Polytheism in medieval europe

[mythago]

Remember, as well, that there are all kinds of -theists. A pantheon need not include gods of all alignments. Some polytheists will believe that 'other gods' exist (though they aren't worshipped); others will believe those other gods are false, or are simply renamed versions of the true gods.

Therefore, in designing a religion for a fantasy world, one might be better served by asking what kind of organizations are involved in the process or worship, how they fit into the rest of society and how people like the characters interact with these corporate entities.

An excellent point. And worth noting that "can talk to the god(s) without an Offical Intermediary" can be a world-shaking difference between religions.

IIRC, the traditional Chinese pantheon is structured somewhat like a bureaucracy. Of course you honor the Supreme Gods, but you wouldn't pray to them for help, any more than you would go to President Bush instead of your local Representative when you had questions about getting a law passed.

 

[Desdichado]

This revisionist treatment of Norse mythology is just the sort of thing I was talking about in the violence done to European polytheism by analytic logic.

Actually, the treatment of Norse mythology you give below is also violence done to the pantheon by analytic logic. You assume that version we know of the mythos is somehow "canonical" and that the corpus of Norse mythology can therefore be analyzed accordingly.

That's hogwash. Norse mythology was an oral tradition. It was also (as were most pagan European mythologies) subject to strong localization. Where you see inconsistencies, I see a much more likely scenario in which two seperate local traditions crept into the Edda.

A good example of what I'm talking about is the cult of Odin/Wotan. You see, originally Thor was the king of the gods -- and why not, he's essentially the same god as the Slavic Perun, Greek Zeus, Indic Indra, etc. carried down from the common Indo-European tradition of all those cultures. But worship of Odin as a god of magic and war spread, starting in central Europe and taking over most of pagan Europe that still worshiped a Germanic mythos before Christianity wiped it out. As the cult of Odin grew in importance, the "doctrine" that Odin (as a more important god in terms of worship) must have been the king of the gods spread with it. Interestingly enough, in Iceland and Greenland (which brought us the Eddas) this cult hadn't been thoroughly disseminated, so in those areas Thor was still the king of the gods. So is Norse mythology inconsistent because both Thor and Odin are the kings of the gods? No, because at any individual location and time, they weren't both the kings at the same time.

To me, the fact that mythology is an oral tradition thousands of years long and what we see today is a strange amalgamation of that hodge-podged together after the fact makes a lot more sense than the strange belief that dark ages Europeans didn't mind having obvious and glaring inconsistencies in their mythology.

 

[johnsemlak]

I think you are correct but it kind of begs the question of "What do you mean by 'european feel'. If you go with a fantasy take instead of a 'real world' take you might actually retain some of the european aspects of the society. You also have to decide if you are going to stick with the D&D alignment system and if you do how much 'grey' you will add to the mix. If you went with the default alignment system (i.e. Good and Evil are absolutes that inherent in the nature of the universe) I think you would see a reduction in the amount of conflict. In other words, if you added a 'fantasy' polytheistic overlay to Europe than I doubt that would add to the amount of conflict present. The funny thing is that this is just another way of saying "This is a fantasy game, do what you want with it".

With an alignment system it is hard for good aligned clergy to use their position for greed, personal gain, or to use evil acts to protect the ascendency of the church. There are no grey areas. You mess up in the eyes of your god(dess) they put the smack down on you and take away your powers. With a strong alignment system in place it would be very difficult for the same kinds of heresies to form. (IMHO, many of the heresies that did form in Europe were a reaction to the excesses of the Catholic Church).

This is an excellennt point--that with the D&D alignment system it is difficult to have corruption within a LG (or whatever) church in D&D game terms. As Ysgarran points out, corrupt clerics would loose their spells and other powers fast.

Any ideas on how church corruption would be put into D&D game terms

I thought a solution might be to assume that corrupt clerics in a good church might be (perhaps unknowingly) being secretly sponsered by a non-good diety. Like the temptation of the devil, that sort of thign. So, the clerics keep their powers, and in the eyes of everybody, are normal (though there may be signs from the good diety, but nothign direct.)

 

[Thorntangle]

The point has been brought up several times that the knowledge that gods truly exist would fundamentally alter the world and the way its people worship. Or would it? Ask a typical person in medieval France if God exists and they would give you an unconditional "Of course". A powerful mechanism was in place to assure belief - Faith. If you have it, you were assured blissful immortality in the hereafter. If you openly questioned, you were a heretic and damned. Some people claim to hear god, talk to god and receive guidance. The churches display relics and other powerful reminders of their faith. The church recognized miracles and canonized pseudo-dieties. People were born into a world of iron-clad surety that God exists and intervenes in human affairs.

I have to wonder how different a world would truly be because of the issue of true divine manifestation. It would probably depend on the particular god in question. Is he/she an active or passive god? Do they have an agenda on this plane? Do they feel the need to answer questions about mortal affairs or set down detailed belief tenets? Would followers flock to a god that was active, interventionist and chatty? And conversely, would people neglect a silent, passive god? What if this active god were evil and the passive god was the Prime good?

Edit - Grammar

 

[jgbrowning]

This is an excellennt point--that with the D&D alignment system it is difficult to have corruption within a LG (or whatever) church in D&D game terms. As Ysgarran points out, corrupt clerics would loose their spells and other powers fast.

Any ideas on how church corruption would be put into D&D game terms

I thought a solution might be to assume that corrupt clerics in a good church might be (perhaps unknowingly) being secretly sponsered by a non-good diety. Like the temptation of the devil, that sort of thign. So, the clerics keep their powers, and in the eyes of everybody, are normal (though there may be signs from the good diety, but nothign direct.)

I think there are plenty of ways to have corruption is LG churches.

1. redefine your concept of corruption to fit a more "medieval" viewpoint. ie... just because there are laws that govern the way clergy should interact don't forget that there are much stronger "social" laws that are also at work... sooooo it may seem corrupt to bribe the doorman to let you see the cardinal, but that would be SOP in a medieval-esque world.

2. Remember that a LG god provides power to NG and LN clerics. This easily allows corruption.

3. the "i get my power secretly from another god" idea that you mentioned. More difficult given dection spells, unless you make such clerics have some sort of mask-alignment. also could be problems due to consecrate, hallow... etc.

4. the most effective one is also probably the most controversial... view the church as a whole as you would view a person. as most LG people will have moments where they're acting in non-LG manners, and if you allow such actions to have no negative effects in your campaign as long as the person's mostly LG, a church will also have periods where it is acting in a non-LG manner with no detriment. This one of course, varies widely from campaign to campaign.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by Thorntangle
The point has been brought up several times that the knowledge that gods truly exist would fundamentally alter the world and the way its people worship. Or would it? Ask a typical person in medieval France if God exists and they would give you an unconditional "Of course". A powerful mechanism was in place to assure belief - Faith. If you have it, you were assured blissful immortality in the hereafter. If you openly questioned, you were a heretic and damned. Some people claim to hear god, talk to god and receive guidance. The churches display relics and other powerful reminders of their faith. The church recognized miracles and canonized pseudo-dieties. People were born into a world of iron-clad surety that God exists and intervenes in human affairs.

I though about this as well, but i do think there's a big difference between someone saying "my god did this" as opposed to showing "my god does this."

Even given the medieval manner of viewing almost anything as a message from god, easy to understand given the concept that god created everything and that he talks to people, the fact that a person could constantly reproduce "miracles" under demand would change things rather drastically.

There would, of course, be arguements about where the power was really coming from...

joe b.

 

[Desdichado]

Also, don't forget that most clergyman aren't actually clerics -- I'd guess that'd be the minority by quite a few. Most would probably be experts with skills like knowledge (theology) maxed out or something like that. A few aristocrats and commoners to round them out.

 

[Ysgarran]

Corruption in a LG Church.

I think there are plenty of ways to have corruption is LG churches.
1. redefine your concept of corruption to fit a more "medieval" viewpoint. ie... just because there are laws that govern the way clergy should interact don't forget that there are much stronger "social" laws that are also at work... sooooo it may seem corrupt to bribe the doorman to let you see the cardinal, but that would be SOP in a medieval-esque world.
2. Remember that a LG god provides power to NG and LN clerics. This easily allows corruption.
3. the "i get my power secretly from another god" idea that you mentioned. More difficult given dection spells, unless you make such clerics have some sort of mask-alignment. also could be problems due to consecrate, hallow... etc.
4. the most effective one is also probably the most controversial... view the church as a whole as you would view a person. as most LG people will have moments where they're acting in non-LG manners, and if you allow such actions to have no negative effects in your campaign as long as the person's mostly LG, a church will also have periods where it is acting in a non-LG manner with no detriment. This one of course, varies widely from campaign to campaign.

joe b.

I find this very difficult to do within the iron clad, absolutist, black and white alignment system of D&D. The only way I've managed to make this work is to limit detection, scry and divination spells that are available and to make the gods a bit more distant.

I could see minor conflicts and corruptions within a LG church but I couldn't see anything happening on a major scale. The examples that you give are minor offenses. To take an extreme example I couldn't see a major schism involving the clergy killing each other on a large scale. Why would any LG god allow this kind of weakening of his own church? Again, this within the 'alighnments are part of the universal weave' and not some kind of abstract ideal.

Perhaps you could support a LN branch of the Church breaking off and creating their own 'branch'. I've thought it might be workable that such a group of LN clerics would try to 'pull' their god towards a more neutral outlook. The idea is that the god would go where the worshippers are. Even then I would see some definate 'rules' applying to the conflict.

later,
Ysgarran.

p.s.
Joe, I'm very interested in the book you are writing. I know that I'll will purchase it once it comes out.
Figured this deserved it own thread, the original is:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=483054

 

[Piratecat]

Please keep threads on the same posts in the same thread. I'll merge this back in.

 

[Ysgarran]

Corruption in a LG Church.

I think there are plenty of ways to have corruption is LG churches.
<SNIP>
joe b.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this very difficult to do within the iron clad, absolutist, black and white alignment system of D&D. The only way I've managed to make this work is to limit detection, scry and divination spells that are available and to make the gods a bit more distant.

I could see minor conflicts and corruptions within a LG church but I couldn't see anything happening on a major scale. The examples that you give are minor offenses. To take an extreme example I couldn't see a major schism involving the clergy killing each other on a large scale. Why would any LG god allow this kind of weakening of his own church? Again, this within the 'alighnments are part of the universal weave' and not some kind of abstract ideal.

Perhaps you could support a LN branch of the Church breaking off and creating their own 'branch'. I've thought it might be workable that such a group of LN clerics would try to 'pull' their god towards a more neutral outlook. The idea is that the god would go where the worshippers are. Even then I would see some definate 'rules' applying to the conflict.

later,
Ysgarran.

p.s.
Joe, I'm very interested in the book you and your wife are writing. I know that I'll will purchase it once it comes out.
Don't mean to hijack this thread, tried to start a new one but it got shutdown:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31317