Worlds of Design: RPG Gods - Benign or Malign?

​

Most RPG settings have some form of godhood. Yet there are some age-old questions that come into play as you create religions.

By Unknown author - Os Deuses Egípcios – IMAGICK, CC BY-SA 4.0, File:Deuses Egipcios.png - Wikimedia Commons​

Gods and “hokey religions” (to quote Han Solo in Star Wars a New Hope) are usually part of fantasy and science fiction role-playing games. From a world-building standpoint, you can approach religion as a form of philosophy, a way to guide one’s life, but a lot more people are into religion than philosophy. Rather than using a religion that resembles a modern day equivalent, let’s start from scratch by asking some fundamental questions:

How Many?​

How many gods are there? In human history, ancient gods often were members of a pantheon, a group of gods. So it is with many RPG campaigns and settings. Gods from these ancient pantheons (Greek and Roman most prominently) were superpowerful and immortal, but otherwise behaved much like humans. Less common was a single god, or a god who has an oppositional aspect (effectively another god) as in Manichaeism or Persia’s Zoroastrian religion (Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman). It has been uncommon to think that only “my” gods exist, and no others. The belief is more likely when there is only one (or two) god(s) in a religion rather than a pantheon. After all, if you can have a bunch of gods, why can't someone else, and those gods compete with one another?

Gender?​

Male vs female? Virtually all the ancient religions were heavily male-oriented, just as societies were heavily male-oriented. Some did have powerful goddesses often related to fertility. But male orientation is not necessary in a fantasy world in which women are often treated much differently than women in the ancient world. There is some notion that in prehistoric times, some religions were heavily female oriented.

Belief?​

Do you believe? Just as in the real world, some characters are going to want nothing to do with gods, while others will devote their lives to them. Some will assume that gods are only bad for humanity, others that gods provide great good for humanity. A GM/World-Builder can influence this strongly through the actual behavior of the gods.

Do You Have a Choice?​

Is there State Sponsorship (forcing everyone to conform)? In the real world, sometimes people are free to choose their religion, other times they are required to conform to the state religion. And you have cases where the laws are devised to encourage someone to convert (as when non-Muslims paid an additional tax in the early centuries of Arab expansion). The Roman Empire changed state sponsorship from their pagan religion to Christianity in the fourth century CE. And so on. The player characters could be religionists resisting state-imposed religion.

Divine Right?​

What about men/women worshiped as gods? There have been many times in human history that rulers justified their right to rule by declaring themselves to be gods. Among these are the Pharaohs, the later Roman emperors, and many medieval kings of Europe. For some it was just an excuse, but others seem to have really believed it.

Manifestations?​

How much do gods manifest in (appear or directly influence) the world? Some ancient gods, e.g. Greek, were thought to constantly meddle with the world. Egyptian gods were less present in the world. If gods do meddle with the world, how do they do it? Provide direction for worshipers (even holy war?)? Give boons to their most prominent worshipers?

Fear or Love?​

Do characters fear their god(s) (and for that matter, rulers), or love him/her/it/them? This depends on the priesthood, or on the behavior of the “actual god(s)”. It also depends on what the ruler thinks is best. It’s easy to make people fear him/her/it when the gods themselves are involved.

The Old Gods?​

What about the “old gods,” the ones who no longer have worshipers? Do they fade away entirely, or do they hang out in the background, so to speak—perhaps providing quest material for players? If they hang out, do they become neutral, or benign, or malign?

What Are They Really?​

"Gods" as Aliens - or Monsters. What are the gods, really? Perhaps they're all part of a big scam?

For an in-depth exploration of different ways to implement religion in your campaign (and answers to some of these questions), see Andrew “Corone” Peregrine’s excellent series of articles on the topic.

Your Turn: What questions did I miss?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Something I've borrowed from Primeval Thule for my games that I really enjoy:

The gods are largely unknowable and far away. Note, the "largely" there. There are certainly times when the gods get involved, but, that tends to be pretty rare. Clerics in this setting are cabalistic. Basically, a cleric is a wizard who has been taught by his cabal the ways of divine magic. But, as far as any actual connection between the gods and the clerics, well, there isn't any. Clerics are entirely free agents. The different groups act to promote ideology based on their interpretation of what that god or group of gods wants, but, since they have no real way to connect to that god, it's largely up in the air.

So, basically, you can have an utterly evil priest of a god god or a good priest of Asmodeus. Granted, the different groups will likely police themselves to some degree - they are societies unto themselves. But, this also allows for all sorts of schisms, heresy and conflict within faiths that can drive all sorts of conflicts in the campaign.

I guess that's why I really like this notion. In sort of standard D&D, two priests of Lathander can't really come into too much conflict. They're both Good (and have to be Good in most editions of the game) and, if there really is a conflict, they can always send the question up the chain and ask Lathander for a resolution, which, since both of them are clerics and gain their spells from Lathander, will be answered pretty definitively.

In another campaign, I used a more @Celebrim approach to gods where anything could be worshipped. One of the PC's, a Hollyphant paladin was worshipped by the local town as a god. It was a really fun aspect to add to the game. Small Gods are a load of fun.

Bawhahahaha, no FR religion doesn't work that way. Two Lathander Priests can and have gone to blows over disagreements, the church of Lathander has various heresies.

Lolth literally set up a rival, opposing religion to her own, whose followers believed they were worshipping an enemy Goddess opposed, because Lolth ate that Goddess, but encourage a church filled with worshippers that hated her guts for shits and giggles?

Or that there is a heresy that Shar and Selune are two sides of the same God, that neither God discourages, despite it being false.

Or the Faith of the Adama where all Gods are just aspects or eminations of a single divinity, which is hersy everywhere outside the Shining South.

The Gods of FR are relatively interventionists, but they don't spell everything out for their faithful and are known to allow and purhaps encourage multiple completing theologies for their own obscure reasons.

Heresies

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

Heresy

A heresy was a belief in a given deity that substantially deviated from the mainstream of that deity's church. Some of these deviations were tolerated by the deities. Over time, churches experienced change and new ideas, and sects and factions arose and were tolerated or driven out. Every time...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about it a little further, I think I prefer the extremes, rather than the middle, when it comes to the divine in a setting. Either the gods are really far away and don't directly impact anything (meaning that the individual faiths/churches/cults/whatever you want to call them) are the primary way that the impact of the divine is seen on the setting.

Or, the gods are right there, everywhere. Small gods, big gods, doesn't matter. You have shrines and religion everywhere. Every pretty pool you might stumble across might have a local god that can influence that area. Larger gods have managed to accumulate enough of a following to spread their influence further. A really Terry Pratchett approach.

I think I like either approach because I want faith and religion to be major elements in my campaign. Sort of standard D&D approaches to faith mean that it gets largely ignored. No one cares which temples are where because it's all very far removed from what the players have to deal with. Unless there's a specific reason for it, the players probably couldn't care less that there's a temple of Procan in Saltmarsh. Until they happen to need something like Restoration or a Raise Dead, they just don't care because it has zero impact on what they are doing in the game.

But, if you have Small Gods, then the party is routinely interacting with gods. That Nymph/Dryad/random nature spirit is the god of that very small area. That's where the whole Lair Effects thing can really come into play. A regular dryad might not have lair effects, but a Small God Dryad now can do things in that small area - all sorts of miracles, of varying power. Paying a toll at a local shrine when traveling down the road actually has direct impact on your journey. That sort of thing.

I find it works much better in the game to have religion actually be far more front and center in the campaign to make it matter to the players.

 

[Hussar]

Bawhahahaha, no FR religion doesn't work that way. Two Lathander Priests can and have gone to blows over disagreements, the church of Lathander has various heresies.

Lolth literally set up a rival, opposing religion to her own, whose followers believed they were worshipping an enemy Goddess opposed, because Lolth ate that Goddess, but encourage a church filled with worshippers that hated her guts for shits and giggles?

Or that there is a heresy that Shar and Selune are two sides of the same God, that neither God discourages, despite it being false.

Or the Faith of the Adama where all Gods are just aspects or eminations of a single divinity, which is hersy everywhere outside the Shining South.

The Gods of FR are relatively interventionists, but they don't spell everything out for their faithful and are known to allow and purhaps encourage multiple completing theologies for their own obscure reasons.

Heresies

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

Heresy

A heresy was a belief in a given deity that substantially deviated from the mainstream of that deity's church. Some of these deviations were tolerated by the deities. Over time, churches experienced change and new ideas, and sects and factions arose and were tolerated or driven out. Every time...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

Six heresies by your count. That's not really a big thing in the setting. And note, in your own examples, a heresy would actively harm the god in question, making it rather important for a god to step in and put a stop to this sort of thing, and one of the three solutions was for the god in question to adopt the heresy and declare it true. IOW, exactly what I said.

A deity could support a heresy by declaring it to be the actual truth. This action turned the heresy into the effective truth and thus the new mainstream tenet of the church.[2]

In other words when two Lathander priests argue to the point of heresy, they go and ask Lathander what Lathander thinks and then Lathander hands down a ruling and poof, no more heresy.

That's not exactly a setting that allows for a whole lot of schisms in the various faiths. And it shows. There are very few schisms in Forgotten Realms. It happens, sure, infinite monkeys and all that. But, I've certainly missed where there is a huge schism among Tyr worshippers over the proper adjudication of laws.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What would be the point, for the people in-setting? If they are practicing a ritual-based religion, they expect X if they perform worship act Y. It literally doesn't matter if your good crops are granted by Demeter or Dave, the 2 HD talking turnip. The first might be propitiated nationwide by public offerings of 100 oxen, you can propitiate the latter with a weekly cup of milk but for the local peasants, the end result is the same: did you achieve what you needed by performing religion? If it's yes, Demeter = Dave for all intent and purpose. If not, you'll trust the practice that works most often, or do both just in case you weren't asking help from them but just placating them to prevent them from ruining your crops just because they can.

I wouldn't expect someone who literally is just a farmer, who does not see past the border of his own farm, to care about any of this stuff. Like I would expect him to straight-up say, "I couldn't care less whether we call them 'divinities' or 'spirits' or 'boojams.'" My criticism is Doylist, not Watsonian, because we're talking about creating these systems, describing what's going on in them.

And, in English, when describing something as a divinity or divine, you're going to get people thinking at least moderately big. You can, of course, give the local definition of divinity, or (my preference) use a neologism or a loanword. The latter means using, or finding, a term for that space of being, allowing "divinity" to remain useful as it is. The former means...doing as I described, diluting "divinity" and then needing to invent or reuse some new term to describe what "divinity" previously did, such as upthread where it was referred to as "[the] ultimate(s)."

Really? Why?

For the same reason I don't feel awe or reverence for Alexa, or my food processor, or a good bag of fertilizer, or a handful of other things. I would certainly be thankful, and if all it takes to secure that benefit is the occasional ritual then sure, whatever, no skin off my back. But I'm not going to have "a feeling of deep respect tinged with awe" about the Tony the Turnip making my turnips plump and flavorful. Being thankful that a supernatural being did something good for you, and consequently being neighborly to that supernatural being, is a far cry from reverence, awe, or worship.

Would you say "OK, thanks for the turnip but you do not merit awe, guy!" and risk insult him so he stops blessing the pool of turnip soup next year?

Would I say that? No. Because it would be disrespectful. Being respectful to others is completely unrelated to whether one feels awe toward them. I strive to be respectful to others all the time (even though I am far from perfect at doing so.) I have never striven to be in awe of others. If Tony the Turnip said, "Hey, friend, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours--just put out some rice for me on the solstices, and put in a good word for me with the bigwigs, eh? Whaddaya say?" then sure, I can do that, tit for tat and all, that's just being polite. If Tony says, "Alright now listen up, it'd be TERRIBLE if something bad were to happen to that pretty turnip patch youse gots, but if youse gets to prayin' to me mornin' and night, well, I can make sure that don't happen," then hell no, I'll try to exorcise the jerk. Neither case involves "a feeling of deep respect tinged with awe."

Or would you just add him to the millions of little gods you already proptiate as part of your daily life? God is a very apt term for "supernatural entity you can bargain with through religious (=binding) rituals".

And I don't see it that way. That's a spirit, a genius loci or possibly an agathodaemon, or a kami/yōkai, etc. Also, "religious (=binding) rituals" is at the very least not an accurate description of ancient religions as I have understood them (indeed, it is much closer to the ancients' understanding of witchcraft, e.g. as shown in the completely secular trial for witchcraft that Apuleius went through. The lines between what we would call "religion," "magic," and "witchcraft" were drawn very differently back then, but "religious ritual" certainly did not mean something "binding" on the gods or anyone else--often they were undertaken merely in the hope they might achieve something.)

You propitiate all sorts of people or entities without treating them with awe and reverence. I propitiate my parents with promises of aid and offerings of food. I have propitiated employers, coworkers, and clients as a daily part of work. I have propitiated doctors and dentists and optometrists. I have propitiated businesses and restaurants. Propitiation is nothing more than "do things to get someone or something to treat you favorably." There is no need for reverence or awe or worship as part of it.

This views also fits the way clerics in game are often played. I am pretty sure clerics, when played by players, totally and fully expect their spells as part of the bargain of being a cleric. I seem to remember that Ao doesn't grant spell in the FR (or maybe he didn't at some time?) and as a result I expect to see very few clerics of Ao in play (despite being totally awe-inspiring).

And I've always hated that take on this sort of thing. It's part of why I so dearly loved the concept of Investiture from 4e. It turns the whole problem on its head and makes religion in D&D actually about devotion and beliefs, and not about transactions. Investiture being essentially permanent means that the gods must be really really sure that they're confident in the fidelity and piety of their servants. Likewise, members of the church (who are the ones actually conducting the Investiture ceremony) have a distinct need for "internal police," who can deal with the unavoidable eventuality of heresy or betrayal--and that's where Avengers slotted in (as opposed to being wanna-be Batman Paladins.)

 

[Hussar]

Propitiation is nothing more than "do things to get someone or something to treat you favorably." There is no need for reverence or awe or worship as part of it.

I get what you're saying, but, I wonder if that's a very North American modern view of things. From a personal point of view, where I live in Japan, and I see the cultural impact of these rituals every day. Every home has their ancestor shrine in some corner of the house, with pictures and fresh fruit or sake placed there every day. This weekend is Obon - an ancestor festival where everyone heads out their family tomb, spends the day cleaning things up and making offerings. And there are these sorts of things all the time. Local shrines where people make offerings, larger shrines where people make pilgrimages to on certain events - births, going to university, getting a new job, getting a new car (watching Korean priests put a dead dried fish in the trunk of a brand new car where it would stay forever was a new experience for me), that sort of thing.

I think that it's so removed from how we, as Westerners, approach religion that it can be very hard to appreciate the level of, I guess the right word would be, devotion that non-Christian faiths can have in people's day to day lives. I mean, Japan is probably the least religious country I've ever visited. They really are. But, the level of faith here is astonishing. I'm phrasing that badly, but, it's really hard to explain. They think we're bizarre for heading to church on Sundays. Why would you go to church on a specific day when every day is church day? You just have your church in your home. If there's some observance to be made, then you make a special trip.

It's a really different perspective. To give you an idea though, I could walk to I have no idea how many local shrines (some no bigger than a telephone booth) within a 30 minute walk of my house.

--------

One of the other big differences, I think, especially for North Americans, is the lack of understanding of deep history. Nothing man made in America or Canada is more than a couple of centuries old. You find older structures in Mexico, I suppose, but, again, that's pretty removed from people's everyday lives. The average Torontonian can't see a building more than 200 years old unless they go somewhere else.

But, D&D settings are OLD. Very old. Which means all this religious stuff accumulates. I've got a shrine a short distance from my house that has been in continuous use since the 8th century AD. There's just nothing like that in North America. And, for most players, being from Canada or America (and most game designers as well), you can really see it. In something like the Sword Coast, which has been continuously inhabited by intelligent, and more importantly, believers of some sort of faith, for centuries or even millennia, there should be shrines, temples and holy sites piled one on top of another. They should be freaking EVERYWHERE. But, you never really see that detailed in the setting material. No little shrines/temples or whatnot. There's "churches" in every town, sure, but, usually only one or two. That's not very believable. There should be a bajillion of these things everywhere.

 

[Voadam]

Not, in my opinion, if that creature is mortal enough to die of old age.

Physical immortality and the inability to age unless intentionally desired is IMO divine requirement #1.

So the Norse gods with the myth of the Apples of Idunn are in your opinion not divine because they age?

 

[Lanefan]

So the Norse gods with the myth of the Apples of Idunn are in your opinion not divine because they age?

Technically that version would not be divine, the way I've defined divinity in my setting. (side note: by the same token, I wasn't impressed at how they had Odin in effect die of old age in Thor Ragnarok)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I get what you're saying, but, I wonder if that's a very North American modern view of things. From a personal point of view, where I live in Japan, and I see the cultural impact of these rituals every day. Every home has their ancestor shrine in some corner of the house, with pictures and fresh fruit or sake placed there every day. This weekend is Obon - an ancestor festival where everyone heads out their family tomb, spends the day cleaning things up and making offerings. And there are these sorts of things all the time. Local shrines where people make offerings, larger shrines where people make pilgrimages to on certain events - births, going to university, getting a new job, getting a new car (watching Korean priests put a dead dried fish in the trunk of a brand new car where it would stay forever was a new experience for me), that sort of thing.

I think that it's so removed from how we, as Westerners, approach religion that it can be very hard to appreciate the level of, I guess the right word would be, devotion that non-Christian faiths can have in people's day to day lives. I mean, Japan is probably the least religious country I've ever visited. They really are. But, the level of faith here is astonishing. I'm phrasing that badly, but, it's really hard to explain. They think we're bizarre for heading to church on Sundays. Why would you go to church on a specific day when every day is church day? You just have your church in your home. If there's some observance to be made, then you make a special trip.

It's a really different perspective. To give you an idea though, I could walk to I have no idea how many local shrines (some no bigger than a telephone booth) within a 30 minute walk of my house.

--------

One of the other big differences, I think, especially for North Americans, is the lack of understanding of deep history. Nothing man made in America or Canada is more than a couple of centuries old. You find older structures in Mexico, I suppose, but, again, that's pretty removed from people's everyday lives. The average Torontonian can't see a building more than 200 years old unless they go somewhere else.

But, D&D settings are OLD. Very old. Which means all this religious stuff accumulates. I've got a shrine a short distance from my house that has been in continuous use since the 8th century AD. There's just nothing like that in North America. And, for most players, being from Canada or America (and most game designers as well), you can really see it. In something like the Sword Coast, which has been continuously inhabited by intelligent, and more importantly, believers of some sort of faith, for centuries or even millennia, there should be shrines, temples and holy sites piled one on top of another. They should be freaking EVERYWHERE. But, you never really see that detailed in the setting material. No little shrines/temples or whatnot. There's "churches" in every town, sure, but, usually only one or two. That's not very believable. There should be a bajillion of these things everywhere.

I'm not sure "a lack of understanding of deep history" is particularly North American, or has a strong connection with spirituality. There is plenty of deep history in the UK, but few bother to understand it, and the culture is broadly agnostic and materialistic.

 

[Tonguez]

I'm not sure "a lack of understanding of deep history" is particularly North American, or has a strong connection with spirituality. There is plenty of deep history in the UK, but few bother to understand it, and the culture is broadly agnostic and materialistic.

Like most things in British culture, its become a good reason to get drunk

 

[Yaarel]

the polynesian term for god/’divinity’ is Atua - the term is mostly connected to gods but can refer to anything from the creator gods to an involuntary muscle spasm. Certainly mountains, rivers, the wind, large rocks or trees could be atua, as could unusual animals (in particular albinos) and reverred ancestors. The term indicates that the there is an influential supernatural presence beyond what can be seen/sensed naturally.
non-gods use other terms certainly, but they are all in the category of Atua.
if you have seen Disneys Moana then to illustrate Maui is referred to as a demi-god, Te Kaa as a demon and the giant eel Maui kills (and later the crab) are referred to as Monsters. In Polynesian languages both Maui and the Eel are referred to as Tupua (spirits) Maui te tupua and Tuna te tupua are the same category (demi-god, demon and monster) and Tupua when invoked are Atua

an even better example is the Ocean itself Tangaroa is Atua of the Ocean, the particular water entity that manifest for Moana is a tupua of Tangaroa

Is a tupua like an "avatar" of a natural feature?

So, these natural influences exist: tupua? But the ones who happen to be helpful at least sometimes are sometimes "invoked" by humans: atua?



If so, it is similar to the Norse view.

The vættir are "beings", a particular feature of nature, which will also have its own mindful influence.

The sky beings, namely the æsir, are often (but not always) helpful, and thus humans sometimes "invoke" them to thank them for their help. The æsir are the features of the sky, but also include other features of nature that "marry" into the æsir family or get adopted into it, including vanir, the jǫtnar nornir, the land, and others, because they too can be helpful sometimes.

The Norse term goð literally means "invoked one".