D&D General No Resurrections in the Bronze Age

[Zardnaar]

Way to buy the lede.

But it also both negates and answers your own question - the god knows it because the people believe it!

If they are a manifestation of what mortals believe, then if the mortals believe that some specific method will call the god's power, then that should do it. Layer on a bit of consensual reality if you need - the consensus on how the power is drawn defines it.

So, that first cleric believed their god could raise the dead, and talked about it to their followers. They all believed it. When the congregation brought a dead body that needed raising... the cleric made something up that they believed, in the context of extant dogma, would do the job, and their people believed in the cleric, so they all believed it, and therefore it worked!

Gotta keep my mouth shut on this one.

Omnipotent gods are more monotheism the ancient ones on stories were often tricked or bargained with. I liked Imhotep in 3.0. Level 20 expert divine rank 0 or 1.

 

[Umbran]

Gotta keep my mouth shut on this one.

Except....

Omnipotent gods are more monotheism the ancient ones on stories were often tricked or bargained with. I liked Imhotep in 3.0. Level 20 expert divine rank 0 or 1.

If I had used the word "omnipotent", that would be clearly relevant. As it is, this looks either like you are going off on your own line of reasoning, or building a strawman of what I said, neither of which seems all that consistent with, as you yourself put it, keeping your mouth shut on this one.

As it is, D&D gods are not really much like any real-world religions - monotheist, polytheist, or other. Nor does "tricking or fooling" gods seem much like the issue at hand about them knowing how to dispense spell-powers to their followers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, imagine you're the first ever god with a cleric. How are you supposed to know what to reveal to them about the ways of magic?

Generally speaking, even relatively minor/weak/early gods are presented as either pseudo-omniscient (they don't know absolutely everything, but they innately know anything they aren't prevented from knowing) or as possessing wisdom beyond the lot of mortals (there's lots of stuff they definitely don't know, but most things, if they want to know it, they already do or have a means to do so, again unless another power blocks them.)

Of course, since your gods are created by mortals, rather than creators of mortals, that whole frame goes out the window, but as Umbran said, that presents its own solution.

Gotta keep my mouth shut on this one.

Omnipotent gods are more monotheism the ancient ones on stories were often tricked or bargained with. I liked Imhotep in 3.0. Level 20 expert divine rank 0 or 1.

[Citation needed]
It depends on the source, time period, region of focus. Zeus, for example, generally could not be tricked--but some of the deities even older than he is could exert power over him. That's why Eros is simultaneously a child of Aphrodite, love produced by beauty, and also a primordial, ancient force that even the gods fear. The myth of Eros and Psyche addresses this directly; Zeus even cracks some genuinely quite funny (but very difficult to translate) jokes at Cupid's expense because now the snot-nosed brat that yanks his chain has come asking for his help.

Ovid, for example, tends to present a take that simply isn't compatible with your framework. His gods aren't omnipotent, but they're damn close. The problem is, they're deeply flawed people who abuse their power and position to hurt mortals simply because they possess some special trait or have the temerity to honestly evaluate their skills. Hence why Ovid's retelling of stuff like the origin of Medusa or Arachne becoming a spider rewrite Athena into being a petty, spiteful shrew, rather than her usual characterization; he was intentionally critiquing Augustus Caesar through the lens of the gods. Legally, Augustus was effectively omnipotent, but he was also human.

Besides, D&D gods can be tricked, manipulated, etc. It's rarer because actually using deities as characters is rare, they tend to be more Big Good quest-givers than Abusive Precursor-type deities to screw over because they're enormous jerks. But it absolutely does happen.

 

[nevin]

who said Zues couldn't be tricked? Promethus tricked zues in mankinds favor at the test of mecone. In all but the latest versions of that myth Prometheus wrapped the ox skin around the bones to make it look bigger and fuller and in the other pile put most of the meat and fat and covered it with the ox's stomache. Zues picked the skin and bones as what would become the sacrifice and was so pissed off that he'd been tricked he refused to let mankind have fire. Only in the very late version by Hesiod did zues see through the trick. The gods tricked and hid stuff from each other all the time. The other "gods" you are refferring too are more PRIMAL powers like Nict (night), or Oceanus the titan who is literally the manifestation of all the water that flows around the earth and through the universe or fate etc. Those powers were literally undefeatable in thier own element. Night's children many times in the myths ran to thier mother to hide from Zues after they upset him.

Zeus had no special powers that prevented him from being fooled. He just punished those who fooled him harshly in the most inappropriate and horrible way he could. Prometheus helped mankind so Zeus screwed Humankind. Thus the reason Prometheus gave fire to mankind because it was his fault they were all cold and freezing.

 

[nevin]

Generally speaking, even relatively minor/weak/early gods are presented as either pseudo-omniscient (they don't know absolutely everything, but they innately know anything they aren't prevented from knowing) or as possessing wisdom beyond the lot of mortals (there's lots of stuff they definitely don't know, but most things, if they want to know it, they already do or have a means to do so, again unless another power blocks them.)

Of course, since your gods are created by mortals, rather than creators of mortals, that whole frame goes out the window, but as Umbran said, that presents its own solution.


[Citation needed]
It depends on the source, time period, region of focus. Zeus, for example, generally could not be tricked--but some of the deities even older than he is could exert power over him. That's why Eros is simultaneously a child of Aphrodite, love produced by beauty, and also a primordial, ancient force that even the gods fear. The myth of Eros and Psyche addresses this directly; Zeus even cracks some genuinely quite funny (but very difficult to translate) jokes at Cupid's expense because now the snot-nosed brat that yanks his chain has come asking for his help.

Ovid, for example, tends to present a take that simply isn't compatible with your framework. His gods aren't omnipotent, but they're damn close. The problem is, they're deeply flawed people who abuse their power and position to hurt mortals simply because they possess some special trait or have the temerity to honestly evaluate their skills. Hence why Ovid's retelling of stuff like the origin of Medusa or Arachne becoming a spider rewrite Athena into being a petty, spiteful shrew, rather than her usual characterization; he was intentionally critiquing Augustus Caesar through the lens of the gods. Legally, Augustus was effectively omnipotent, but he was also human.

Besides, D&D gods can be tricked, manipulated, etc. It's rarer because actually using deities as characters is rare, they tend to be more Big Good quest-givers than Abusive Precursor-type deities to screw over because they're enormous jerks. But it absolutely does happen.

they are not omnipotent. They have to go the fates and beg for Information. Zues is still walking around with Metis and the son that will destroy him and rule the gods in his stomach because he didn't know metis's son was fated to rule the gods. Now as the Greek gods became Roman Gods and the Empire began to conflate itself with it's gods then Jupiter was considered to be all powerful but not all knowing. Even Fate was not all knowing. She just issued proclamaitions on certain things like when people were going to die, who was going to succeed who etc and nothing in the universe could change it once she did pronounce it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

they are not omnipotent. They have to go the fates and beg for Information. Zues is still walking around with Metis and the son that will destroy him and rule the gods in his stomach because he didn't know metis's son was fated to rule the gods. Now as the Greek gods became Roman Gods and the Empire began to conflate itself with it's gods then Jupiter was considered to be all powerful but not all knowing. Even Fate was not all knowing. She just issued proclamaitions on certain things like when people were going to die, who was going to succeed who etc and nothing in the universe could change it once she did pronounce it.

Okay. I literally said they weren't truly omnipotent nor omniscient, but that they were crazy powerful and generally portrayed as knowing a ton of things, so....not really sure who you're arguing with.

Edit: And, I mean, it's worth noting that it is ANOTHER GOD that tricked Zeus at Mecone...not a mortal. Which was what was being discussed here.

Edit 2 electric boogaloo: In fact, Hesiod's version of the tale doesn't even have Zeus being tricked. In that version, possibly an intentional change out of a desire to be, or seem, more pious--Zeus isn't tricked, and knows exactly what he's getting. He chooses the worse option, in Hesiod's telling, so that he has a reason to vent his anger at humanity.

So, yeah. It depends on source, time period, and region. SOME versions of Zeus are practically omniscient. SOME versions of Zeus are frankly less knowledgeable than well-informed mortals. And it can vary to almost every point between.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In a reality where diamonds bring back the dead, people would have figured out diamond mining much earlier.

It might be more interesting, to have them be exceedingly rare because they're only found in riverbeds or whatever, or to swap in different components, or to eliminate resurrection magic from your game. I just think the most probable way history under base D&D rules would proceed would involve diamonds being way more important way earlier.

 

[Zardnaar]

In a reality where diamonds bring back the dead, people would have figured out diamond mining much earlier.

It might be more interesting, to have them be exceedingly rare because they're only found in riverbeds or whatever, or to swap in different components, or to eliminate resurrection magic from your game. I just think the most probable way history under base D&D rules would proceed would involve diamonds being way more important way earlier.

Where were ancient diamonds sourced from though? If I had to guess India but idk.

Maybe very hard to get.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Where were ancient diamonds sourced from though? If I had to guess India but idk.

Maybe very hard to get.

You guess correctly, in terms of relatively large scale diamond gathering and early mining. Surface diamonds were gathered in a number of places. But they are distinct in being something that is very unevenly distributed around the world, so there would definitely be diamond "exporting" and diamond "importing" places.

I put the scare quotes up on "importing" and "exporting" because in a bronze age context (if, once again, diamonds really did bring people back from the dead) this movement of high value goods would likely often take the form less of trade as we know it, and more of gift-giving to high status vistitors amongst a warrior elite and raiding of distant wealthy communities in many of the more peripheral parts of the world. But whichever ruler controlled major sources of diamonds, and the abilities they brought to revivify one's prematurely fallen veteran soldiers and dynasty members, would likely soon find themself ruling an empire at the "civilized" center of such an age.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You guess correctly, in terms of relatively large scale diamond gathering and early mining. Surface diamonds were gathered in a number of places. But they are distinct in being something that is very unevenly distributed around the world, so there would definitely be diamond "exporting" and diamond "importing" places.

I put the scare quotes up on "importing" and "exporting" because in a bronze age context (if, once again, diamonds really did bring people back from the dead) this movement of high value goods would likely often take the form less of trade as we know it, and more of gift-giving to high status vistitors amongst a warrior elite and raiding of distant wealthy communities in many of the more peripheral parts of the world. But whichever ruler controlled major sources of diamonds, and the abilities they brought to revivify one's prematurely fallen veteran soldiers and dynasty members, would likely soon find themself ruling an empire at the "civilized" center of such an age.

That said, the Silk Road got its start around 130 BC. So it's conceivable that a similar "diamond road" could come into existence, given the desirability of resurrections.