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.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think the part I'm struggling with when it comes to creating my own pantheon is the existence of "celestial" as a measurable power. If a god's divinity is instantly detectable by a first-level spell, that does seem to suggest that gods are easily defined, fixed beings, inherently distinct from fiends or fey.

There was talk earlier about a "small gods" system, with gods of small localized areas or objects. So what makes something become enough of a god to be measurably celestial? Can belief turn something into a celestial being?

But then I have further questions, like in a broad pantheon, there is no reason to assume gods are inherently "good." But then if there can be neutral or evil gods, why are fiends so rigidly defined as evil? The celestial/fiend dichotomy seems like a somewhat Christian binary baked into the system despite the assumption of polytheism.

These are excellent questions. Read through the divinities at Tekumel.com for what I think is a good presentation of a shades of grey pantheon. They run from Good --> Benevolent --> Indifferent --> Malign --> Evil, along with reasons why people might favor the darker gods.

 

[Bluebell]

These are excellent questions. Read through the divinities at Tekumel.com for what I think is a good presentation of a shades of grey pantheon. They run from Good --> Benevolent --> Indifferent --> Malign --> Evil, along with reasons why people might favor the darker gods.

I think maybe what I'm asking is less about how evil gods can exist and more what makes an evil god any different from a fiend? Why must we have fiends at all rather than extraplanar beings of a variety of alignments?

 

[Hussar]

It's someone with magical powers granted by an extra planar being with airs of grandeur. I assume the party buys equipment from lots of folks with odd beliefs, why would this be different? Do real world people turn down disaster aid if it's provided by a religious charity that doesn't match their own faith.

And why would the atheist have to go around loudly proclaiming they don't believe?
/snip
And how is that different from any game with gods of different pantheons claiming something like the sun?

The irony here is that I know for a fact that there are posters here who strongly disagree with the notion of the player telling the DM facts about the DM's setting. Races must be curated by the DM for example. A player cannot tell the DM (he can ask, but not tell) that the player is going to play Race X and the DM is then obligated to add that race to the setting.

But, apparently, I can make a character that denies a major setting element - something that has an impact on the entire setting - and that's perfectly fine? How does that conversation even go?

Player: My character is an atheist.
DM: Ummm. Ok? So, he's insane.
Player: No. He's not insane. He's an atheist.
DM: But, he is insane. The gods exist in this setting.
Player: Nope, they're just really powerful extra planar beings.
DM: No. They're not. They're gods.
Player: Nope. You are wrong.



So, you'd be perfectly fine with the DM saying that as an atheist, you are an enemy of faith, meaning that your character will receive no blessings from divine magic as the gods do not exist, therefore they will not help you? You can still be hurt, of course, because you are an enemy, but, no divine magic will function for you. And every NPC, if they learn that you are an atheist, will treat you as a dangerously insane lightning bolt magnet and refuse to have anything to do with you? After all, your character is denying the basic truth of the universe here. You are flat out the enemy of all gods, good or evil. Additionally, any actual clergy is duty bound to either apprehend you as a dangerous person, or outright kill you on sight because, as a direct enemy of faith, you are basically in league with the worst of all evils in the universe.

In a setting with actual gods, how is an atheist any different from a demon?

That's perfectly fine?

Like I said, it's yucking in everyone else's yum. You're telling other players that their character's are wrong. Everything they believe about their characters is wrong. You are then doubling down and telling the DM that the DM is wrong about the setting. That, despite the DM directly telling you that your character is wrong, you insist that no, everyone else is wrong and you are right.

And you think that this is a character that adds productive play to the game?

 

[Flamestrike]

This risks something like the Sorites paradox: when is a collection of grains of sand a heap, and when is it just sand? When is a powerful spiritual being a "god" and when is it just a powerful spiritual being?

To Neo the sand is neither sand nor a heap.

 

[Cadence]

The irony here is that I know for a fact that there are posters here who strongly disagree with the notion of the player telling the DM facts about the DM's setting. Races must be curated by the DM for example. A player cannot tell the DM (he can ask, but not tell) that the player is going to play Race X and the DM is then obligated to add that race to the setting.

But, apparently, I can make a character that denies a major setting element - something that has an impact on the entire setting - and that's perfectly fine? How does that conversation even go?

Player: My character is an atheist.
DM: Ummm. Ok? So, he's insane.
Player: No. He's not insane. He's an atheist.
DM: But, he is insane. The gods exist in this setting.
Player: Nope, they're just really powerful extra planar beings.
DM: No. They're not. They're gods.
Player: Nope. You are wrong.

Why do the DM and player need to have the conversation like that? Why not:

Player: ... Oh, and my character is an atheist.
DM: Ummm. Ok? That's not going to be a common view in the world, and might get the character some strange looks or trouble depending on who it's shared with.
Player: That's cool. He's just never seen anything to indicate they're anything more than really powerful extra planar beings, or that there's anything beyond them, and doesn't feel right lying to himself by worshipping them.
DM: Ok, that should be fine. I'll run it like I think it would happen. Like your idea for using a javelin instead of a bow by the way.

So, you'd be perfectly fine with the DM saying that as an atheist, you are an enemy of faith, meaning that your character will receive no blessings from divine magic as the gods do not exist, therefore they will not help you? You can still be hurt, of course, because you are an enemy, but, no divine magic will function for you. And every NPC, if they learn that you are an atheist, will treat you as a dangerously insane lightning bolt magnet and refuse to have anything to do with you? After all, your character is denying the basic truth of the universe here. You are flat out the enemy of all gods, good or evil. Additionally, any actual clergy is duty bound to either apprehend you as a dangerous person, or outright kill you on sight because, as a direct enemy of faith, you are basically in league with the worst of all evils in the universe.

Why does it need to be that extreme? Is the atheist going out trying to recruit? Or are they just going around living their life?

In a setting with actual gods, how is an atheist any different from a demon?

How does that follow? You lost me somewhere.

That's perfectly fine?

Like I said, it's yucking in everyone else's yum. You're telling other players that their character's are wrong. Everything they believe about their characters is wrong. You are then doubling down and telling the DM that the DM is wrong about the setting. That, despite the DM directly telling you that your character is wrong, you insist that no, everyone else is wrong and you are right.

And you think that this is a character that adds productive play to the game?

It sounds more productive to me than having my fictional countries set up where they treat people like demons for being an atheist. (I'm trying to mesh this with how we treat gender and nationality and respecting real world religions in the game).

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think maybe what I'm asking is less about how evil gods can exist and more what makes an evil god any different from a fiend? Why must we have fiends at all rather than extraplanar beings of a variety of alignments?

To me, the fiend is the one you can have a face to face with to make bargains, or summon directly to send against a foe. The evil god is the fiend's boss, creator, or ultimate tempter. A fiend is also a lot more comprehendable. Directly experiencing a god's presence, encountering the ineffable, makes for a good prophet but hard to strike a deal.

In one sense it's power level, but also depth of mind and incomprehensibility of experience.

 

[Staffan]

I've never understood the argument that basically says, "Well, gods aren't really gods - they're just really powerful extra planar beings.

What do you think a god is? Isn't "extra planar powerful being" pretty much the definition of a god? What more do you need?

You're missing the second half of the argument, which is that there's nothing about the so-called gods that makes them worthy of worship or authorities on moral matters. I mean, sure, Zeus exists. He throws lightning bolts at titans. Why should I care? And why should I care what he or his priests say on things? Is it just because he might otherwise throw a lightning bolt at me? Well, that's just bullying, isn't it?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You're missing the second half of the argument, which is that there's nothing about the so-called gods that makes them worthy of worship or authorities on moral matters. I mean, sure, Zeus exists. He throws lightning bolts at titans. Why should I care? And why should I care what he or his priests say on things? Is it just because he might otherwise throw a lightning bolt at me? Well, that's just bullying, isn't it?

No, that's pretty much greek religion. You don't worship X or Y because they are nice but because you want something from them (such as "not being smitten by lightning" to "smite enemies with lightning") and you propose, via a ritual, a sacrifice in exchange of what you want. If you want safe passage for your fleet from a sea god, you don't care if they are a nice sea god or a jackass sea god, you just do the worship ritual until the omens says "all clear for embarking today". Basically, "being an authority on moral matters" isn't a core concept of religions, except a few, generally monotheistic, outliers, given their necessarily "all-encompassing" nature.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're missing the second half of the argument, which is that there's nothing about the so-called gods that makes them worthy of worship or authorities on moral matters. I mean, sure, Zeus exists. He throws lightning bolts at titans. Why should I care? And why should I care what he or his priests say on things? Is it just because he might otherwise throw a lightning bolt at me? Well, that's just bullying, isn't it?

As I have heard it phrased, the ancient Greeks did not see the gods as reflecting what was good or right, but what was true. The gods didn't really "deserve" worship in the sense we think of today. (This, incidentally, is related to the Euthyphro dialogue, where Socrates asks Euthyphro, allegedly a priest or prophet of some kind, what the definition of "piety" is.) Instead, most times, the gods were given propitiatory sacrifices ("please give us calm seas, Poseidon" type), yearly ritual sacrifices due to the importance of their area of purview (e.g. "sacrifice a ram to get a good harvest from Demeter" type), or invoked in a sort of spiritual transaction to get a specific benefit or inflict a particular curse (curse-tablets and jewels engraved with charms or protections are some of the most common religious artifacts of the ancient world).

So, Zeus doesn't "deserve" worship because he's got some kind of special relationship to the cosmos or to goodness; instead, because he simply is the BMOC and you're his underling, you should revere him or there will be punishment. Aphrodite doesn't really "deserve" worship, but if you want to have physical beauty, successful romantic prospects, or children that survive, you'd better propitiate her (and probably Demeter and Hera as well, for the third).

This whole "deity deserves worship because they have a special cosmic connection, or are inherently representative of goodness, etc." is a rather more modern take, and one that...pretty much directly derives from monotheistic critiques of polytheism (which only became a big deal because Christianity became a big deal). For example, the gods in Greek mythology could do all sorts of things humans weren't permitted to, like marrying close blood-relatives (siblings and uncles/nieces, mostly), slaying one's parents (as both Cronus and Zeus did), and engaging in rather wanton behavior (...basically every myth that features Zeus or Aphrodite...) In a very real sense, if these deities had been mortals, they'd have been punished by whatever gods existed. But since they're gods, the rules are different for them; being a god isn't something a being has to qualify for, it's a natural state, much as (to the ancients) being the Rightful King or the High Priest was an innate state of being, one that might pass to someone else on the death of the current holder. (Hence why it was possible for the Titans, and later the Olympians, to overthrow their forebears and take up the mantle of rulership.) Why does the King "deserve" obeisance? Because he has authority...and the force to back it up; he doesn't inherently deserve it, it's just the way things worked out.

I don't want to delve into real-world religions too much because that's already been given clear Mod Advisory, but it's worth noting that monotheistic traditions (like Judaism and Christianity) respond to the aforementioned Euthyphro dilemma specifically by invoking the idea of this special, innate connection to Good-ness itself, with various similar approaches under that common umbrella. That's part of the monotheistic critique of polytheism, as mentioned. Monotheist theology emphasizes this idea that there is (or should be) something truly special about the state of being a deity--something that justifies reverence of that deity, beyond the mere fact of "is a powerful, supernatural being." But to the ancient Greeks, "is a powerful, supernatural entity" was all you needed for something to be a god and worthy of worship--indeed, mortal heroes blurred the line between gods and men on the regular. Many hero-cults would literally perform regular apotheosis to ensure their (literal) object of hero-worship would remain powerful and influential in the world.

 

[Ixal]

If you want religion to matter you need to make the churches/temple matter. In history they had huge power politically, often even being above kings and emperors. Yet in D&D they were often close to powerless and divorced from politics and instead being relegated to your helpful healer/quest giver from the neighbourhood.