D&D General IRL nominations (historically classic ie religious, pantheonic, folkloric, no newer than 1600) for mythical cosmologies you enjoy including in d&d.

[Minigiant]

Haudenosaunee
Ashanti
Greek

 

[MoonSong]

They do kind of. Buddhism has enough saints/post-death beings it can work. Confucisum is philosophical examination of how rulership and the universe works in context of traditional Chinese taoist belief. It also has enough non-mortal beings/beliefs that it could work well.

As or my votes: Aztec, Japanese and Polynesian.

Well, let's not waste a a perfectly good necroing.

My choices would be
Vedic (Pre-brahmanic)
Anahuac (Not just Aztec)
Basque

 

[Celebrim]

Haudenosaunee
Ashanti
Greek

Cool choices.

 

[Wiseblood]

Well, let's not waste a a perfectly good necroing.

My choices would be
Vedic (Pre-brahmanic)
Anahuac (Not just Aztec)
Basque

It’s like you read my mind. Not kidding at all. I just watched Errementari but I was at the same time thinking more broadly Aztec and the word Vedic was specifically in my thoughts. Great minds I guess.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I hope someone isn't preparing for an "But other people got to talk about religion on ENWorld, why can't I?" argument with the moderators. I'd strongly advise against that.

Respectfully, you have the opposite interpretation. My point was based off the “No Religion” guidelines of this board, this thread should not even exist, let alone have grown to 4 pages from the 3 pages, it was this morning. New votes have been added.

Clearly, people talk about religion on the board and reference it.

If talking about religion is an accepted practice, then I just want clarity as to what the redlines are.

If the board guidelines as written is the answer, I’m all for it. I’m cool with Rules as Written campaigns as well, but I get perturbed at Rules as Written-Sometimes campaigns.

Religion is too important a topic, for a RAW- Sometimes, in my opinion.

The existence and growth of this thread, is a really big sometimes.
My personal preference is for RAW Guidelines, not just Sometimes.

Also, to be clear. I respect, Umbran, and his moderation was never in question by me.

I do, however, feel that it does illustrate how, haphazardly, we all, ENworld posters included, have applied the No Religion Guideline, vis a vis this very thread.

Not picking a fight CleverNickName, just clarifying my point.

If people do not want RAW Guidelines enforced, then what are the rules?
(That is all I am asking).

 

[Coroc]

Respectfully, you have the opposite interpretation. My point was based off the “No Religion” guidelines of this board, this thread should not even exist, let alone have grown to 4 pages from the 3 pages,it was this morning. New votes have been added.

Clearly, people talk about religion on the board and reference it.

If talking about religion is an accepted practice, then I just want clarity as to what the redlines are.

If the board guidelines as written is the answer, I’m all for it. I’m cool with Rules as Written campaigns as well, but I get perturbed at Rules as Written-Sometimes campaigns.

Religion is too important a topic, for a RAW- Sometimes, in my opinion.

The existence and growth of this thread, is a really big sometimes.
My personal preference is for RAW Guidelines, not just Sometimes.

Also, to be clear. I respect, Umbran, and his moderation was never in question by me.

I do, however, feel that it does illustrate how, haphazardly, we all, ENworld posters included, have applied the No Religion Guideline, vis a vis this very thread.

Not picking a fight CleverNickName, just clarifying my point.

If people do not want RAW Guidelines enforced, then what are the rules?
(That is all I am asking).

I think it is more about religions which are currently practiced IRL, so not to intimidate any potential follower of one of these religions reading on this board.

I do think that talking about some ancient real world cult like ancient greek, norse or roman pantheon is totally in order, Mods please correct me if I am wrong on this one.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Hi Coroc...this is copied from above: the list to be voted on.

Nordic
Celtic
Egyptian
Greek
Roman
Slavic
Sumerian
Hawaiian
Japanese
Zoroastrian

More importantly if we exclude active religions we exclude the Mahābhārata, from India, which is still a part of the subcontinent’s religions and culture....and also is an awesome mythological source.

Is it fair and inclusive that we can talk about Thor and not Shiva?

Trishula makes Excalibur look like a toothpick.

 

[CleverNickName]

Respectfully, you have the opposite interpretation.

Indeed, and I was happy to be wrong. I should assume better of people, and I really try, but years of argument on the Internet has hardened my expectations a bit too much for my own good.

 

[Coroc]

Hi Coroc...this is copied from above: the list to be voted on.



More importantly if we exclude active religions we exclude the Mahābhārata, from India, which is still a part of the subcontinent’s religions and culture....and also is an awesome mythological source.

Is it fair and inclusive that we can talk about Thor and not Shiva?

Trishula makes Excalibur look like a toothpick.

Well tbh. the bible is also an awesome mythological source, still I would not include any of it into my games because some of my players are regular churchgoers and practicing Christians. If you want to use such sources you should to defamiliarize them at least to be on the safe side.
I do not have Hinduists in my group but there might be some on this forum, so you need to respect them as well, starting to classify one IRL religion as being ok to use as source for your games - just because it is mainly revered some thousand miles away and you do not know any follower personally - is already devaluing it versus a religion you would not use at all because your players are of that faith.

 

[Tonguez]

Respectfully, you have the opposite interpretation. My point was based off the “No Religion” guidelines of this board, this thread should not even exist, let alone have grown to 4 pages from the 3 pages, it was this morning. New votes have been added.

Clearly, people talk about religion on the board and reference it.

If talking about religion is an accepted practice, then I just want clarity as to what the redlines are.

If the board guidelines as written is the answer, I’m all for it. I’m cool with Rules as Written campaigns as well, but I get perturbed at Rules as Written-Sometimes campaigns.

Religion is too important a topic, for a RAW- Sometimes, in my opinion.

The existence and growth of this thread, is a really big sometimes.
My personal preference is for RAW Guidelines, not just Sometimes.

Also, to be clear. I respect, Umbran, and his moderation was never in question by me.

I do, however, feel that it does illustrate how, haphazardly, we all, ENworld posters included, have applied the No Religion Guideline, vis a vis this very thread.

Not picking a fight CleverNickName, just clarifying my point.

If people do not want RAW Guidelines enforced, then what are the rules?
(That is all I am asking).

And sometimes in real life as in game we need to avoid rules lawyering and go with commonsense or DM (mod) fiat.

The rule about Religion isnt a ban on discussion of mythology or specific pantheons or even beleifs (the game features Clerics, Paladins and Druids!) but I think we can all accept that those things are NOT the same as debating specific doctrine or dogma or real world religious practice.

of course if the ENWorld DM or his lesser dMs want to correct me then so be it