituals for spiritual communion.

--Ben