? re Polytheistic Worlds

[davidschwartznz]

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.

Have a look at Egyption mythology. Each of the gods was patron of a particular city, and many of the myths about the gods are actually metaphors for the fortunes of the cities they represent. When a city became the new capital, for example, the myhts might associate its god with the highest deity (often in a familial way) (e.g. Horus). If a city lost favor with the king or priesthood, its god might be vilified in myth (e.g. Set). The same is true of Mesoporamian myth, Central American, and I suspect many others. The idea of a god's power (in the greater scheme, not to an inidiviual worshipper) being linked to his poularity is not a new concept.

 

[Turjan]

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.

I agree with your points, but I don't quite see why this invalidates the concept of gods getting their powers from worship. I don't think such a concept should be part of mythology, but it might have its place as mechanics, as reasoning for the struggles. It depends on how you see the campaign world. If it wasn't the gods who created the world but some "Overgod", like Faerun's Ao, the system seems easy enough.

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.

What about the competition between Athena and Poseidon over who gets Athens? They subjected themselves to the decision by mortals. They bribed the judges with gifts. They made themselves dependent on human action.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As a concept, I've always liked Weis & Hickman's Rose of the Prophet series, for illustrating a world in which a god's power is dependent upon his worshippers. Each facet of Sul, the gem of truth, was a god, a...viewpoint...of the Truth. And as more of mankind worshipped a particular god, that god's facet would shine more brightly.

Personally I prefer gods that personify universal aspects of creation, more in-line with how The Sand Man treats the Endless. As a result, my gods fit this concept in most of my campaigns.

 

[fnork de sporg]

If you look at the RAW I believe dieties can remotely sense whatever is happening within 100 miles of one of their worshippers or holy sites. So, right there is an incredibly compelling reason for a god to spread it's cult as far as possible.

 

[fusangite]

Have a look at Egyption mythology. Each of the gods was patron of a particular city, and many of the myths about the gods are actually metaphors for the fortunes of the cities they represent. When a city became the new capital, for example, the myhts might associate its god with the highest deity (often in a familial way) (e.g. Horus). If a city lost favor with the king or priesthood, its god might be vilified in myth (e.g. Set). The same is true of Mesoporamian myth, Central American, and I suspect many others. The idea of a god's power (in the greater scheme, not to an inidiviual worshipper) being linked to his poularity is not a new concept.

This is all true. However, the people at the time perceived the causation in the opposite way that we do. To them, the fact that a city was declining in influence was evidence of the god becoming less powerful; the city was declining because something was happening to the god, not the reverse.

Gods are popular because there is evidence that they are powerful. Nobody thought of these gods as being powerful because they were popular. People worshipped gods whose worshippers did well because they wanted a share of the power the god seemed to have. Nobody in the ancient world saw their worship making a god stronger.

 

[fusangite]

I agree with your points, but I don't quite see why this invalidates the concept of gods getting their powers from worship. I don't think such a concept should be part of mythology, but it might have its place as mechanics, as reasoning for the struggles.

I see where you're going here. I tend to make worlds where popular ideas of physics are fairly close to the truth; but you're right: it might be cool to have a game in which the PCs discover that humans make gods and not the reverse. It might be an interesting metaplot mystery to unravel over the course of a campaign.

It depends on how you see the campaign world. If it wasn't the gods who created the world but some "Overgod", like Faerun's Ao, the system seems easy enough.

Well, that's just the Platonist response to Greco-Roman gods. I suppose you're right that this could be moored to a physics very distinct from the worshippers' beliefs. But, given the option, I'd probably just go with the Platonist structure, unadulterated.

What about the competition between Athena and Poseidon over who gets Athens? They subjected themselves to the decision by mortals. They bribed the judges with gifts. They made themselves dependent on human action.

The power of the mortals did not inhere in the physics of the world. The gods could have chosen some other way to settle their dispute in which the mortals had no say. The structure of the universe did not make them automatically accountable to the mortals.

 

[Turjan]

... it might be cool to have a game in which the PCs discover that humans make gods and not the reverse. It might be an interesting metaplot mystery to unravel over the course of a campaign.

That's basically the plot of Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods". This also includes the "democratic religion" part that you mentioned, but I agree that at least this aspect isn't really suited to the game. However, I like it very much to make campaign reality very different from what the people of the setting believe. Just one aspect as example: the gods in my homebrew don't know how my version of "heaven" looks like; they cannot go there, because death is the "door ticket".

The power of the mortals did not inhere in the physics of the world. The gods could have chosen some other way to settle their dispute in which the mortals had no say. The structure of the universe did not make them automatically accountable to the mortals.

This is correct. Poseidon wasn't very happy with the decision, and the mortals had to appease him. However, I was specifically answering this your sentence:

Competition for worshippers, money and prominence was not understood as a competition between gods; it was understood as competition between cults.

I don't think this is true. There are many myths that show exactly this scenario, and not only in Greek mythology, where it is quite prevalent. Just think of the struggles of El and Baal in the myths of Ugarit. I think that the exact opposite of your sentence is true: competition between cults was seen as struggle between gods.