Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

Menaces can make people obey, but I don't think they can make people believe or trust.

Salutations,

I think the problem is the tyrants you mentioned were all mortals that any man or woman could kill if given the opportunity. And even if the opportunity was not present, then the people would know the tyrant would eventually die.. and can hope things would change in their children's time.

That changes when the tyrant becomes a god. The average person can not hope to kill a god, and there is no hope for your children's future that the god will eventually go away.

The other difference is that a tyrant and their followers can not be everywhere. Rebellion can grow in basements, bars, and other secluded places.

The same can not be said for the divine. The gods, and possibly their followers, can be anywhere they need to be to discover treachery or rebellion.

The god and the followers can also use their powers to make sure you do believe or trust. If you don't, then they have the power to make you a spectacular example.

Fear is a very convincing force.

Having said all that- will everyone believe? No, individuals will often rise against any structure. But, a society.. is more likely to capitulate.

Respectfully submitted
FD

 

[Furn_Darkside]

For that matter Bill Gates is probably *more* powerful than the Incredible Hulk.

There are different types of power.

Bill Gates could not take on the whole of the American military forces and hope to survive. The hulk could.

Really, what's the difference between Atlas and the Incredible Hulk?

Atlas holds the planet- if unhappy, then he could destroy the world.

The hulk, at most, has lifted a mountain. The hulk is immortal as well, btw. If he is unhappy, then he goes and sulks in the woods after smashing some tanks. heh.

I'm with you on this Agback; just because someone is powerful doesn't mean I'd worship him.

If your existance depended on it? What of the lives of the people you cared about? Your home town?

FD

 

[fuindordm]

Commandments vs. Spirituality

Interesting comments here, the Campbell debate nonwithstanding.

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.

First of all any god (even a flawed one) who lays down commandments will lay down rules useful to their society of worshipers. Take Odin's Havamal for example, which is essentially oral scripture that teaches someone how to be a "good" person. It could probably be distilled into a set of commandments with little trouble, e.g. 1) Be loyal to your friends and family, 2) Be merciless with your enemies, 3) Be generous but slightly paranoid among strangers, etc. This covers the societal aspect--a society evolves with a certain code of behaviour that sustains the society, and the gods will lay down commandments which support this code. Historically, gods that extolled incompatable virtues were simply not adopted by a society unless imposed through a conquering invader. 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).

Ethics is one thing, and spirituality is another. No religion is complete without a source of spiritual experience, and most pantheistic religions that I am familiar with (e.g. Norse, Greco/Roman, Egyptian, the African Loa) have some equivalent to the Greek mystery cults. The gods can encourage spiritual experiences in their worshippers any number of ways: trance states, drugs, orgiastic rituals (Dionysus, for example), singing, etc... all these can give an experience of unity with something larger that fulfills a spiritual need. Each god's worshippers use their preferred method, and evil gods might well encourage unethical practices in their cults. Spiritual experience, however obtained, is quite powerful, and is really what keeps the worshippers coming back for more. In a fantasy setting, I'm sure clerical spellcasting is also a powerful spiritual experience, in addition to providing potent personal abilities.

To conclude, a pantheistic fantasy setting is perfectly viable. You have a society adapted to its environment. Its "good" gods command people to obey the ethics of that society for the most part, and may have their own little quirky commandments in addition (e.g. horses are sacred). More elemental gods might not say anything one way or the other about ethics; they're just there to be propitiated so that they won't throw a tornado at your crops. "Evil" gods will probably discard some or all of the society's ethics, and may find large numbers of worshippers in segments of the society that have been disenfranchised.

To encourage this sort of behavior, good gods will offer spiritual rewards to their followers in return for promoting the ethical standards of society, and provide these rewards in fairly wholesome ways. Evil gods will provide their spiritual rewards to those who violate the ethical standards, and require their followers to work against the societal consensus.

--Ben

 

[2WS-Steve]

------ Bill Gates is weaker than the Hulk
If what matters for purposes of making me worship something is its ability to threaten me and those I hold dear I rather supect that Bill Gates is quite a bit more capable of that than the Hulk. I can hide or run away from the Hulk. Bill Gates can sue me, hire the mafia to hunt me down, or get me to use virus-prone unstable software (oh, wait a minute...)

----- The Hulk is Weaker than Atlas
Okay, replace the Hulk with Dark Phoenix; I'd do what she says but I still wouldn't worship her.

>>Some stuff regarding the previous post....

----- Agents of the Divine
A lot of those divinities didn't have much in the way of special powers, probably in many cases they had fewer perceptual abilities than Dark Phoenix given her telepathy... Also, if a dictator's access to an internal security force and network of informants isn't enough to make me worship him then why would it be enough to make me worship an extraplanar entity with superpowers?

----- Worship vs. Obey
I suppose the real question here is "is there a difference between worshipping and obeying?" I don't wan't to put words in your mouth Furn, but you seem to be indicating that obeying just is worshipping; or, perhaps even better, obeying strongly enough (like with enough fear backing it, or perhaps assiduously enough) is the same as worshipping.

I tend to feel that worshipping includes some kind of phenomenal content; when you worship something you have a special feeling of reverance for it or believe it has some special connection with the ethical principles by which you live. Perhaps that's just a too modern conception of worship.

Anyway, please don't take any of this as flamage; I just find these sorts of debates interesting.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations,

----- The Hulk is Weaker than Atlas
Okay, replace the Hulk with Dark Phoenix; I'd do what she says but I still wouldn't worship her.

Well, maybe not as a god, but considering how she dressed...

A lot of those divinities didn't have much in the way of special powers, probably in many cases they had fewer perceptual abilities than Dark Phoenix given her telepathy... Also, if a dictator's access to an internal security force and network of informants isn't enough to make me worship him then why would it be enough to make me worship an extraplanar entity with superpowers?

Would you be around if you didn't?

D&D divinities and their followers have their ways to find out, as did the Dark Phoenix.

Remember, the issue is not the individual, but the society.

I suppose the real question here is "is there a difference between worshipping and obeying?" I don't wan't to put words in your mouth Furn, but you seem to be indicating that obeying just is worshipping; or, perhaps even better, obeying strongly enough (like with enough fear backing it, or perhaps assiduously enough) is the same as worshipping.

When it comes to evil gods, then I don't see much difference between obeying and worshipping. The degree they want the people to obey will dictate how severe the will enforce it.

I tend to feel that worshipping includes some kind of phenomenal content; when you worship something you have a special feeling of reverance for it or believe it has some special connection with the ethical principles by which you live. Perhaps that's just a too modern conception of worship.

I would agree with you, but I also have the personal choice not to worship when I don't feel that content. Many peasants may not- their crops are easily flame striked, their family easily eaten, and there is always worse...

I see your point that the people would possibly be worshipping by going through the paces, but not believe it in their hearts.

But, that is not as easily done in d&d. You have Zone of Truth and many other spells that detect thoughts.

Imagine an evil god who does not have a confessional booth, but an allegiance booth. You go in- and swear your allegiance. You had better believe it in your heart and mind.

If you don't, then you are an example and no longer have a chance to bother the people.

Plus, the gods are immortal. They have generations to beat the society down and have the people accept the worship into their hearts.

Anyway, please don't take any of this as flamage; I just find these sorts of debates interesting.

You need to learn how to be rude if you want to flame people. Heh.

I appreciate debates as well.

Respectfully submitted
FD

 

[widderslainte]

He may, in fact, be full of it, but I wouldn't call him "debunked" yet.

Eric von Daniken, he's debunked.

I don't think von Daniken was ever "bunked" in the first place.

 

[Black Omega]

One essential difference between historial pantheons and your classic DnD pantheon that pretty much guarentees people will worship them is that the DnD gods give out goodies. Worsippers get healed of injury, diseaseand curses. The truly devote willing to promote their god's agenda get special domain abilities (they even get to pick the coolest from a list) as well as the ability to cast spells. The stick is not much good without the carrot.

Add in a selection to pick from and you can surely find a god that suits you.

 

[Agback]

I'm with you on this Agback; just because someone is powerful doesn't mean I'd worship him.

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

 

[Agback]

One essential difference between historial pantheons and your classic DnD pantheon that pretty much guarentees people will worship them is that the DnD gods give out goodies. Worsippers get healed of injury, diseaseand curses. The truly devote willing to promote their god's agenda get special domain abilities (they even get to pick the coolest from a list) as well as the ability to cast spells. The stick is not much good without the carrot.

Add in a selection to pick from and you can surely find a god that suits you.

Sure, but that's commerce rather than devotion.

"Lustror demands a full tithe for his church, and observances that take up five hours per week, and won't let us eat beans, marry redheads, or take a bride-price for our daughters. But he's the only god who offers the plant domain. I think he's the best choice, considering that we are farmers." That's hardly the fanaticism that makes willing martyrs.

I can see that people probably would perform rituals, say prayers, make sacrifices, and obey commandments in return for the goodies that stereotypal D&D gods give out. And I concede that it is possible to come up with world reasons why the gods should want to be worshipped, etc. enough that they give out these goodies in return for those services.

What I'm trying to point out is that it isn't obvious that this is the best world design for an RPG. Let's consider alternatives: perhaps some of them will be at least as much fun and good to add some variety.

Let's suppose that there were a god who was fully capable of empowering clerics, but who had no taste for flattery. What might he require instead of fulsome worship? What ceremonies might his followers come up with to satisfy their human craving for ritual?

Let's suppose that there were a god who gave a great deal on miracles, but didn't care about his worshippers' moral behaviour. Where might his worshippers turn for a moral code?

In my campaign (which I won't name because I submitted a one-pager to the WotC setting search) there are three kinds of things that take part of the role of cliché gods.

1) There are daimons, which are the indwelling spirits of various numinous things such as islands, the Ocean, the Sun, the Moon, planets, mountains, trees, forests, rivers, lakes, valleys etc. These are capable of trading miraculous power to mortals for anything they can get. But most of them very obviously have vices, and none has in any rational sense had an archetypal adventure. They are powerful and nearly indestructible intelligent supernatural beings with personalities, memories, intentions, and emotions. But they make poor mythic figures and poor moral preceptors. Besides which, most aren't interested in other peoples' morality.

2) There are oneiroi, which are mythic archetypes in the collective unconscious. People who resemble them dream about being them, come more and more to resemble them, become apparent avatars or incarnations of them, and often gain miraculous abilities and other supernatural powers. In some sort of psychological sense the oneiroi have had archetypal adventures (although admittedly not at any historical time). But they have no memories or intentions, won't trade miraculous powers for obsequious conduct, don't care about people's behaviour, etc. etc.

3) There are mortal mystics and philosophers, who do care about moral conduct and social ritual, but who have no powers to dispense. They have to persuade people to moral conduct.

So in my campaign people deal with daimons for miracles, tell myths and legends about oneiroi, and turn to wise men for moral and spiritual guidance.

Now, I won't say that this is a better arrangement than vanilla fantasy religion. I'm just pointing out that it might be a mistake to overlook possibilities like this because you mistake a default assumption from a fantasy universal.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Nightfall]

Well the reason we have gods in the Scarred Lands is cause the Titans weren't much fun. You try telling Kadum not to move that mountain onto your house and see how much sympathy he gives you!