? re Polytheistic Worlds

[Umbran]

True. But in any case my point was that worship does not necessarily equal power I just got a tad side tracked (otherwise all of the Gods would have defeated their foes because they had worshippers and they did not).

I dunno. Note that "worshippers = power" does not imply "worshippers = only power".

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Why would gods compete with each other over worshippers when they have so many differences in areas of interest etc.?

If that is the desired result perhaps the easiest route is to have competing pantheons.

Two gods of the sea competing for the worship of sailors, two gods of war wanting the heart of the white bull, etc. Upper Nile culture vs. Lower Nile culture, or for a monotheistic version Muslim vs. Christian during the Crusades. (Sometimes there is no real winner...)

Is the culture polytheistic, or pantheistic? (All gods are real vs only our gods are real, but we have a bunch of 'em.)

Is worship a zero sum game?

Can a worshipper hpld reverance for multiple deities? (My answer is yes, though he may have a patron deity that holds his primary worship.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

They can't share? It has to be one god per worshipper? What if one's god doesn't handle something? Is one then poop sans fortune?

You mean, exactly the same way that people share, right? Or the exact same way that people say, "Hey, we have divergent interests; let's just all get along!"?


RC

 

[Staffan]

I like the way it is handled in Eberron. There is one main pantheon (though the book splits it into two, the Sovereign Host and the Dark Six, which is sort of a good/bad split), and most people worship all the gods as the situation calls for. You can even be a cleric of (half of) the whole pantheon at once. In addition to this main pantheon, there are a number of specialized religions (the Silver Flame, the Dragon Below, the Blood of Vol, the Path of Light, and the Undying Court). These don't worship gods per se, but more ideals or groups of not-quite-divine beings. They're also distinctly minority religions, and many have a major presence only in certain areas or among certain segments of the population (the Silver Flame dominates in Thrane and is viewed sceptically in other places, the Path of Light is pretty much Kalashtar only, and the Undying Court is only worshipped by the Aerenal elves).

 

[Warbringer]

Often gods are in competition period, and the gods rivalry tips over into the plane of their worshippers (rather than the other way around).

Greek mythology is filled with the petty rivalries of the gods spilling over into the affairs of men. Revenge for a slight between gods may be millenia apart and seemingly unknowable or blamed on local rivalries between churches where reallt none exists.

 

[gizmo33]

And while Loki has deific power you never hear much about worship of him when looking at Norse religion.

AFAIK the sources for Norse Mythology that survive were not surveys of the population's beliefs at the time period, much less earlier time periods. It's possible, AFAIK, that Loki was an influential deity at some previous time, or for a group that the writers of the Eddas did not represent. (The deity of Set, from Egyptian myth, is IMO a more clearly documented example of this sort of thing happening - ie. a previously revered deity getting "bad press" from his rival's clerics)

IMO, with some creative interpretation, you could use real-world mythology to justify the "worshippers=power" formula. If there is an evil giantess in Norse mythology, you could propose that the giantess was a misremembering of the goddess of an evil celtic tribe, or of a group from the edge of the world that no one has ever heard of.

Also, you could consider that personal power is not the same thing as deity power. So a deity would continue to be a 50th level character, and could stomp adventurers just as easily as before his loss of worshippers. But losing worshippers would mean that the deity would have less knowledge of events in the world and less influence on those events. A loss of strategic power, as opposed to his fireballs doing less damage.

 

[adwyn]

Another aspect of most non modern religions is also sacrifices. We tend to think of prayers because the majority of us are from a Judeo Christian culture, but in most of the polytheistic religions ritual sacrifice was common. Animals (and people) were killed, items ritually broken or burned, dances performed.

Perhaps the gods cannot create, but can only have what they are given ritually. A forgotten god may still have all his powers but no longer receives the gifts and foods that he once did. More followers would tend to result in more stuff, though some gods might instead be satisfied with just a few rich followers.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Also, you could consider that personal power is not the same thing as deity power. So a deity would continue to be a 50th level character, and could stomp adventurers just as easily as before his loss of worshippers. But losing worshippers would mean that the deity would have less knowledge of events in the world and less influence on those events. A loss of strategic power, as opposed to his fireballs doing less damage.

I like the idea of seperating deific power from butt kicking power.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

I dunno. Note that "worshippers = power" does not imply "worshippers = only power".

Totally agree. If you consider a Hero-deity for instance as being an epic mortal who has ascended in some fashion thanks to worship. If he then loses that worship he is still an epic mortal.

Equally, I like to think of deities as having two facets. 'Power' and 'glory'. 'Glory' refering of course to worship, whereas 'power' refers to the accruement of spirit - which would primarily be handled through combat (akin to Highlanders quickening) though could also be siphoned.

Power + Glory = Divinity. Power is more stable, but slower to gain than glory. Some deities will have gained divinity mainly by power (such as demon princes), others will have gained power mainly by glory (such as Thor).

A third facet of divinity would be area related. But thats not necessarily relevant to the above discussion.

Regarding worshippers. It is certainly possible for someone to casually worship multiple deities. But devoted worshippers are more coveted by deities as they provide greater glory. Devotion (and to an extent perhaps emotion) is the key.

As to the question about whether religions will be constantly at war or not, I think it depends on the basis of the religions involved and their power base. A country may have a temple devoted to Ares the god of war. But unless the priests of Ares, as a faction, are powerful enough to influence the government/king (etc.) or are themselves the main power in the country they won't be able to strongly influence affairs of state.

 

[fusangite]

I have real trouble with the idea of gods in a polytheistic system drawing all or a portion of their power based on how many worshippers they have and what those worshippers do. Because I tend to seek out a certain level of anthropological credibility for a system, this brings up real red flags for me because, as far as I can tell, there have been no polytheistic societies that thought this way. The idea of gods' powers being moored to the actions or beliefs of their worshippers is a totally modern idea inspired, I suspect, by contemporary ideas of representative democracy.

People in polytheistic societies worshipped gods and made sacrifices to them because the gods were powerful, no matter what mortals did. That was why it was so important to give them shows, poems and meat. Worship was about asking gods for favours, making contracts with them or requesting that they refrain from hurting you.

Competition for worshippers, money and prominence was not understood as a competition between gods; it was understood as competition between cults. The ancients may have been daft but not daft enough to think that ultra-powerful beings and natural forces were, themselves, contingent upon human action.