Monotheistic Religion - How to?

[Ringan]

Now that's the worst, I see an apology type edit without knowing what was removed.

Oh the inhumanity of it all, I'm worse than a cat when it comes to curiosity.

*chuckles*

Haha, actually it was just that I wrote a whole post talking up Sepulchrave's story hour, but then realized the OP definitely referenced it, and I hadn't initially noticed it. That'll learn me.

 

[Celebrim]

An interesting point, however I think you're confusing detect evil with a lie detector, which is incorrect.

No, I'm not.

All of the detect spells work against a creature's aura, not their personal thoughts of themselves.

I'm aware of this. However, what I'm suggesting is that in a universe dominated by a single incarnated being, the division of the universe into disparate peices isn't necessarily a feature. We aren't talking about a world were dualism is a feature. And, even if it is, that doesn't mean that the observer will be able to identify the peices.

That is, they are a quantifiable aspect of the fiber of the universe and, thus, are detectable and measurable.

Color is detectable and measurable too. But the experience of color is not. That is to say, even though you and I can be sure that we see the same wavelength of light, you can never be sure that I percieve it in the same way that you do. I may see what you see as red as green, and you may see my green as blue. In the same way, I may percieve the same aura that you percieve, but my experience of it, my labeling of it, and my indentification of it is in no way forced to be the same as you. You can say, 'That is what good looks like', and I can say, 'That is what evil looks like.'

evil is still evil and good is still good, with law and chaos as well.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said that if you believe might makes right, you can percieve the aura of belief in might makes right as goodness. I'm not saying that this needs to be a standard feature of D&D cosmologies. I did say I thought it more interesting in an explicitly non-dualistic world, or if not more interesting, at least easier of a concept to grasp than some of the other alternatives.

While it might not work in a real world equivalent, although Yin and Yang simplistic work well enough...

Dualism, not monoism.

Anyhow, I hope this helps out.

I wasn't asking for help. But thanks for the consideration.

 

[Rechan]

Just wanted to point out that this isn't how a Trinity works.

I was basically using Hinduism as a model when considering a trinity.

You have 3 gods. Their wives. Their kids. Their avatars.

The different sects in Hinduism put one of the 3 gods above the other two as "The Most Important" of the three. And among those sects, there's disagreements as to which avatar of that God is the "Truest" or "Best" incarnation of him.

Of course, that's about as condensed as I can get with Hinduism, which is really hard to do. I'm aware it's a little off, but that's what happens when you try to tackle one of (if not the) world's oldest religions in less than two paragraphs.

 

[Friadoc]

I wasn't asking for help. But thanks for the consideration.

I'll assume you misunderstood me, but my statement of "I hope this helps" was directed to Lord Tirian, not you.

I just used your piece, which I disagreed with a point of it, as a springboard into my thoughts on the subject.

Also, most monotheistic religions are a misnomer as they tend to have dualistic elements, an example would be most Christian sects with the whole God v. Lucifer aspect. Although it can be argued that Lucifer, in fact, does God's bidding and is purely an mechanic of freewill since, without temptation, there is not ability to know if you're exercising freewill.

However, toward game design, I think if you're going to significantly alter one key element of a cosmology, you either need to redesign and replace it (Arcana Evolved as an example) or work in an plot/metaplot aspect to it (Ptolus).

Now if you wanted to go truly monotheistic, I'd suggest a True Neutral good, thus who can be worshiped by everyone, be non-judgmental of his followers actions, yet still allow for protection from and detect evil type things.

Last, with respects to yin and yang, while it is a dualistic design or thought, it is also about balance, since the positive cannot exist without the negative. For good to have any meaning, there must be the juxtaposition of evil to compare its self to.

 

[Celebrim]

I'll assume you misunderstood me, but my statement of "I hope this helps" was directed to Lord Tirian, not you.

I just used your piece, which I disagreed with a point of it, as a springboard into my thoughts on the subject.

My apologies then, but I hope you understand that usually when someone quotes someone and then references them directly ('I think you...') that it is addressed to the person being quoted. So, hopefully, my confusion is understandable. Perhaps in the future you'll use a transition phrase to indicate when you've switched who is being addressed.

Also, most monotheistic religions are a misnomer as they tend to have dualistic elements, an example would be most Christian sects with the whole God v. Lucifer aspect.

Anything along that line is not something that I can address at any length in this forum. However, I can say that orthodox Christianity is not dualistic, and Christian groups which emphasis dualism tend to be regarded as sects.

However, toward game design, I think if you're going to significantly alter one key element of a cosmology...

My point was in part that altering the D&D cosmology from its presumed polytheism to monotheism was in fact altering a key element of the cosmology, and some consideration in altering other elements needed to be made. One of the presumed elements of polytheism is that 'evil' (or for that matter 'good') is a thing of real and independent existence. That need not be the case if in fact we are dealing with a monotheistic world.

Now if you wanted to go truly monotheistic, I'd suggest a True Neutral good, thus who can be worshiped by everyone, be non-judgmental of his followers actions, yet still allow for protection from and detect evil type things.

But asserting a True Neutral, while easy, is nearly the same as asserting what is the correct belief in that cosmology. D&D traditional avoids this with a cosmology which doesn't impose a belief system on the player. You can choose what you want to believe.

Last, with respects to yin and yang, while it is a dualistic design or thought, it is also about balance, since the positive cannot exist without the negative.

A statement which claims neutrality to be fundamentally correct.

For good to have any meaning, there must be the juxtaposition of evil to compare its self to.

No, there doesn't. Good can have independent existance completely without evil. It doesn't need a comparison. It is a real and fundamental thing. Likewise, someone who believes in evil can make the claim that evil has a real and independent existence, that good is in fact illusionary, and that evil will remain completely in goods absence.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Funny, my next campaign, which I hope to start in the next few weeks, is based on a montheistic religion. And like you I want Druids as well. I also want devils and demons.

In terms of Clerical magic: I don't have an issue as I'm using Conan D20 rules and the magic system is different. Magic is magic, there's no arcane vs divine dichotomy. And very few people can use magic in any case.

Gods never make personal appearances in my campaigns so I'm not worried on that score. There's not even any burning bushes, talking clouds or magic mushrooms in my upcoming campign. All that miraculous stuff happened in the long ago and far away.

As to the existence of only one god, I'm not sure. It wont come up given the nature of magic and abscence of personal appearances. Certainly the players and characters are free to debate this should they wish to, but I don't feel the need to answer the question. If it comes to it I'll just shrug and say: I can't tell you that. There ARE supernatural beings. And Pelor/Pholtus is one of them. But he is not the only one. Nor is there any guarantee that he is the proverbial Big Kahuna. That is a matter of faith for the characters. In fact if you want to have a bit more inter-character debate then NOT answering some basic questions might be the way to go. Leave as much as possible open to question.

As far as religion in the world is concerned I've always liked a good reformation/religious war. So my One Great Church is already split in two: The Pelorines and the Pholtics. These are analogous to Catholic and Protestant in terms of flavour. They refer to God by different names that represent different aspects taken by the god in their bible (Pelor and Pholtus of course). But this is not to say they consider Pholtus and Pelor to be different beings, they (the worshippers) simply emphasise different elements as more important. And of course there's doctrinal disputes and political ones.*

*The Pelorine Church has a unified head based in an ancient southern city and is very hierarchical. Scripture is interpreted by the Church. Tithes go to the pontiff and are then re-distributed. The Pholtics by the nature of their faith are less inclined to hierarchical churches and place more emphasis on individual spiritualism. Tithes get spent locally.

It's set in a version of the Hapsburg Empire that's split along confessional lines. I'm all set for a 30 Years War at some point, with different principalties being either Pelorine or Pholtic.

I'm not going to use the alignment system, never been a big fan of it anyway. The simple fact is everyone thinks that their way is good and other ways are varying degrees of bad. For instance my local head of the inquistion thinks all non-Pelorines are bad but some are simply misguided (most Pholtics) while others (for instance Druids) are down right evil pagans. The Duke on the other hand is secretly interested in Pholtism and finds Pelorianism (the offical religion of his own principality) to be overly simplistic and is also fascinated by the (highly illegal) study magic.

My main villain is the leader of a cult of Dagon worshippers. All very Lovecraftian. Old Dagon is inimical to humanity (and dwarfanity and elfanity, etc.) and very real. He wont show up of course, but he will send minions (I love a good minion) to cause death and destruction. Thus proving his existence. Or does it?

Zechan: I like the saints/avatars idea. But IMC saints won't have actual mechanical effects, nor will they make personal appearances. Mmm, sudden thought: a feat that grants a special blessing when one prays to their patron saint. Note to self, need list of saints and their portfolios, miracles and deaths. One hagiography needed.

And certainly politics between different monastic orders is a great idea. It's just human nature. Historically the different orders were rivals a lot of the time. And in a good drama it'll be a lot more of the time.

Anyway, that's how I'm handling mine. Hope it provides some inspiration for yours Lord Tirian.

Good luck with it. And if you decide to post any of the adventures I'll be keen to read and see how thigns turn out for you.

Cheers.

 

[Friadoc]

My apologies then, but I hope you understand that usually when someone quotes someone and then references them directly ('I think you...') that it is addressed to the person being quoted. So, hopefully, my confusion is understandable. Perhaps in the future you'll use a transition phrase to indicate when you've switched who is being addressed.

It's more than understandable, although I thought I transitioned, I didn't, so no harm, nor foul.

Anything along that line is not something that I can address at any length in this forum. However, I can say that orthodox Christianity is not dualistic, and Christian groups which emphasis dualism tend to be regarded as sects.

I'll agreed that it is generally hard to discuss real world religions without issues rising up. I will also agree that orthodox Christianity is not dualistic, at least intentionally dualistic. It also doesn't encourage dualism, i.e. acceptance of those who worship evil.

My point was in part that altering the D&D cosmology from its presumed polytheism to monotheism was in fact altering a key element of the cosmology, and some consideration in altering other elements needed to be made. One of the presumed elements of polytheism is that 'evil' (or for that matter 'good') is a thing of real and independent existence. That need not be the case if in fact we are dealing with a monotheistic world.

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.

I think they are basic elements, be it in the real world or fantasy, that make up the universe, just as magic is, or gravity is in the real world.

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

Killing an innocent, even if an evil religion, disguised under the image of a good religion, says it is a good act.

No, there doesn't. Good can have independent existence completely without evil. It doesn't need a comparison. It is a real and fundamental thing. Likewise, someone who believes in evil can make the claim that evil has a real and independent existence, that good is in fact illusionary, and that evil will remain completely in goods absence.

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.

Life is about difference, in fact life happens in the space between differences meeting, adapting, and moving on to new differences. While large groups may generally agree on something, there are splinter groups within those groups who have their own ideas and concepts, too.

*shrugs*

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 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.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, that's the rough concept, but I ask the ENWorld-hivemind for advice - have you experiences with stuff like that, tips, advice, ideas, criticism, or any other input?

I think I would start off by looking at what this is going to do in game - at the table in the actual moment of play. What do you want to see happen at the table? That's the first question.

Maybe your answer is, "I want to see this religion become a source of conflict." If that's the case then I would wait until the PCs are made, making sure that all the players have put down a sentence or two about their PC's beliefs, and start building the religion based on that.

Maybe it's just for a new twist to the old D&D setting. Then I would look at what D&D does and try to do the opposite as much as possible.

etc.

That's the question I think you should answer first. After you have that, what form the religion should take in game will become clearer.

 

[WhatGravitas]

@all: That's all very good stuff, it's interesting, useful, and I've forgotten to mention: Alignment usually goes the way of the dodo in my campaigns (I've run too much AE in the past)...

That's the question I think you should answer first. After you have that, what form the religion should take in game will become clearer.

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).

2) It's something ripe with conflicts. Especially with no leader for larger regions, I can see the struggle of individual lords with the church. Add in schisms, multiple orders (possibly corrupt) - and I have a multitude of possible plot hooks.

3) It's for the atmosphere. To give it a "Dark Ages"-feel (although I do not aim to be "realistic"). Pantheons are a fantasy trope and to change it from a purely fantastic feel to a more "Dark Ages" or medieval feel, I'd like to get rid of the pantheon-classic.

4) It's a bit for trying something new, but that's more my shtick as DM.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking about it right now, though I don't know, what to make of other races.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Spatula]

I second reading up on the Catholic church's history. I picked up "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Thomas Bokenkotter for the exact same reason (Eberron game where most of the players started off as Silver Flame worshippers). I wouldn't whole-heartedly recommend it - the author is a pastor and glosses over a lot of the excesses of the Medieval period - but it's well-written and gives you a good overview of the kinds of theological/political conflicts that can arise when a religious organization attains a lot of political power.

Mechanically, you can take a page from Eberron and un-couple cleric alignments from diety alignments. Evil clerics of a good diety aren't easily uncovered with magic, since clerics radiate their diety's alignment instead of their own.

And don't forget the persecution of religious minorities.