D&D General Too many cultists

[Coroc]

But that is @Tonguez's point. Gods that we may deem malevolent or evil from our current perspective might not have been thought of as evil gods in their day - they were still revered.

OR feared. And therefore the need arose to appease them = rever them, although they were evil.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Cultists in D&D, and the "Evil High Priest" of OD&D derive at least in part from the pulps. They're a prominent feature in Lovecraft - The Call of Cthulhu, The Horror at Red Hook - and RE Howard's Conan.

Satanic cultists were a thing in late 60s and 70s movies also - Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Devil Rides Out (1968, based on Dennis Wheatley's 1934 novel), Omen (1976).

 

[Celebrim]

But that is @Tonguez's point. Gods that we may deem malevolent or evil from our current perspective might not have been thought of as evil gods in their day - they were still revered.

Depends on what you mean by 'revered'. That's one of the problems importing a post-Christian mindset into polytheism. Most belief systems did not have a notion of piety such as we have, which involves a reverencing a deity with love and faith, which is returned by that deity toward the worshiper. So in Egyptian practice for example, there were many deities with temples whose priesthood's job was to continually pray spells of impotence and defeat against that deity so that it would not be able to harm the populace. In that case, piety was continuing offering up curses against the deity. In Sparta, the patrons of the city were Apollo and Athena. They dealt with the problem of Ares by building a temple to him, then binding his idol in chains. The idea was very similar, a chained Ares would lack the power to aid the enemies of Sparta in battle. But this sort of worship doesn't look like reverence like we think of it. It's a sort of deep respect sure, but it's not what we might be first thinking of when we think of having deep respect for something. It's more like the deep respect you might have for a bottle of nitroglycerin, biohazardous sharps, or radioactive waste.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Depends on what you mean by 'revered'. That's one of the problems importing a post-Christian mindset into polytheism. Most belief systems did not have a notion of piety such as we have, which involves a reverencing a deity with love and faith, which is returned by that deity toward the worshiper.

One can assert precisely nothing about the subjective psychological experiences of people 2000 years ago.

But the lens you are using to formulate your opinion is quite apparent.

 

[generic]

Depends on what you mean by 'revered'. That's one of the problems importing a post-Christian mindset into polytheism. Most belief systems did not have a notion of piety such as we have, which involves a reverencing a deity with love and faith, which is returned by that deity toward the worshiper. So in Egyptian practice for example, there were many deities with temples whose priesthood's job was to continually pray spells of impotence and defeat against that deity so that it would not be able to harm the populace. In that case, piety was continuing offering up curses against the deity. In Sparta, the patrons of the city were Apollo and Athena. They dealt with the problem of Ares by building a temple to him, then binding his idol in chains. The idea was very similar, a chained Ares would lack the power to aid the enemies of Sparta in battle. But this sort of worship doesn't look like reverence like we think of it. It's a sort of deep respect sure, but it's not what we might be first thinking of when we think of having deep respect for something. It's more like the deep respect you might have for a bottle of nitroglycerin, biohazardous sharps, or radioactive waste.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "depends".

[Humor, not being serious]

 

[Celebrim]

One can assert precisely nothing about the subjective psychological experiences of people 2000 years ago.

You would be right if in fact the people of 2000 or more years ago had not left us a record of their thoughts and beliefs in their writing. And while it's not as robust of a record as we might like, it's still a record. For example, I invite you to reread Euthyphro and remind yourself how this dialogue - which, whether it is a true account or not - I think tells us a very great deal about what people thousands of years ago felt and believed about the topic of piety and reverence for the gods and how to practice right religion in their time as they understood it.

It's on the basis of that and similar writings that I'm asserting things about the subjective psychological experiences of people "2000 years ago", and not for example on the basis of pottery shards and (as my daughter affectionately calls it) "piles of rubble".

But the lens you are using to formulate your opinion is quite apparent.

Is it that clear? I wish you would tell me then what it is, because evidently you didn't believe it to be something like Euthyphro.

 

[dave2008]

Replace all cultists and organized criminals with bears.
Problem solved.

Should be owlbears

 

[Undrave]

Replace all cultists and organized criminals with bears.
Problem solved.

"We bust the door down!"
"You bust through to the speakeasy and are greeted by twelve bears in suits around a bar. The moment they spot you, they roar and bring out their crossbows. Roll for initiative!"

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Is it that clear? I wish you would tell me then what it is, because evidently you didn't believe it to be something like Euthyphro.

Do you think it's reasonable to extrapolate from the rhetorical musings of one writer - Plato, no less - and generalize in the way you have about the religious experience of all pre-Christians?

Plato tells us a lot about what Plato thought. It doesn't tell us a lot about the religious experience of ancient Sumerians

It's on the basis of that and similar writings

.
Emphasis mine. What similar writings?

Is it that clear? I wish you would tell me then what it is

Well, if I have to spell it out...

That's one of the problems importing a post-Christian mindset into polytheism.

Why is the defining criterion for a "mindset" pre-Christian and post-Christian?

Most belief systems did not have a notion of piety such as we have

This is apologetics.

which involves a reverencing a deity with love and faith

And so is this.

which is returned by that deity toward the worshiper.

And so is this.

It's more like the deep respect you might have for a bottle of nitroglycerin, biohazardous sharps, or radioactive waste.

And this is polemical.

 

[Celebrim]

Do you think it's reasonable to extrapolate from the rhetorical musings of one writer - Plato, no less - and generalize in the way you have about the religious experience of all pre-Christians?

I don't think I did.

Plato tells us a lot about what Plato thought. It doesn't tell us a lot about the religious experience of ancient Sumerians

Sure, but they left writing as well.

Emphasis mine. What similar writings?

I was giving a single example in refutation of the claim that "One can assert precisely nothing about the subjective psychological experiences of people 2000 years ago." Contrary to where you are now heading, I wasn't the one that made an overbroad absolute generalization. You did. My single example refutes your overbroad claim in itself, and it was selected on the basis of its clear relevance to the topic because it involves introspection and reflection upon religious belief and not merely recitation. But I put it you that so far as your claim goes, even recitation in the form of spells, prayers, hymns, or sacred stories so forth tell us something about the subjective psychological experiences of people 2000 years ago.

Why is the defining criterion for a "mindset" pre-Christian and post-Christian?

Do you mean a single defining criterion? I don't think there is a single defining criterion, but if you really want to go out on this tangent, I do think we can show that there is a body of ideals associated with Christianity which have been highly and broadly influential, such that it is reasonable to assert that everyone who has lived in the wake of these ideas has been influenced by them.

This is apologetics...

No, it is not. Apologetics is "the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse". This, sir, is comparative religion, which is an entirely different discipline.

And this is polemical.

No, it's funny and apt. It shows Ares was the sort of raw insanity that even the Spartans - a nation that turned itself into a ruthless merciless weapon - feared. If you believed Ares was real, you'd want to chain him up as well.