Heresy in D&D

Celebrim

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

In my campaign, unless the heresy is completely incompatible with the basic nature of the deity, then chances are that the cleric is going to get an evasive answer. This is because deities don't like to lose followers, and so will tend to tolerate a bit of drift from their preferences. Stamping out a heresy is likely to result in the loss of influence, and that will simply encourage and strengthen their true rivals.

Also there is a chance that the mortals are fighting over something that the deity doesn't believe has a 'right answer'. The deity may well be compatible with both viewpoints (or neither!).

Questions about the fundamental nature of the universe, or the relationships between the gods, or any of the other the dieties private affairs and opinions are generally discouraged. For one thing the diety may not want to admit that they don't know or are undecided themselves. For another, these questions involve a pretty high degree of hubris. Likely short answer responses to questions the deity considers too big for the follower may be, "That's none of your concern." Deities are under no obligation to answer questions that work against what they see as their fundamental interests.

There is an even worse problem though. There is a chance IMC when a cleric drifts in alignment radically, that another deity picks up the cleric as a de facto follower and seemlessly begins providing spells in place. So when this cleric goes to commune the deities preferences, he may get truthful answers but perhaps not from the deity he thinks that he is talking to. This is something likely to get the first deities attention, but it may be some time before he can move assets to counter the usurpation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
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.)
Having celestials not really knowing the mind of the god they serve would be pretty apropos -- even in the Seven Heavens, the celestials are really just another church hierarchy, doing the best that they can. But try convincing the inquisitor that you got a different answer from your Commune spell than the one his boss got ...
 

Agemegos

Explorer
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.

He was condemned to death for corrupting the minds of the young and teaching disbelief in the gods that supported the State. It was a wholly secular prosecution, too.
 


Contrary to Western experience with Christianity, Islam, and modern Judaism, most religions, including the polytheistic religions on which most D&D worlds are based, [don't have a concept like Heresy] .

Heresy was not really a concept outside of monotheistic Western religions. There is no need for it. You can just glue together different deities from different places and make a polytheistic pantheon. It's just that the local guy is boss in the Pantheon, and the others are his sidekicks.

Deities merge identities and pick-up aspects very fluidly in syncretic religions. Consider the career of the Roman Sun god portfolio. In Rome the original sun deity was this concept of Sol, apparently almost unrelated to the later Sol, but we'll get there. Eventually, some foreigners (Greeks likely) setup one of their weird altars to one of their foreign gods on the outskirts of town. Apparently no one paid them much attention until they really helped out during a plague. (This could be straight out of my campaign, but isn't) After Apollo had a proper temple built on the spot, he gradually became a more and more accepted part of society. Soon, nobody in Rome worshiped Sol anymore, and he was forgotten basically.

Apollo himself constantly was evolving in the ancient religious world. The original Greek version possibly was not even associated with the Sun. Aspects of Apollo include scholarship, prophecy, medicine, and various aesthetic arts (but especially music). Additionally, Helios and Phoebus were other Sun deities sometimes conflated with Apollo, sometimes viewed as separate entities.

Eventually a cult of Sol Invictus with disputable connection to the old Sol arises in the later empire. The installation of Sol Invictus as the most important deity in the Roman Pantheon was intermittently achieved by various emperors in the later empire. The first such installation was done by one of the Severan emperors, although this was largely an importation of a Syrian cult which did not last long after he was assasinated. Still, it is the best evidence for a point where Apollo's worship gave way to Sol Invictus. The Aurellians were a later series of emperors who put Sol Invictus at the center of the Roman pantheon, arguably in an attempt at unifying the theologically diverse Roman Empire into a single cult more in line with various local theologies (many of which put the Sun as the most important deific sphere of influence).



In a campaign setting I would frame a religious theological controversy as a literal conflict (on the Great Wheel of Outer Planes) between distinct deities. Different deities would have different means of approaching this conflict as you describe:

There's an anti-clerical populist (the Heresy of St. Ilia) sect which opposes the practice of selling the raise dead ritual (called 'resurgences' in their rhetoric), decrying it as a tool of the elite to stay entrenched in power, a sacred power pawned off to the highest bidder, a denial of judgment for crimes committed in life, carrying even greater weight than beseeching a king to pardon a victim sentenced to die.

A Justice deity may intervene in some cases where a grave injustice is being wrought.

A Robinhood-esque Thievery god could possibly steal the life giving energies of the spells and use them for the poor disenfranchised members of society. Or just make it so the rich have less money in general with which to buy these things.

Another possibility is that the cult of the god has been infiltrated by imposter priests or even that the god itself has been temporarily replaced by an imposter deity. The worshipers of the false god are channelling the resources of the true god to the imposters as well as being granted spells by the imposters (who could be anything from a coalition of handful of wannabe demon lords to an outright Greater Power from the Lower Planes). This is in some sense kinda like a squatter (the imposters) on a piece of private land (owned by the true deity). In this analogy it should be kept in mind that a deity is likely to have several "estates" of worshipers in different countries or possibly on different Prime worlds, so a squatter could potentially squat unnoticed for a good while.

Perhaps the most interesting possibility is that of apotheosis. It could be that the original god is slowly being corrupted and is in fact moving across the Great Wheel towards a more sinister place. In this case, rather than an existing greater power or lesser power extending their influence into the vacated theological areas (as in the examples of a Judgement deity or a Thievery deity) or some other extraplanar NPC, it could be that some Prime character (maybe St. Ilia, maybe even a PC) could be on a path to rising to the status of a Demi-Power. I would imagine that Powers in general start out as a person who gains a following and starts to essentially be able to grant themselves divine spell casting, and eventually a few others as their flock grows.

In any case, the likely result is in fact a literal outer-planar battle between ideological forces representing the original power and other forces representing the usurping power. Each side in addition would be constantly attempting to marshal "supplies" for this battle from the beliefs of Prime mortals, providing plenty of fodder for a campaign.
 

Celebrim

Legend
He was condemned to death for corrupting the minds of the young and teaching disbelief in the gods that supported the State.

Exactly. And if that doesn't fit within your definition of 'heresy', then I'm at a loss as to what would. Socrates was condemned to death for promulgating novel religious beliefs that were believed to corrupt the young, and you are trying to tell me that that doesn't fit the definition of 'heresy'?

It was a wholly secular prosecution, too.

So generally was heresy. When charges of witchcraft or heresy were brought forward, only a minority of those cases were tried in ecclesiastical courts. In fact, often if accused by the secular authorities, when the option was available you had better odds appealing to the eccelesiastical court, because they had lower conviction rates and would appoint you an advocate for your defense. The eccelesiastical court might be corrupt as well, and if so you were out of luck, but there was relatively less chance that your neighbor bringing the complaint was in cahoots with the judge in a scheme to legally get you murdered and your property confiscated.

And this is ignoring the interesting question of whether any prosecution can be considered wholly secular when you have a state backed religion and the charges in question are "corrupting the minds of the young and teaching disbelief in the gods".
 


wrecan

First Post
Heresy was not really a concept outside of monotheistic Western religions. There is no need for it. You can just glue together different deities from different places and make a polytheistic pantheon. It's just that the local guy is boss in the Pantheon, and the others are his sidekicks.
And if someone else refused to recognize the primacy of your local guy boss, you percesuted those people for heresy. Heresy was absolutely a concept outside monotheism. The Romans persecuted people on religious people if they wouldn't accept the cosmology they decided would be used to absorb the local deities.

Pre-Christian Roman antisemitism was based in large part on the Romans' anger that the Jews would not accept Roman paganism, even when the Romans magnaminously allowed the Jewish God to be associated with Jupiter. When the Jews insisted on worshiping only one god, they were persecuted for denying the oficial religion. That's heresy by pretty much any measure.

Hindus persecuted Buddhists for what was considered heretical beliefs. Shintos persecuted Buddhists for the same thing. When the Persian Empire was Zoroastrian (we can leave it to another time whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, duotheistic, or polytheistic) it persecuted other religions.

Monotheists persecute monothesits and polytheists. Polytheists persecute monotheists and other polytheists.
 

Well, ok, relatively minor point here, but

<Neckbeard>
Technically, in any ideological conflict the opposition can be considered "heresy" by a group with an orthodoxy. This definition can be taken from a strict literal interpretation of a dictionary entry like this one.

For example, if the OP agrees with Celebrim's definition of the word in this discussion, my view could be a heresy since a group (of at least two people) have a set belief (an orthodoxy) I disagree with under this expansive literal dictionary reading.

However, I do not believe this expansive definition of heresy is what the OP was asking about. Indeed, one needs a lot of English language context to understand that the set of Heresy is a strict subset of {two religious opinions held by three or more people}.

Heresy is usually held as distinct from either Apostasy and Blasphemy. Blasphemy and encouraging Apostasy is probably the most app description of religious conflict in Ancient World polytheism. Apostasy is the leaving of one religion in favor of another. Blasphemy is the purposeful insult to the reputation of a cult (like pooping on their altar or some such and challenging their deity to do something about it). The cult of Apollo was a completely different religion from that of the cult of Sol or Helios or Phoebus, and elevating Apollo as the superior sun-god was blasphemous to the prior cults. These were not modifications of an existing religion, they were rejections of that religion and efforts at replacement. It was mainly feared that adherents of other religions (including Apostates) would probably Blaspheme as a result of being in these other religions. This is not heresy. Heretics believe they are supporting the religion claimed by orthodoxy and in fact a heretic would probably join with the orthodox in suppressing anything they saw as insulting to the reputation of their mutual deity.

However, religious competition was still less absolute: an individual had a portfolio of deities and superstitions which they subscribed to. Turning away from a subset of that portfolio in favor of some other (new) deities is apostolic, not heretical, despite retaining beliefs in other "spheres" (in D&D parlance). Saying Apollo was the chief sun god had nothing to do with whether Jove was boss, and you were not blaspheming against Jove when you switched from Sol to Apollo. The ancient Romans were turning away from Sol in favor of Apollo, Apollo was not a sect of Sol. The Aesir-Vanir War is an example of a case where blaspheming was happening at one time and apostasy was being encouraged (probably on both sides, but mainly from Vanir to Aesir initially) but resulted in a sycretism of the two pantheons after they agree to stop blaspheming eachother. The Titanomachy represents a more successful replacement of an older pantheon, although even here the old deities remain active in the belief system (and many demi-powers like Nyx are maintained from earlier beliefs systems).

Indeed, classifying a dispute like whether Hestia or Dionysus is a true member of the core 12 Olympians would be difficult. This could be considered a heresy insomuch as the Pantheon represents a "religion" (and not a collection of loosely connected belief systems), but really the cults of Hestia and Dionysus were pretty much separate. You go, pay your tribute to one, and then maybe to the other one too. It was a minor point as to who had a seat at the big table in the sky. Hestia (a deity of propriety and orderliness) was opposed in theory to Dionysus (a deity of debauchery and excess), but in truth they probably fed off each other, with devotees of one driving the people around them to give offering to the other one. So this relationship was not necessarily completely hostile (although it could be argued by a supporter of Hestia that her exclusion in favor of Dionysus would be blasphemous, but that'd be pretty indecorous for a supporter of a deity of decorum).

Dionysus was probably the newer deity to the Greeks (coming only with the introduction of fermentation) and initially people who sacrificed to him could have been accused of "withdrawing away" (which is a literal translation of apostasy from the old Greek) from their old gods in favor of a new foreign god.

Apostasy is actually what Socrates is accused of as well. He was accused of inventing new divinities for the youth of Athens and turning them away from old ones. This is not a modification of an existing religious orthodoxy, it is a new religion. Enemies of the Roman state system were usually accused of blaspheming the deities of the state cult by not offering them the proper sacrifices (it's not like the Jews were saying "No, we'll sacrifice to Jove, but only in the correct proper way," they were rejecting Roman religion completely in favor of their own deity).
</Neckbeard>
 

Quickleaf

Legend
[MENTION=91434]The 1 and the Prime[/MENTION]
Your idea of the saint-cum-god is intriguing. That's a lot for me to chew on, but I'm definitely mulling it over in the back of my mind.

As for the "adopted by another god" argument, in my case I've got a sect which has at least 2 divergent beliefs which aren't deity dependent:
(1) How Raise Dead is used is unjust and strips the act of it's sacredness
(2) The irrevocable investiture of clerics allows for abuse of that power

These aren't acts of blasphemy, these are heretical strains of critical thought that are advocating for religious reform on a broad level, across the entire assumed D&D temple of 4e.


About the Socrates trial....its certainly debatable whether "apostasy" or "heresy" was the second charge against Socrates. Wasn't it for "inventing new gods", specifically the daimonion (which meant something like 'inner voice' or 'intuition')? Getting "I am leaving your religion for this new religion" from someone who believes they're guided by intuition and can help others access their own seems insane...by my modern sensibilities at least. "Heresy" seems extreme, but at least I can wrap my brain around how intuition *might* be seen as a religious innovation.
 

Remove ads

Top