Polytheism in medieval europe

[fusangite]

I recommend that you go to the library and get books on Lithuania. Lithuania rose as the political representation of pagan Europe and remained pagan and polytheistic until late in the medieval period. They successfully conquered territory held by the Catholic regimes in Poland and Sweden as well as the Orthodox regime in Russia. The regime is somewhat prefigured by Grand Prince Vladimir's attempt to fashion a state religion in Russia around the deity Perun before he abandoned this project in favour of converting to Christianity.

I'll also echo others' comments about the syncretic nature of medieval Christianity especially in places which were converted late in the medieval period like Russia.

Finally, my take on medieval polytheism in the camapign I currently run is to use the Japanese and Roman models of a God-emperor on earth. Orthodox Christian monarchs as well as the 6 Christian patriarchs of the middle ages are an easy fit with a God-emperor system; thus we have not only saints but we have either the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Bishop of Rome as a kind of living God figure.

 

[Desdichado]

Back! Back, you heathen Harnist! Anyway, on a more serious note...

What exactly do you mean by "the medieval" period? In the early medieval period, most of the Germanic nations were pagan, the Vikings were pagan up until the end of the Viking era, much of central and eastern Europe (Lithuania, Latvia, Prussia, etc.) were pagan for a long time into the medieval period, far Eastern Europe and Southern Europe were part of a very different Christian tradition (which was also mid-medieval in genesis) or even Muslim or Jewish!

Also, are you claiming that D&D is a medieval Europe, or are you just asking more generally? My campaigns are never very similar to Medieval Europe anyway -- I kinda like to justify the anachronistic society that inevitably forms by divorcing myself from historical realities of any one time period and just using societies (with their implicit values and practices) that make sense for my campaign world. Beats trying to shoehorn Medieval Britain into my campaign, anyway.

 

[Thorntangle]

What exactly do you mean by "the medieval" period?

Also, are you claiming that D&D is a medieval Europe, or are you just asking more generally?

Generally accepted timeframe/location of Gygaxian, Tolkien-derived D&D - the amalgam of early to late medieval Britain/France.

Sure, this might not be everybody's setting of choice, but it is the default. And, yes, this is just fantasy where anything can happen, but I think it's fun and a challenging mental exercise to come up with a setting and scenarios that are more realistic and logical.

 

[Desdichado]

For every point of concurrence between Medieval Britain/France and standard Gygaxian/Tolkienien D&D you could find, I could probably find at least one (if not more) points of divergence. The societies just really aren't medieval. I would also propose that almost all groups play in which societies and cultures are much more modern in their values and practices than anything that existed before the 1800s or so at least.

So, if you want medieval, more power to you. But I wouldn't agree that standard D&D is really very medieval. And like I said, medieval is a fairly large time span -- actually much of Europe was polytheistic during the medieval period.

 

[Umbran]

much of central and eastern Europe (Lithuania, Latvia, Prussia, etc.) were pagan for a long time into the medieval period

*nod*. The Baltic states are a good place to look for pagan socieities in the age. It had some interesting effects on social structure - the modern notions of "lords", and the whole feudal approach, didn't come to these places until Christianity did. But they were far from chaotic people.

When in doubt, try a good library.

 

[Thorntangle]

There are a lot of really good ideas and insights here. Thanks to everybody for responding.

I agree that one god would come to predominance over the others. This seems to be the model most likely to lead to stability. And this becomes almost analogous to the God-Saint model in europe. Worship one primary god on sundays, but say a prayer to the crop god/saint come planting time.

And I agree that there would be numerous gods still present and/or worshipped that are remnants of declining and absorbed cultures. These old gods would continue to have a resonating presence even long after their disappearance. Much like our culture's Christmas, Halloween, superstitions, myths, etc.

 

[Desdichado]

So what are you planning to do, then? Let us know what details you come up with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would ask:

What's the difference between two opposing sects of one religion, and two different religions?

IMHO, not a whole lot. If, say, the Gnostics took a different take on the One True God, they were, in effect, worshiping a different God than the rest (even if they were very similar). Debates and battles between opposing sects are really not a whole lot different, on a grand scheme, than debates and battles between opposing faiths.

After all, that's the danger of blasphemey and heresey...if you're not with me, you're against me, sorta thing. If you don't worship the same way I do, you're not worshiping the same thing. And, because there's only One Good Thing, you're worshiping an evil thing. Ergo, you are evil. Thus, I can kill you.

It's not a whole lot different, in mindset, from polytheism. If you don't worship the same god I do, you're not worshiping the Good Thing, so you're worshipping something evil and false, and thus deserve to die (or at least deserve to die more than I do).

The difference in D&D would be that gods can make appearances, alliances, and rivalries...

I would say this still wouldn't change a lot from monotheism...there would be those allied against each other, vs. those who refued. Instead of being united under one God, there would be one Pantheon, and joining the pantheon would, in effect, be the One True Religion.

Basically, there's not a whole lot of difference. With different sects, different practices, different cultures, different ways and reasons and methods of worshiping, from patron saints to angelic hosts, worshipping the One True God isn't a whole lot different from worshiping many different gods. After all, if I believe God is all-forgiving, merciful, and knowledgable (taking the Healing and Knowledge domains), and a family member in the deep south believes god is Vengeful, Powerful, and All-Seeing (taking the Strength and Divination domains), we could still say we're worshiping the same god, even though we might as well say we're worshiping different ones, because if God is like how I think he is, he won't be like what my family member thinks he is, and vice-versa. They are different ideas of God.

This is why I prefer a very loose definition of how divine power comes...it's just belief. You can be a cleric of anything. You could take the Destruction and Darkness domains and believe that you are working the will of Satan...or you could take them simply being depressed and goth-y....or you could take them believing you are doing God's work in punishing the unworthy and doing it in stealth (because God will know it, even if the sinners don't).

This also means that the class I'm writing up for Philosophies and Falsehoods has a potent niche to fill....

 

[Thorntangle]

For every point of concurrence between Medieval Britain/France and standard Gygaxian/Tolkienien D&D you could find, I could probably find at least one (if not more) points of divergence.

Yes, there are divergences and anachronisms aplenty, but are you trying to say that the default setting for D&D is not medieval Britain/France? I still think that using the our own history is the easiest and best model on which to base the fictitious pseudo-medieval setting for D&D.

Sure, I'm talking about establishing a level of realism in a game that might not be obtainable. But if I develop a campaign based loosely on medieval europe, I'd like it to have at least a whiff of logic and a light bouquet of reality. Even if their are orcs and dragons involved

 

[Turjan]

I agree that one god would come to predominance over the others.

This isn't necessarily so. Therefore, I mentioned Hinduism. All attempts to convert Hindus to the Christian faith have failed so far, because they have a totally different view of gods. All gods were created and are no absolute beings. Shiva and his wife Sati can be seen as different gods, or as the male and female aspect of the same god. For his worshipers he is the highest god. The second great god of Hinduism, Devi, Kali or Durga, may be different goddesses or aspects of the same mother god, that's all the same. For worshipers of Kali, she is the greatest god. On the other hand Shiva and Kali may be seen as the male and female aspect of the greatest god. The third great god, Vishnu, has absorbed a lot of different other gods, who are seen as human avatars of him, like Krishna or Rama. For Hindus, Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu . For Vishnu's worshipers, he is the greatest god. In principle all these gods are seen as aspect of the one god. There's no big rivalry between all these gods, so that even in the same familiy, one may follow Shiva, one Devi, and the next Vishnu.

For Hindus, Jesus Christ is an avatar of Visnu . And if you tell them that there's only one god in the world, they will answer that you are right .

But I have to admit that this isn't a European line of sight at all .