Making Religion Matter in Fantasy RPGs

Religion is a powerful force in any culture and difficult to ignore when creating a gaming setting. Here's some things to consider when incorporating religions into your campaign.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

The Question of Gods​

When we look at religion from a gaming perspective, the most interesting thing about it is that in many settings, the existence of deities is not in question. One of the most common arguments over religion is whether there even is a god of any form. But in many fantasy games especially, deities offer proof of their existence on a daily basis. Their power is channelled through clerics and priests and a fair few have actually been seen manifesting in the material realm. This makes it pretty hard to be an atheist in a D&D game.

While the adherents of any faith believe the existence of their deity is a given fact, having actual proof changes the way that religion is seen by outsiders. In many ancient cultures, people believed in not only their gods, but the gods of other cultures. So to win a war or conquer another culture was proof your gods were more powerful than theirs. While winning a war against another culture can make you pretty confident, winning one against another culture’s gods can make you arrogant. Add to that the fact you had warrior priests manifesting divine power on the battlefield, you are pretty soon going to start thinking that not only is winning inevitable, but that it is also a divine destiny. Again, these are all attitudes plenty of believers have had in ancient days, but in many fantasy worlds they might actually be right.

Magic vs. Prayer​

If a world has magic, it might be argued that this power is just another form of magic. Wizards might scoff at clerics, telling them they are just dabblers who haven’t learned true magic. But this gets trickier if there are things the clerics can do with their magic that the wizards can’t do with theirs. Some wizards might spend their lives trying to duplicate the effects of clerics, and what happens if one of them does?

The reverse is also interesting. Clerics might potentially manifest any form of magical power if it suits their deity. So if the priest of fire can not only heal but throw fireballs around, is it the wizards that need to get themselves some religion to become true practitioners of the art? Maybe the addition of faith is the only way to really gain the true power of magic?

Are the Gods Real?​

While divine power might be unarguably real, the source of it might still be in contention. A priest might be connecting to some more primal force than magicians, or tapping into some force of humanity. What priests think is a connection to the divine might actually just be another form of magic. As such, it could have some unexpected side effects.

Let’s say this divine power draws from the life force of sentient beings. As it does so in a very broad way, this effect is barely noticed in most populations. A tiny amount of life from the population as a whole powers each spell. But once the cleric goes somewhere remote they might find their magic starts draining the life from those nearby. In remote areas, clerics might be feared rather than revered, and the moment they try to prove they are right by manifesting the true power of their deity, they (and the townsfolk) are in for a very nasty surprise.

Can You Not Believe in Them?​

There are ways to still play an atheist character in a fantasy game. However, it does require more thought beyond "well I don’t believe in it." That's a sure way to make your character look foolish, especially after they have just been healed by a cleric.

What will also make things much tougher is having a character that refuses to benefit from the power of religion due to their beliefs. They might insist that if they don’t know what in this healing magic, they don’t want any part of it, especially if the priest can’t really explain it outside the terms of their faith. That this healing works will not be in doubt. So are they being principled or a fool? If the explanation for magical healing isn’t "this is just healing energy" but "it’s the power of my deity, entering your body and changing it for the better" the character might be more reticent about a few more hit points.

When it comes to deities manifesting on the material plane, it’s a little harder to ignore them. But this isn’t always evidence of the divine. A manifesting deity is undoubtedly a powerful being, one able to crush armies and level cities, but does that make them divine? While the power of a deity is not in dispute, the definition of what is actually divine in nature is a lot muddier. This is ironically harder in a fantasy world where lich-kings, dragons and powerful wizards can do all the same things many deities are supposed to do.

What Are Gods?​

So we come back to the question: Whether you are a cleric, adherent or atheist, of what actually is god? What quality of them demands or inspires worship beyond the fact they are powerful? Plenty of philosophers are still trying to figure that one out. While in a fantasy game their existence and power may not be in question, whether they are holy or even worthy of trust and faith might be much harder to divine.

 

[Cadence]

If my PC wizard cast a simple illusion spell he could also say that he was Pelor. Doesn't mean he's a god.

The secretly hollowed out church statue (or whatnot) for someone to stand in and speak to the crowd, as if it is a manifestation, shows up in a few stories I've read.

 

[Umbran]

If I make a painting and say "this painting is god" and get a bunch of other people to agree with me, that makes it a god?

That depends on the metaphysics of the fictional universe. It is not an uncommon trope in fantasy fiction to have the belief of multitudes create spiritual entities.

My PC didn't believe the deities were any more real than that painting. Deities had no independent internal thought processes.

Modern money does not have independent internal thought process. It exists only because we have collectively chosen to believe that it works (and, indeed, currencies fail when sufficient people cease trusting in it). Does money not exist? Does it not have massive impact on how the world works? Do people not effectively worship money, and what it can do for them?

 

[jmartkdr2]

If my PC wizard cast a simple illusion spell he could also say that he was Pelor. Doesn't mean he's a god.

Yes, lying is possible. So is being crazy.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It is weird in a setting where Pelor does so frequently, such that a large number of people have had the experience in living memory. If Pelor shows up unpredicatbly, only once in a generation, and usually in some small town nobody's heard of, in a world without mass communication it is not weird to consider that just a story people made up.

I mean, people believed in the Pope for centuries before anyone saw him on TV. Denying the existence of something just because you haven't personally seen even though hundreds or thousands of other people have it is a weird position to take in any time period.

Skepticism based on "everyone else is delusional or a liar" generally isn't a mainstream position.

 

[Voadam]

Denying the existence of something just because you haven't personally seen even though hundreds or thousands of other people have it is a weird position to take in any time period.

Scientific method opportunity!

Have hundreds or thousands claimed to have seen aliens? Ghosts? I think the answer to both is yes.

Do you consider it a weird position that some who claim not to have personally seen aliens or ghosts do not believe in their existence?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

There is a strong difference between refusing to believe the existence of X because you haven't seen X, and refusing to believe the existence of X, despite having seen it.

Let's postulate a potential definition of god "any supernatural being that is able to effect the world, either materially or spiritually, by his action". So, he could grant afterlife benefits or direct benefits (such as spellcasting) -- this doesn't mean that a totally indifferent creature just staying in the Far Realm and never wanting to interact with anything isn't interesting, but in the context of ancient polytheism, they wouldn't be worshipped because there is no point in establishing rituals to deal with it -- doing basically nothing achieves the best possible result already.

In this context, it doesn't matter if the supernatural being is an outsider born before creation or a golem programmed to dispense miracle. An atheist (as in refusing to believe in existence of gods) can be rational if there is no mean to verify the interaction of the god or its existence. Magic, which in setting is a regular, functionning process, can provide proof of :

a) existence of the thing (cast Gate, name Pelor, poof, proof. OK, you'll probably end-up smitten, but it's a replicateable experiment)
b) verification of the ritual's work because they can be cast over and over. You can cast cantrips all day. The exact replication of the ritual provide the exact same result. Not doing this, or doing this while calling the power of Bob the Innkeeper instead of Pelor doesn't work.
c) even if the intercession of the gods in only spiritual, such as an afterlife, you can planeshift there and make detailed observation of the soul-sorting and wall-building process.

It's much more difficult to be an atheist in such a setting and it might be disruptive to adopt this stance in game as it would be akin to "I disbelieve the existence of the Sharn Watch"... It doesn't mean that the miracle-granting golem is morally worth worshipping, but there is no link between morality and religion, you're casting a ritual calling the golem's favour and he responds in kind and let's you add 1d4 to your skill each time you ask for guidance. Nice deal, let's do that! Even if the Golem is spending 99% of his time tearing butterflys' wings. You could be indifferent to gods in general and the moral opinions of their priests and yet do the ritual (out of civic duties).

Of course, in other settings, the position is much more tenable. As to whether it disrupts the setting and campaign, that would much depend on session 0. In polytheistic settings, playing a monotheist can be equally disruptive:

"Only Umberlee exist."
"But we met Ilmater at the inn!"
"That doesn't matter, it was fake, it was Bob the Innkeeper wearing a mask"
"He went around resurrecting members of the party"
"They were just sleeping and their head reattached naturally"
"Will you at least aknowledge his existence so he, hum, you know, will keep be here when head suddenly reattach themselves?"
"No, never, only Umberlee exist. All praise Umberlee."
"Anyway, I am fed up, let's pray to Ilmater, we still have three beheaded friends to raise..."
"DEATH TO THE HERETIC! (foaming at mouth)"

There are many way to "not fit" in a setting.

 

[Bluebell]

This whole atheism debate comes down to context, honestly. I don't think a single sweeping rule one way or another about what atheism means and whether it's an acceptable position for a character can really work.

There are settings where the gods are actively involved in daily life and there are settings where they are distant, unseen forces whose existence has to be taken on faith. There are settings where religion is of vital importance to social order and there are those where it's just a minor footnote.

Whether playing an atheist is jarring or disrespectful to the DM and other players really depends on how the player is actually interacting with that world, whether they're choosing to be a jerk about it, whether it's an aspect of refusing to buy into the setting the DM worked hard on, or whether it's something that can easily coexist with the setting as it's designed and even create some interesting interactions.

In a campaign where it's revealed that the gods really are just lesser beings masquerading as something more powerful to trick people into worshipping them, a skeptical character would be welcome! But in a setting where the gods are the arbiters of good and evil and are descending from on high to give the PCs a holy quest, an atheist character might be disruptive and annoying at best.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Scientific method opportunity!

Have hundreds or thousands claimed to have seen aliens? Ghosts? I think the answer to both is yes.

Do you consider it a weird position that some who claim not to have personally seen aliens or ghosts do not believe in their existence?

Kinda yeah, or at least I don't believe all of those people just made it up or had the same hallucination for no reason. Even if we remove the possibility of dead spirits, the idea that there's no underlying cause is a stretch.

But that's not a great analogy in a standard DnD setting, since most people know someone personally who has witnessed a holy miracle (a cleric casting a spell), and all of those millions of people give roughly the same explanation for how that happened.

 

[Oofta]

That depends on the metaphysics of the fictional universe. It is not an uncommon trope in fantasy fiction to have the belief of multitudes create spiritual entities.



Modern money does not have independent internal thought process. It exists only because we have collectively chosen to believe that it works (and, indeed, currencies fail when sufficient people cease trusting in it). Does money not exist? Does it not have massive impact on how the world works? Do people not effectively worship money, and what it can do for them?

The painting exists. My PC would not believe it is anything other than a painting.

I think you're tying this into rhetorical knots ... it doesn't really matter if the PC was right or not, they believed what they believed.

 

[Cadence]

Kinda yeah, or at least I don't believe all of those people just made it up or had the same hallucination for no reason. Even if we remove the possibility of dead spirits, the idea that there's no underlying cause is a stretch.

List of mass hysteria cases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org