Monotheistic Religion - How to?

[Wolfwood2]

Two reasons:
1) I want a campaign setting with less empires, more city states, but also need a force tying them together, albeit not to tightly, so I can still do PoL. And with a monotheistic church, the states get that feeling of vaguely "same culture", but don't have a kingdom. Furthermore, such a church in a Points-of-Light setting seems like the perfect organization to hire people to "enlighten the darkness", i.e. they're going to get the role of the party patron (at least sometimes).

Does a cleric have to be a member of the church to get his powers? Or is it sufficient that they have faith in the deity?

I would suggest the latter. If an organized monotheistic church has a monopoly on divine magic, that would make it incredibly powerful. If an organized monotheistic church merely wishes it had a monopoly on divine power... that's more interesting.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

One very basic question I would ask is : Are you looking at a monotheistic religion, a monotheistic cosmology or both. A lot of the time we (ENworlders and fantasy gamers in general) seem to work under an assumption that cosmology will be accurately represented and understood in mortal religions. Working from the rules up, there's no particular reason for this. You could have philosophy clerics who believe they are channelling a non existant god, an arcane caster deliberately running a scam, devils giving splinter sects their powers, monotheistic religions who say that any other clerics get their powers from devils....

So I would consider both the mortal structure of religion and the cosmology that the PCs may someday come to understand.

 

[Celebrim]

It also doesn't encourage dualism, i.e. acceptance of those who worship evil.

But, just for the record, that isn't what dualism means. Dualism means the belief that good and evil are equally real, necessary, and substantial forces in the universe. Generally, in religions this involves a belief that the universe is governed by incarnations of two rival beings - a good one and an evil one, or a male and a female one, or a creating and a destroying one - but it can simply mean a belief in the balance of these two principals. For examples of this, see Manichaeism, Zoastrism, and philosophies based on the afore mentioned Yen and Yang. Dualism doesn't necessarily accept worship of either principle as being equally valid (though it can), but it does accept the necessary existance of both principles in the sense that neither can completely triumph over the other because they need each other.

All the Orthodox Abrahamic traditions (which pretty much covers all modern monotheism) reject Dualism. You do occassionally see Satan elevated up to the rival of God by some thinkers, for example St. Augustine borders on dualism at times which is somewhat understandable given his conversion from Manichaeism and Milton and others have left a bad dualistic streak amongst populist Christian thinking. But ,this isn't considered proper understanding of the scriptures by most students of those religions.

Now, see, I don't feel that the concepts of what is goodly and the concepts of what is evil, nor law or chaos, are dependent on any religion and its framework to exist, be it mono-, poly-, or pantheistic. In fact, I think good and evil, as well as law and chaos, are the framework upon which any concepts, religiously, of good or evil are built.

Hmmm... ok. I'm not here arguing that they are or are not. I'm trying hard to avoid stating what you should or shouldn't believe.

Whether good and evil are independent of the creator being depends on which has primacy. If good and evil exist prior to the creator and independent to him, then yes, what is goodly or lawful or chaotic are independent of any religion surrounding the creator or any other diety. In polytheism this is almost certainly true, as the superhumanly divine polytheistic beings tend not to be powerful enough to actually create the universe but rather are incarnations of some principle that exists before they do. For example, a God of Chaos. But if you have a truly primal creator being, as you tend to have in monotheism, this isn't the case. Everything that exists is created through the creator being, so anything with real existence exists and is defined according to the creator's design. In that case, the being is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong because he made the concepts of rightness and wrongness and they are subject to his authority.

It probably shouldn't surprise you to consider that some religions deny that both good and evil exist, and see both as purely artificial constructs. Likewise, most non-religious naturalists would object to your description of either as being as real as gravity is.

They are basic, universal concepts that are consistent in a monotheistic world, or polytheistic.

I think that they are only consistant in so far as universes are consistant. As to why values might seem absolute to you, that's not something I can discuss in this forum.

Oh, it can have a separate existence, but the two are sides of the same coin. Basic physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If there is good in the universe then there must be evil, if only one or the other exists then it is stasis and thus a lifeless void.

This is a religious statement. It is a statement of faith and conviction. But the metaphysics of this statement cannot in anyway be considered settled. Reasonable people from different philosophical traditions can disagree over the truth of the above statements. Tolkien, for example, coming from a Catholic tradition would reject them utterly and does so within his fiction. It is not a settled fact that if there is good in the universe that there must be evil, or that good is rendered lifeless and sterile in the absence of evil.

Life is about difference, in fact life happens in the space between differences meeting, adapting, and moving on to new differences.

A statement that could be interpreted in the framework of Dungeons and Dragons as being one of chaotic conviction, but which again, is not a philosophical point which could be considered settled.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree, at some point, as I think our fundamental ideas and concepts will differ.

I'm always happy to agree to disagree. I'm a strange guy. Since people so seldom agree with me, this is usually the happiest result I can manage.

I think the idea of either good, or evil, being an illusion and either good, or evil, will remain once the other is abolished is more an act of rationalization and justification than solid understanding.

Because you seem to be acting with good intentions, I'll overlook the implied insult in that and simply say that perhaps you should study a bit more comparitive theology and then get back to me on whether a solid argument can be made that good can exist in the absence of evil.

 

[an_idol_mind]

My homebrew features a monotheitstic religion. The one goddess of the world is worshipped by many different races under many different aspects. Her actual alignment is unknown, or she's simply beyond what mortals categorize as good and evil. Rules-wise, I let her clerics choose any two domains that they think best represents their own form of worship. There are a few schisms as well -- for example, humans believe that a powerful human hero merged with the goddess's essence, and now worship that individual, while elves reject such dogma. There are also a variety of other powers worshipped, most of which are angelic or demonic entities.

One thing that seems to help is that the setting emphasizes that strong faith and devotion grants divine power, rather than direct divine influence. That helps explain why there are so many different worshippers of one deity, and why said deity doesn't just hand clerical spells down to the people who best suit her own (unknowable) ideology.

 

[Celebrim]

One very basic question I would ask is : Are you looking at a monotheistic religion, a monotheistic cosmology or both. A lot of the time we (ENworlders and fantasy gamers in general) seem to work under an assumption that cosmology will be accurately represented and understood in mortal religions.

I think that is a outcome of having dieties as visible and active participants in the world.

If the diety is active in the world, but not visibly so, the diety can be mysterious and unknown. If the diety is not active in the world, the diety can be mysterious and even unknowable. But if you have both, then its harder to understand how the mortals don't have a clear picture of the diety.

Most D&D dieties don't act in particularly mysterious ways. Thier motives and role is pretty clear cut and well defined. Heaven and Hell are accessible to the traveller, and clerics can regularly demand audiences with the divine.

My position could pretty much be summed up as stating that if you move away from D&D's model of the universe, things almost have to get less clear if you are to have significant moral conflict.

 

[atom crash]

If the diety is active in the world, but not visibly so, the diety can be mysterious and unknown. If the diety is not active in the world, the diety can be mysterious and even unknowable. But if you have both, then its harder to understand how the mortals don't have a clear picture of the diety.

Springboarding from this idea, back to the OP, is an approach I've seen used in video games: there is a good and benevolent deity that created and nurtured life, then for whatever reason has been absent from the mortal realm for some time. So the Church remains as a powerful construct, but people may have many different ideas about the intent and nature of that deity because they are interpreting the past in different ways.

Within this same faith, there can be many sects. There are those who believe the deity has left people alone because his/her job is done, there are those who believe the deity was locked away by an evil force and must be freed by good deeds or by following Church dogma, and there may be those who believe that at some predetermined time in the future the deity will return to reward his/her faithful followers.

Also, one deity can encompass many different domains by having various monbsatic orders etc, as another poster has suggested. For instance, there is a group that chooses to venerate one aspect of this deity (let's say birth and creation), and another group venerates a different aspect (like strength and reason), and a third that venerates still another aspect (like healing and compassion). While these three groups worship the same deity, they may look like 3 completely separate faiths.

My homebrew features a monotheitstic religion. The one goddess of the world is worshipped by many different races under many different aspects. Her actual alignment is unknown, or she's simply beyond what mortals categorize as good and evil. Rules-wise, I let her clerics choose any two domains that they think best represents their own form of worship. There are a few schisms as well -- for example, humans believe that a powerful human hero merged with the goddess's essence, and now worship that individual, while elves reject such dogma. There are also a variety of other powers worshipped, most of which are angelic or demonic entities.

One thing that seems to help is that the setting emphasizes that strong faith and devotion grants divine power, rather than direct divine influence. That helps explain why there are so many different worshippers of one deity, and why said deity doesn't just hand clerical spells down to the people who best suit her own (unknowable) ideology.

This is an excellent approach.

 

[RFisher]

Here is one version of a setup I've used in various variations. (This one was for a C&C play-by-post game during playtesting.)

 

[prosfilaes]

Everything that exists is created through the creator being, so anything with real existence exists and is defined according to the creator's design. In that case, the being is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong because he made the concepts of rightness and wrongness and they are subject to his authority.

I think you're confusing separate things. The Creator can create physical properties called Good and Evil, provide ways to measure them (like spells and supernatural abilities) and assign ultimate fates to those who behave Good and Evil. But while fewer people will argue with it, there's the same fundamental issues about right and wrong that our world has. The only ways to argue that your Good and Evil match up to right and wrong are arguments from authority or arguments from power, neither of which are considered logically valid in the real world.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you're confusing separate things. The Creator can create physical properties called Good and Evil, provide ways to measure them (like spells and supernatural abilities) and assign ultimate fates to those who behave Good and Evil. But while fewer people will argue with it, there's the same fundamental issues about right and wrong that our world has.

Right. And we know how to measure those because?

The only ways to argue that your Good and Evil match up to right and wrong are arguments from authority or arguments from power, neither of which are considered logically valid in the real world.

Perhaps the real world and the game world have different creators?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think this is the key point. And I'll add a few more.

Whether you want a monotheistic cosmology or a monotheistic religion, you need to decide what you mean by monotheism.

A monotheistic cosmology, for instance, could easily have saints, demon lords, and celestial paragons who have every one of the abilities and powers ordinarily associated with D&D gods. So if you want a monotheistic cosmology, you need to decide what kind of scope both of action and abilities other entities have.

Similarly, a lot of people would consider a group of people who worship only one god to be monotheistic. Technically, this could be what is called henotheism where the worship of the one god does not deny the existence of other gods, but especially in a D&D style world with powerful demons, saints, etc there is a lot of overlap between the two concepts. A henotheist could easily maintain that his god is better than the other gods--perhaps so much better that they're not really the same kind of being at all. Similarly, a monotheist might acknowledge powerful beings that influence life but are not worthy of worship.

Furthermore, I think Kahuna Burger is right on the mark when she suggests that the cosmology need not be transparent to the PCs or the denizens of the world. (Though making monotheistic societies work in a polytheistic cosmology when surrounded by polytheistic cultures is a bit of a challenge unless you reduce the monotheists to caricatures). Even if you have deities taking an active and visible role in the world, you can have quite a bit of ambiguity.

First, there are different levels of activity and visibility. For instance, let us say that Jupiter causes every lightning bolt to land where he throws it (sometimes, he is rather tipsy which is why it doesn't always fit a plan). That is a very active role in the world, and a quite visible one, but unless someone sees him throwing the bolts, it is, to the mass of humanity, indistinguishable from our own (presumably Jupiter free) world.

Similarly, we could give the priests of Tzizhet a large role in the administration of Myrantia. They lead the nation's worship and heal the peoples' ills (if properly bribed for their god's favor). They preserve the peoples' ancestors by animating them in the forms that fit their lives. In short, they provide innumerable demonstrations of magical power that they attribute to their god. But then they are visited by some travelers from Coryan who claim to recognize the worship of Tzizhet as a barbarous amalgamation of the rituals of two of their gods: Sarish and Neroth. This may be especially possible because Sarish is not the kind of god to ignore a properly conducted ritual just because someone got his name wrong. Now there are two competing interpretations of the cosmology (Tzizhet as an independent entity or Tzizhet as a label that ignorant barbarians apply to either Neroth, Sarish, or some partnership of the two) that are both possible based upon the extant evidence.

But let's say you want to go for full on forgotten realms style visibility and activity on the part of your deities. So, there is an especially successful orcish chieftain. Maybe he has divine blood and maybe he doesn't. But what's known certainly is that a monstrous one-eyed, horned figure appeared among his troops and tore down the gates of the Black Scar citadel when he besieged it. With his borders secured, he gathered all the local tribes and marched on the highlanders with this being in his van. The highland tribes opposed him at the Snake river and, as the great horned figure tore through their center, a glowing man with silver skin and feathered wing appeared bearing a golden bow. He smote the horned orc with his bow and pursued him into the clouds. Seeing what they interpreted as the avatar of their god turn tail, the orcs broke ranks and were ridden down by the highlanders. From that set of events, what is obvious? The Lord of the Golden Bow revered by the highlanders appeared. Old One Eye led the orcs to their defeat. That's probably how the orcs and the highlanders would see it. On the other hand, it's also possible that "Old One Eye" was just a balor summoned, as they sometimes are, by the vast number of sacrifices the orc chieftain made. (Or maybe, he was bound by the chief's lead shaman using an ancient scroll). Sure, he said that he was Gruumsch and the real gruumsch didn't strike him down, but maybe the real Gruumsch was busy at the time. Or maybe there is no real Gruumsch and Asmodeus sees fit to give the orc clerics spells because they accomplish evil on the earth. What about the Lord of the Golden Bow. Maybe that's who he is. Or maybe a Solar was able to travel to earth to oppose the demon because every incursion by devils into the mortal realm can be balanced. Or because Bahamut is the protector of humanity whether or not they worship him and wasn't about to let a demon lord wreak havoc on his people without interfering. The highlanders erected a fifty foot statue in honor of their deliverer on the orcish side of the snake river and offered sacrifices of thanksgiving before it. A great dragon--was it silver or was it white--appeared and smashed the statue, leaving a tablet of laws in its ruins. Was it because they were worshiping the servant of Bahamut rather than the god and they angered him? Did the Lord of the Golden Bow prefer the sacrifices of righteous living as defined in those tablets to sacrifices of horseflesh and grains? Did the dragon really leave a tablet of laws in the ruins of the statue? After all, it was the shaman MacGregor who found it and shaman MacGregor has done quite well for himself since uncovering it. And that bit about the tribes donating every twentieth horse to the shamans? Awfully convenient. Unless the creatues involved start delivering plot exposition, ordinary men and women in the world will find plenty of room for ambiguity as to the true divine order of the world. Add in a few bits of outright chicanery and some frauds (some of which are obviously punished by the gods and some of which aren't) and you have a lot of room for ambiguity.

Now a monotheistic cosmology both increases and decreases the opportunities for ambiguity. It can increase the ambiguity by erasing the distinction between a "god" and a demon prince, devil lord, or celestial paragon. Maybe none of them should be worshiped, but if they can all grant powers then how could ordinary mortals tell what they are? It can decrease the ambiguity because you probably don't have the "god x wasn't paying attention" or "god y was protecting the offender" excuses for what would otherwise be cosmology revealing events (for instance the balor from the previous example not being struck down instantly for impersonating Gruumsch--if that is indeed what happened). You also have to decide why the real god puts up with everything. Maybe he's giving the rebellious and deceptive mid-powered agents (the aforementioned demon princes, etc) time to change their minds rather than be destroyed. Maybe she regards humanity (and demi-humanity) as a failed experiment and just doesn't care. (Though in that case, you wonder why people worship her). Perhaps he's a social darwinist and wants to see people improve themselves through struggle. Perhaps he wants to give people a chance to follow voluntarily before starting with the compulsion. You could also just decide to leave that unexplained--perhaps tossing out three or four mutually exclusive options as positions advanced by the world's theologians.

It is actually not the activity or the visibility of the deities that makes the cosmology transparent in D&D books. What makes the cosmology of most D&D worlds transparent is the way it is presented in the setting books and the tendency of module writers and novelists to do divine plot exposition. On the other hand, where the setting information does not provide entirely transparent cosmology information such as the world of Arcanis, there is lots of room for ambiguity. In Arcanis, Henry Lopez probably knows whether Tzizhet is really Sarish, Neroth, both or neither, but the players don't. Similarly, Henry probably knows what Illir thinks of the emperor Calcestus and why he thinks that, and what his plans are, but the players have to guess based on information they discover in game.

In a homebrew setting, you can get some of that ambiguity by writing your descriptions empirically from the perspective of an inhabitant of the world. The mother church of Coryan teaches X. The Nierites of Erdukeen believe Y. The Myrantians believe Z. If some of X, Y, and Z is mutually exclusive, so much the better. You may not be able to keep the alignments of deities a secret if you want to preserve the "one step from deity's alignment" rule for clerics, but if you define the god's or various gods' teachings, and allow clerics to have alignments that fit with those teachings, it doesn't hurt the ambiguity too much. Players can figure out what alignment they think various teachings match anyway and there is always the possibility that the teachings and alignment are a trick.

One very basic question I would ask is : Are you looking at a monotheistic religion, a monotheistic cosmology or both. A lot of the time we (ENworlders and fantasy gamers in general) seem to work under an assumption that cosmology will be accurately represented and understood in mortal religions. Working from the rules up, there's no particular reason for this. You could have philosophy clerics who believe they are channelling a non existant god, an arcane caster deliberately running a scam, devils giving splinter sects their powers, monotheistic religions who say that any other clerics get their powers from devils....

So I would consider both the mortal structure of religion and the cosmology that the PCs may someday come to understand.