Heresy in D&D

Agemegos

Explorer
What would heresy look like in the world of D&D where gods grant followers divine spells, angels and devils visit mortal realms, and powerful adventurers can planewalk through various afterlives?

Heresy is a disease of religions that hold that what matters to God is what you believe, so that persuading someone of a false belief does them great harm. Contrary to Western experience with Christianity, Islam, and modern Judaism, most religions, including the polytheistic religions on which most D&D worlds are based, aren't like that. In most such religions what matters is not what you believe, but what you do. Brave men (and even brave women) went to Valhalla even if they believed inaccurate and whimsical folk-tales about the All-Father. The 'bad guys' in the Mahabharata went to heaven (and the hero did not) because, though they were usurpers &c, each of them was true to his dharma. And then there are religions in which the gods exist and cause natural phenomena, but don't judge mortals at all. And in Buddhism the gods themselves (if they exist at all) are fellow-travellers stuck on the wheel like mortals, and their very existence is irrelevant to religious opinion or practice.

Without the belief that the gods judge mortals on the basis of belief (or faith), inaccurate beliefs about theology are not a significant issue, and heresy as such doesn't matter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jhaelen

First Post
What would heresy look like in the world of D&D where gods grant followers divine spells, angels and devils visit mortal realms, and powerful adventurers can planewalk through various afterlives? And would there be a difference across editions?
I'll start with your second question:
This is an issue that is completely independent from editions. It's a matter of the setting you use. The setting defines the relationship between followers and deities (assuming they even exist in the setting).

Regarding the first question:
There's no reason why heresy in a D&D setting would be different from a real-world heresy. What's a heresy?
Wikipedia says: "Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma".
What's dogma?
Wikipedia says: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers".

In most settings there's little reason for deities to care much about dogma. All they care about is being worshipped. Being worshipped under different names, by different worshippers or by using different rituals, usually matters little.

Almost every deity has different spheres of influence or portfolios. Believing only in a certain aspect of a deity is perfectly fine.

It's only the different groups of worshippers that may have a problem with other groups of worshippers following a different dogma.

In the real world people tend to make war over the tiniest differences; fantasy worlds typically aren't any different.
 

Agemegos

Explorer
You'll note they don't tend to call the King of England a heretic. Because he's a big enough dog that you don't want to go to war with an entire country.

Pope Innocent III excommunicated King John of England in 1209 and told the French they could conquer England.

Pope Pius V declared Elizabeth I of England a heretic and excommunicate in 1570, declared that all her subjects were released from their allegiance, and threatened excommunication against any Catholic who served in her government. That one ended up with the defeat of an attempted Spanish invasion in 1588.

Kings of Germany/Holy Roman Emperors also got excommunicated pretty often. And there was that whole think with the Albigensian Crusade, which caused twenty years of devastating war 1208–1228. And of course all the wars in the Netherlands, German, and France that followed from declaring Protestant rulers to be heretics. The Thirty Years' War and so on.
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
most religions, including the polytheistic religions on which most D&D worlds are based, aren't like that.

Without addressing the parts of your post which aren't addressable in this forum, I would just note that Socrates was executed for teaching heresy.

Heresy, in general, is treated not only as a crime of thought, but as a crime against the peacefulness and order of the state whenever the state backs a particular orthodoxy. It's important to keep in mind that most ritual autocracies, whether monarchy or some other form, rooted their right to rule in a particular set of religious beliefs. Thus, any attack on the religious orthodoxy was also defacto an attack on the secular rule of these authorities. The framework in which the legal crime of heresy is important is their is no separation between the institutions of the state and the institutions of religion. In practice, the charge of Heresy is simply the charge of Sedition or Treason by another name.

Thus, you can find documents in Song China, of various groups being legally prosecuted either because their religious beliefs were associated with uprising against the secular authorities or were believed to be associated with such dissent. For example, it was illegal to be a vegetarian, because practicing vegatarianism was seen as a challenge to the holiness of the Emporer. It was illegal on penalty of beheading to teach astronomy or to own an astronomy text, because the Son of Heaven and his designated agents were supposed to have a monopoly on divination magic generally and knowledge of the stars in particular. And these are just a few examples of the hetrodox religious practices that could get you killed in medieval China.

The important thing to note about Heresy is that it is always dissent not only against the truth of a certain religious statement, but also dissent against the authority of the secular powers that derive their mandate to rule from a certain religious orthodoxy. Provided that the debate doesn't challenge the right of secular rule, there can be quite lively debates on various points within a religion. It's only when such debate challenges, for example, whether the Emporer is really a god where you get people getting thrown to lions for their beliefs. Or, when the debate challenges whether the Pope has temporal authority, that the debate moves from the academic field and becomes a political one. Compare for example how Luther was treated, to how Erasmus was treated, even though they had in many cases promulgated the same beliefs.

So, in the examples I gave above of the sorts of teachings that were widely considered heretical, the key element is that the secular authorities agree that such teachings are a danger to public order (and perhaps public safety as well!).
 
Last edited:

Quickleaf

Legend
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]
Great examples! I recall the inheritance & raise dead issue you raise from a past post you made. Here's a question: how do your clerics justify the existence of raise dead given the inversion if the natural order that it is seen as? Why have deities allowed this ritual? Couldn't they just "not answer the call"? And in your world are there legitimate times raise dead could be used?

Agemegos said:
Without the belief that the gods judge mortals on the basis of belief (or faith), inaccurate beliefs about theology are not a significant issue, and heresy as such doesn't matter.
Beliefs can and often do influence actions. The Heresy of St. Ilia believes the Raise Dead ritual doesn't serve the people and so takes action to oppose the practice of that ritual. They pay merchants to take required components off their shelves or otherwie make those specific components scarce. They organize anti-raise rallies, particularly against deceased known for abusin their power. Their extremists might even steal or irreversibly destroy corpses slated for raising.

And they have fair points to their argument (see the OP). Why wouldn't their god take these belief-inspired actions into account in their final judgment?

Jhaelen said:
In most settings there's little reason for deities to care much about dogma. All they care about is being worshipped. Being worshipped under different names, by different worshippers or by using different rituals, usually matters little.
Take the infallibility of the Pope. IMC the nearest equivalent would be the 4e irreversible investiture of divine power into a cleric. The Heresy of St. Ilia questions the validity of this integral practice and may oppose it even with violence in rare cases.

So you're saying the deity won't get involved because this is an issue of dogmata. Therefore the deity's effective position is "you're both right"? You're right that the power to cast clerical spells should be irrevocable, and you're right that there should be limits on how much a cleric can get away with before their spellcasting is interrupted.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
So you're saying the deity won't get involved because this is an issue of dogmata. Therefore the deity's effective position is "you're both right"? You're right that the power to cast clerical spells should be irrevocable, and you're right that there should be limits on how much a cleric can get away with before their spellcasting is interrupted.
Well, option one is that the setting dictates which faction is correct:
In Eberron your fantasy version of the pope would be right and the heretics would be wrong.
In Greyhawk it would probably be the other way around.

In general, though, there's no reason why either faction has to be wrong:
If the followers of your fantasy pope want to believe that divine power is irrevocable, why should the deity choose to prove them wrong by taking away the granted power?

Being a deity there are other ways to stop a misguided pope. Actually, perhaps the followers of the Heresy of St. Ilia are the tool used by the deity to get rid of the pope!

In a setting with more active deities, there's always the fist from the heavens approach (which doesn't have to literally manifest in that way).

Conflicting dogmas are irrelevant to a deity, unless they interfere with a deity's goals or endanger their existence (and even that might not be sufficient to get a deity to act, depending on the setting).

Resolving the contradiction isn't necessary, unless it's the most convenient way to deal with the situation for the deity (e.g. if your pope faction and the heretics were equally strong and thus threatened to eliminate each other, leaving the deity without worshippers).
 

Celebrim

Legend
[MENTION=4937] Here's a question: how do your clerics justify the existence of raise dead given the inversion if the natural order that it is seen as?

There are times when it is believed that a particular person has an unfulfilled destiny which it is desired by a particular deity or group of deities that they return to fulfill. Deities then allow the return of the soul to fulfill that destiny. But its not the sort of request that most clerics would fulfill just because you plopped 5000 coins worth of diamonds down on the table.

My basic point is that raising the dead is a big freakin' deal from a social perspective, however 'easy' it may appear from a magical one.

Couldn't they just "not answer the call"?

They could, but you are making the assumption that the dieties are nearly omnipotent beings which have time in their day to be actively reviewing and controlling everything that happens in their sphere of influence or to one of their believers. Most deities are far from that powerful. If the deity could really do something like that all the time, surely they could just show up to prevent their clerics from ever doing anything which would lead to their fall. Mostly it works like this:

Cleric: Mighty Lado, Patriarch Ilias here. Today at the break of this new day, I find myself with the need to raise a soul from the dead.
Lado's Planatar Bulter *checks the shelves to see if he has 'Raise Dead' in inventory*: Patriarch Ilias, your request is granted. Bestowing the power on you now; use it wisely.
Cleric: Thank you mighty Lado.
Lado's Planatar Bulter *making note to remind Lado to give him some more 'Bestow Raise Dead' scrolls*: Don't mention it, Patriarch. Moving on now. Busy and all.
Cleric: It sure is swell how Lado always find time for little old me.

It's generally believed that dieties, when they are looking in on the affairs of mortals, spend most of their time looking in on a few (where 'a few' could mean anywhere from 1 to a few thousand depending on whether we are talking the demigod of toads or some family head like Jord or Corwen) specially selected individuals. These individuals are then subject to repeated manipulation by the deity toward some end. They experience lives which, to an observer, appear to be profoundly lucky and filled with wierd coincidences. In fact, it's one or more deities continually manipulating the circumstances of their lives. Individuals that are believed to have deities directly manipulating them to are called Elected (the opposite, to have offended a deity and have no other deity protecting you as a patron is to be Damned). Those that have formed personal relationships with the deities that are interested in them (similar to Odysseus's relationship with Athena) are called Saints.

Understand that in my vision, deities are extraordinarily active in the world. All PC's are assumed to be Elected, and its not uncommon for a 1st level character to have a chance to encounter a deity. Overt divine intervention pf the "Crom grant me vengence!" sort is fairly common - it's happened twice in ~25 sessions, albiet both times with the boon of 1st level spell since deities don't in fact have unlimited power to spare (and must work against each other in any event). As Elected, PC's - especially in the early stages of their career - are much more likely to be considered valid targets of a raise dead spell than others. That however doesn't mean that a priest from the temple of Lado is going to be easily convinced (by anything less than a Commune) to raise a PC associated with the temple of Aratos (much less Barmal!). On the other hand, if a PC has been doing Lado's work, and there isn't some obvious complication, then raising them from the dead is likely to happen.

And in your world are there legitimate times raise dead could be used?

Not every society emphasises the rights of the individual over the needs of the group. In a society heavily invested in ancestor worship, if one of your ancestors wants to come back to life you just do the proper thing and move out of their way and give them back the leadership role which - for all practical purposes you assume they've never abandoned. I mean its not like you can't make a collect call to 'Great-Great-Grandma' to seek her advice, so in some cultures the society is literally ruled by ghosts already. (One of the more prominent families in Harlond regularly gets advice from an 3000 year old entombed vampire, so it could be worse.)

Nor is every society all that interested for that matter in maintain a social order. Some want to openly overthrow it.

In some societies the justification for raising dead could be as simple as, "The King needed you alive. (So stop allowing yourself to be killed, and get back to work.)" Indeed, the general justification for raise dead is always, "Some deity wants you back in the world for reasons of their own." So it could be like, "In the name of Karophet the All Cunning, arise Bolkrum the Destroyer and avenge yourself on your foes. Once more unleash your terror on the Sword Coast; sack and burn the villages of the Hulsheen, and drive our mutual foes before you." Whether that's legitimate or not depends on your point of view.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
In most such religions what matters is not what you believe, but what you do.
It's not hard to imagine a convincing heresy altering the actions of believers. That's certainly what the Inquisition-era Church thought the Protestants had accomplished.

A heresy that doesn't offend the orthodoxy into some sort of action isn't really a heresy that a DM normally cares to worry about. ;)
 

I wonder, if a high-level cleric could use the Commune ritual and figure out the "right answer".

Even funnier if the angel he contacted said "yes" to one faction but a different cleric spoke to another angel and got a "no" answer. Then we have priests covering up the responses to their Commune answers. (I wonder, if in order to prevent abuse, if a cleric would be allowed to do "private" communes or would always need someone there to witness the event. It would probably vary by religion/setting.)
 

Remove ads

Top