I appreciate the thoughts you all have shared.  I think that to capture the flavor I want I will need to make the shaman communicate with NPC spirits, with the shaman's abilities determining the type and power of spirits he can converse with.  I will also need a system for the spirits - their abilities, limits, personalities, what they want, and how to catch their favor, with the expectation that the GM will pick the characteristics of the important spirits and use a random generator for minor ones.  Unfortunately, this may be too complex for one of my design goals - the game is for my 12 year old son and his friends and I want it to be intuitive enough to learn very quickly, but complex enough to be engaging.  I'll give it a shot and see if I can make it work.

There are parts of the flavor that I will probably need to skip, too.  I dislike prophecy in RPGs and will just skip that part.  The mundane crops etc magic I don't see as being of much interest to PCs, so that may just get a mention and only be developed if it somehow becomes important.

If I come up with something I like I may post it back in the thread for comments.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127463True, though, some semblance of what tends to be termed "shamanism" seems to exist in every culture on Earth, regardless of the term's origins.

I saw an interesting discussion contrasting shamanic practices, where the spirit goes out into the universe on a 'spirit quest' leaving the body empty, with invocation practices where a spirit is summmoned into the practitioner. The latter would include African practices eg Juju, and Christianity - being 'filled with the holy spirit' - where Shamanic Vision Quest cultures are seen more in high latitudes, plus all across the Americas.

So pace Gygax, a Shaman (Vision Quest Culture) is actually very different from a Witch Doctor (spirit Invocation culture).

D&D tends to mix up the two, which to be fair is a feature of European magical culture in the pagan to Christian transition - Norse myth shapechangers like Loki seem to have characteristics of both.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1127436Doesn't Mythras have a whole great spirit magic thing?

It hasn't come up yet in my Mythras game, so I haven't personally used it, but, yes, the Animism system (which shamans would use) tends to be spoken of very highly.  About the only complaint I've seen is that it's hard to understand, and the rules were rewritten in the RQ6 to Mythras transition, which improved that considerably.

Quote from: SHARK;1127456Greetings!

Quite right, BoxCrayonTales! I also am not sold on the Warlock class being reflective of a historical or mythological Witch, either. The Witch and Shaman both are very different types of characters from what is presented as available in the Player's Handbook.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The problem comes from D&D's haphazard "kitchen sink" fantasy. Witches and warlocks had firm roles in the Malleus Maleficarum, but not so much in a world where wizards are normalized.

The classes are far too rigidly defined and have idiosyncratic assumptions baked into their design. That's why I like the classes and magical traditions mechanic in Spheres of Power et al. I wish it was ported to 5e. It's far more flavorful and customizable.

I can't even think of meaningful differences between clerics, druids, and shamans besides being part of different cultures. They all invoke gods to intercede in human affairs.

In fact, I can't think of how to meaningfully distinguish them from wizards. Väinämöinen is the ur-example of the wizard stereotype, and his magic is based on boasting. He warps reality by boasting about his relationships with the gods.

The concept of learning magic through study and recovering ancient lores doesn't feel like it should belong exclusively to wizards. Every religious order I heard of requires that sort of thing. Even pre-literate cultures had training regimens for their priests.

All as others just said, despite being wildly separated in time and space you can find clear commonalities in all human belief systems. Magical thinking, personifications, etc... it's all part of human psychology.

D&D is it's own thing. It is so sanitized, shoehorned, haphazard, and just plain arbitrary in its spell lists that it doesn't really feel evocative to me.

Am I making any sense or just rambling nonsense again?

Quote from: nDervish;1127509It hasn't come up yet in my Mythras game, so I haven't personally used it, but, yes, the Animism system (which shamans would use) tends to be spoken of very highly.  About the only complaint I've seen is that it's hard to understand, and the rules were rewritten in the RQ6 to Mythras transition, which improved that considerably.

You should check out Enlightened Magic, too. The alchemy system is the most evocative magic system I have ever read.

In the real world, shamanism is a practice that involves someone reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world [(Singh, Manvir (2018). "The cultural evolution of shamanism". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 41: e66: 1-61]. It is fairly basic and can be found in all cultures.

The much revered Oracle at Delphi was a woman who got high sniffing volcanic gasses in order to divine the future, and thus was a shaman. Psychologically speaking, the purpose of such superstition is to calm anxiety in the face of the unknown, which improves performance under stress. Primitive peoples were mystified by geological processes, and this mystique added to the psychological effectiveness of the practice.  With the development of empirical thought and science, such ancient practices lose their effectiveness and more sophisticated methods must be developed, hence the evolution of religion into more abstract modes of thought and philosophy.

The more advanced archetypes, clerics, magic-users, and those with psionic powers, can obviously contact the spirit world in one form or another, but anyone perceived as a shaman by NPCs can certainly boost their morale, but I view this as a case by case judgment by the DM, not any particular character class. Superstition is a double-edged sword, as failure to adhere to the requirements of superstition has the effect of increasing anxiety which would lower morale. For example, a leader who blatantly ignores the wise advice of a shaman ("the spirits say today is a bad day for combat") will impose a morale penalty on his own troops. Shamans might be useful for orc troops, but they might also be a hindrance for their human commanders.


Witch-doctors are exactly that -- they heal the malevolent effects of witchcraft. In 70's pop culture they were witch-like magicians usually up to no good, usually from Africa.


A witch is: (a) a female 8th level magic-user, (b) a practitioner of malevolent magic, or (c) a practitioner of good magic who was in the past unfairly persecuted by men who were afraid of strong women.

Correct answer (in AD&D): (a)

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1127641In the real world, shamanism is a practice that involves someone reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world [(Singh, Manvir (2018). "The cultural evolution of shamanism". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 41: e66: 1-61]. It is fairly basic and can be found in all cultures.

Respectfully, I think that definition is far too broad and would encompass all spiritual intermediary work - theurgy or magic of any kind. It correctly identifies what kind of thing Shamanism is as a member of a category, but fails to distinguish Shamanism from other members of that category.  Shamanism proper refers to the spiritual working methodology of these guys:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Chuonnasuan%2C_the_last_shaman_of_the_Oroqen%2C_in_July_1994_%28Photo_by_Richard_Noll%29.jpg

More colloquially the term has been adopted for any worker in spiritual or metaphysical powers that operates primarily through an animist mode, and is often a member of a technologically "primitive" culture (relative to us of course).  The modern magician Aiden Wachter prefers the term "Shamanry" to distinguish this general mode of working from Shamanism strictly speaking.

IMO, Runequest got this right with their distinction of Shaman, Priest and Wizard stemming primarily from different ways of viewing the interaction between the spiritual and embodied realms; which is not surprising considering the background of Greg Stafford.  

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1127641The much revered Oracle at Delphi was a woman who got high sniffing volcanic gasses in order to divine the future, and thus was a shaman.

This reveals the problem with the broadness of the definition, and mistaking technique (trance state or invocation) with type of operator.  The Pythoness is classically identified as sacred to a particular diety (Apollo) and as such would likely have been either a Priestess engaging in a specific activity (divination), or even more likely a highly specialized seeress operating as part of a religious support system (cult).

As I see it there are two different ways to go with this question:

The first is to go the Runequest route and try to define very broad working modes with multiple different types (classes, cults, what-have-you) working within these general mechanical categories. IF we assume this model the Siberian shaman, the native American medicine man and the African witch doctor are all "Shamans".  This presents a more coherent view of the world that is satisfying to us intellectually, but at the cost of some flavor.

The second is to go the old-school D&D route where each type of magical worker is a unique class, with a unique spell list and perhaps some unique abilities and restrictions.  The Shaman is not the same as the Witch-doctor is not the same as the Tribal medicine man.   The gives each magician a very unique flavor, but doesn't give us much of a coherent world-view.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1127641In the real world, shamanism is a practice that involves someone reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world [(Singh, Manvir (2018). "The cultural evolution of shamanism". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 41: e66: 1-61]. It is fairly basic and can be found in all cultures.

The much revered Oracle at Delphi was a woman who got high sniffing volcanic gasses in order to divine the future, and thus was a shaman. Psychologically speaking, the purpose of such superstition is to calm anxiety in the face of the unknown, which improves performance under stress. Primitive peoples were mystified by geological processes, and this mystique added to the psychological effectiveness of the practice.  With the development of empirical thought and science, such ancient practices lose their effectiveness and more sophisticated methods must be developed, hence the evolution of religion into more abstract modes of thought and philosophy.

The more advanced archetypes, clerics, magic-users, and those with psionic powers, can obviously contact the spirit world in one form or another, but anyone perceived as a shaman by NPCs can certainly boost their morale, but I view this as a case by case judgment by the DM, not any particular character class. Superstition is a double-edged sword, as failure to adhere to the requirements of superstition has the effect of increasing anxiety which would lower morale. For example, a leader who blatantly ignores the wise advice of a shaman ("the spirits say today is a bad day for combat") will impose a morale penalty on his own troops. Shamans might be useful for orc troops, but they might also be a hindrance for their human commanders.


Witch-doctors are exactly that -- they heal the malevolent effects of witchcraft. In 70's pop culture they were witch-like magicians usually up to no good, usually from Africa.


A witch is: (a) a female 8th level magic-user, (b) a practitioner of malevolent magic, or (c) a practitioner of good magic who was in the past unfairly persecuted by men who were afraid of strong women.

Correct answer (in AD&D): (a)

Quote from: Brendan;1127645Respectfully, I think that definition is far too broad and would encompass all spiritual intermediary work - theurgy or magic of any kind. It correctly identifies what kind of thing Shamanism is as a member of a category, but fails to distinguish Shamanism from other members of that category.  Shamanism proper refers to the spiritual working methodology of these guys:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Chuonnasuan%2C_the_last_shaman_of_the_Oroqen%2C_in_July_1994_%28Photo_by_Richard_Noll%29.jpg

More colloquially the term has been adopted for any worker in spiritual or metaphysical powers that operates primarily through an animist mode, and is often a member of a technologically "primitive" culture (relative to us of course).  The modern magician Aiden Wachter prefers the term "Shamanry" to distinguish this general mode of working from Shamanism strictly speaking.

IMO, Runequest got this right with their distinction of Shaman, Priest and Wizard stemming primarily from different ways of viewing the interaction between the spiritual and embodied realms; which is not surprising considering the background of Greg Stafford.  

I never felt the term shaman made sense to apply to all animistic belief systems. Aside from falsely equating most non-European belief systems with that of the Tunguska peoples (or equivocating non-European belief systems in general and clearly demonstrating a lack of any knowledge about them), English already has the word animist. Which simply derives from the Latin anima, meaning soul, because the basic foundation of animistic belief systems is that everything has a soul. You could also call them faith healers if you're secular or hedge witches if you like idiomatic translations. Contrary to what some editions of D&D claim, a hedge witch is a person who acts as an intermediary between the human worlds and hidden worlds... just like a shaman, or a priest for that matter.

If I wanted to be really pedantic, then I would suggest using ecstatic as the term for somebody who practices divination by entering altered states of consciousness (typically through hallucinogens).

Quote from: Brendan;1127645This reveals the problem with the broadness of the definition, and mistaking technique (trance state or invocation) with type of operator.  The Pythoness is classically identified as sacred to a particular diety (Apollo) and as such would likely have been either a Priestess engaging in a specific activity (divination), or even more likely a highly specialized seeress operating as part of a religious support system (cult).

As I see it there are two different ways to go with this question:

The first is to go the Runequest route and try to define very broad working modes with multiple different types (classes, cults, what-have-you) working within these general mechanical categories. IF we assume this model the Siberian shaman, the native American medicine man and the African witch doctor are all "Shamans".  This presents a more coherent view of the world that is satisfying to us intellectually, but at the cost of some flavor.

The second is to go the old-school D&D route where each type of magical worker is a unique class, with a unique spell list and perhaps some unique abilities and restrictions.  The Shaman is not the same as the Witch-doctor is not the same as the Tribal medicine man.   The gives each magician a very unique flavor, but doesn't give us much of a coherent world-view.

But what is that flavor? I highly doubt any of us here are familiar enough with the real world beliefs to know what the flavor is or how to accurately represent it in the game. Why are we even trying for these classes specifically, when the standard classes are hardly representative of any real European belief system? At the end of the day, the game classes are all arbitrary and invented by people with zero academic background in the appropriate fields.

We already have the druid class, which bears little or no resemblance to real world druids. What makes the druid class inappropriate as a stand-in for all these pagan belief systems? (For lack of better terminology, anyhow. The cleric class clearly owes more to Christianity and Hammer Horror's vampire hunters than it does to Greco-Roman paganism.)

How did Stafford represent his distinctions? I'm not all that familiar with his work.

Quote from: Brendan;1127645More colloquially the term has been adopted for any worker in spiritual or metaphysical powers that operates primarily through an animist mode, and is often a member of a technologically "primitive" culture (relative to us of course).  The modern magician Aiden Wachter prefers the term "Shamanry" to distinguish this general mode of working from Shamanism strictly speaking.

*snipped*

This reveals the problem with the broadness of the definition, and mistaking technique (trance state or invocation) with type of operator.  The Pythoness is classically identified as sacred to a particular diety (Apollo) and as such would likely have been either a Priestess engaging in a specific activity (divination), or even more likely a highly specialized seeress operating as part of a religious support system (cult).

This just underlines why all of these are just variations of the same thing. You just changed the type of supernatural entity being invoked from an animistic spirit to a god, but it's still just entering a trance state and engaging in mystical stuff. The differences are just superficialities based maybe on style or outlook but not in regards to what's fundamentally going on.

This is why I referred to shamans as "proto-magicians" at an earlier post--because shamans are basically magicians and so is basically anyone that engages on mystical work, regardless of specific tradition. In game terms it's more effective to simply treat those differences like bonuses and penalties to a universal magic system based on the character's mystical tradition than to treat every variation of mystics like its own specialized class.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127655This just underlines why all of these are just variations of the same thing. You just changed the type of supernatural entity being invoked from an animistic spirit to a god, but it's still just entering a trance state and engaging in mystical stuff. The differences are just superficialities based maybe on style or outlook but not in regards to what's fundamentally going on.

What is the difference between a spirit and a god?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127655This is why I referred to shamans as "proto-magicians" at an earlier post--because shamans are basically magicians and so is basically anyone that engages on mystical work, regardless of specific tradition. In game terms it's more effective to simply treat those differences like bonuses and penalties to a universal magic system based on the character's mystical tradition than to treat every variation of mystics like its own specialized class.

I forgot to mention it before, but Spheres of Power has a public wiki: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/

It uses casting traditions to represent what you're talking about: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/casting-traditions

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653I never felt the term shaman made sense to apply to all animistic belief systems. Aside from falsely equating most non-European belief systems with that of the Tunguska peoples (or equivocating non-European belief systems in general and clearly demonstrating a lack of any knowledge about them), English already has the word animist. Which simply derives from the Latin anima, meaning soul, because the basic foundation of animistic belief systems is that everything has a soul. You could also call them faith healers if you're secular or hedge witches if you like idiomatic translations. Contrary to what some editions of D&D claim, a hedge witch is a person who acts as an intermediary between the human worlds and hidden worlds... just like a shaman, or a priest for that matter.

Sure, that's part of my point.  Technically Shaman is a very specific term, but colloquially, or in "pop culture" if you prefer, the term is used to refer to a general kind of magician-priest who ascribes - more or less, to a worldview we in the west would call "animist" and tends to operate solo or as part of a diffuse network, usually in a tribal culture.  

Look at it this way.  If a space alien pointed to a picture of a dude in an animal mask exorcising a spirit by dancing and said "Shaman" we probably say "Yeah, that's about right".  If, on the other hand, he/she/it pointed to a picture of a Renaissance European celestial magician and said "Shaman" we'd be like... "Eh... kinda, sorta, not really."  We'd know what Mr. Alien meant. He's in the right ballpark, but that's not what most people mean when they use the term.  

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653But what is that flavor? I highly doubt any of us here are familiar enough with the real world beliefs to know what the flavor is or how to accurately represent it in the game.

Uh... I beg to differ.  Some of us have spent decades in these waters.  Not saying that experience has to be taken into account in your games, but I wouldn't assume that because you're not well versed in a subject that means other people aren't either.  I don't claim to know everything, but I know some things - much of it through direct experience.  

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653Why are we even trying for these classes specifically, when the standard classes are hardly representative of any real European belief system? At the end of the day, the game classes are all arbitrary and invented by people with zero academic background in the appropriate fields.

I dunno.  In my games, I like my magic systems to have their own internal logic and have the "feel" of believably.  I don't care for the "It's just magic so who cares it can do anything" attitude.  That's not how real world shamans, sorcerers, etc looked at their abilities (whether those abilities have any reality behind them is beside the point) nor do I believe it's how good narrative uses magic.  That's just me.  YMMV.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653We already have the druid class, which bears little or no resemblance to real world druids. What makes the druid class inappropriate as a stand-in for all these pagan belief systems? (For lack of better terminology, anyhow.

I think you certainly COULD use the druid class that way, but the OG druid had more of a historical basis than people realize.  Gygax clearly pulled from some of the readily available Roman sources about the Celts.  Over time the Druid shifted to more of a generic "nature worshipper" but that clearly wasn't the original intent of the class.  Similar to how the Ranger began as a Dunedain elvish special forces good guy soldier for those who wanted to play Aragorn, and then became.. well.. .something else.  The thief was originally a sneaky sneaky weasel and is now more a kind of warrior.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653The cleric class clearly owes more to Christianity and Hammer Horror's vampire hunters than it does to Greco-Roman paganism.)

Oh for sure. No question about that. This is why, IMO, the Cleric as written only really fits in with certain types of campaign.  The cleric in Lion and Dragon?  Fits perfectly.  Ravenloft?  Ab so-fucking-lutely.   Other worlds... eh... not so much.  It was such a bad fit for Dark Sun the whole class had to be ported over to some kind of elementalist.  

I believe BECMI D&D had Shamans and Wigans (Witch-doctors) for humanoid spell-casters, and the humanoid shaman showed up in 2nd ed.  3rd ed had the "Adept" as an NPC spell-caster class.  I don't see any reason those couldn't be taken up again and expanded upon.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127653How did Stafford represent his distinctions? I'm not all that familiar with his work.

Depends on the version, but Runequest rules distinguished between Shamanic magic, Priestly (God based) magic and Sorcery / Wizardry.  Not all were found in all Runequest cultures, but there was some overlap.  It was theoretically possible to operate in multiple categories, but this would depend on the individual cult.  

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127655This just underlines why all of these are just variations of the same thing.

Sure.  We're talking about the same basic function - doing magic or serving as a living bridge between "material" and "spiritual" worlds.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127655You just changed the type of supernatural entity being invoked from an animistic spirit to a god, but it's still just entering a trance state and engaging in mystical stuff. The differences are just superficialities based maybe on style or outlook but not in regards to what's fundamentally going on.

My point is that their working methodologies are different enough that we can express them in mechanical variations in game.  If you want them all to be "magic users" with different spells under their belts and slightly different costumes... I'm okay with that too.  If, however, you want to draw some broad distinctions in TYPES of magical operator.. well.. that threefold division is a pretty good one.  But it's your game.  Do what thou wilt.  

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127655This is why I referred to shamans as "proto-magicians" at an earlier post--because shamans are basically magicians and so is basically anyone that engages on mystical work, regardless of specific tradition. In game terms it's more effective to simply treat those differences like bonuses and penalties to a universal magic system based on the character's mystical tradition than to treat every variation of mystics like its own specialized class.

As per my earlier point, I don't see any problem with that but even here you are admitting to the fact that there are differences between Shamans (proto-magicians) and Magicians (magician-magicians), and that those differences are significant enough that you model them mechanically.  If you want to use the same class or different ones or whatever.. well.. there are a multitude of ways to sacrifice a goat to Hecate.  To each his own, I always say.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127662What is the difference between a spirit and a god?

Depends on whom you ask.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127662I forgot to mention it before, but Spheres of Power has a public wiki: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/

It uses casting traditions to represent what you're talking about: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/casting-traditions

Cool, thanks for the links. Will check those out.

IMO, the best RPG supplement I've found to date to model what I consider "real world" magic is the CoC "Mythos Magic" imprint.  https://www.chaosium.com/mythos-magic-pdf/

It's definitely for a more "low magic" or "subtle magic" setting, and you have to file off all the Cthulu serial numbers (unless you... well.. don't want to), but the author did his research.

Quote from: Brendan;1127680Sure, that's part of my point.  Technically Shaman is a very specific term, but colloquially, or in "pop culture" if you prefer, the term is used to refer to a general kind of magician-priest who ascribes - more or less, to a worldview we in the west would call "animist" and tends to operate solo or as part of a diffuse network, usually in a tribal culture.  

Look at it this way.  If a space alien pointed to a picture of a dude in an animal mask exorcising a spirit by dancing and said "Shaman" we probably say "Yeah, that's about right".  If, on the other hand, he/she/it pointed to a picture of a Renaissance European celestial magician and said "Shaman" we'd be like... "Eh... kinda, sorta, not really."  We'd know what Mr. Alien meant. He's in the right ballpark, but that's not what most people mean when they use the term.  



Uh... I beg to differ.  Some of us have spent decades in these waters.  Not saying that experience has to be taken into account in your games, but I wouldn't assume that because you're not well versed in a subject that means other people aren't either.  I don't claim to know everything, but I know some things - much of it through direct experience.  



I dunno.  In my games, I like my magic systems to have their own internal logic and have the "feel" of believably.  I don't care for the "It's just magic so who cares it can do anything" attitude.  That's not how real world shamans, sorcerers, etc looked at their abilities (whether those abilities have any reality behind them is beside the point) nor do I believe it's how good narrative uses magic.  That's just me.  YMMV.



I think you certainly COULD use the druid class that way, but the OG druid had more of a historical basis than people realize.  Gygax clearly pulled from some of the readily available Roman sources about the Celts.  Over time the Druid shifted to more of a generic "nature worshipper" but that clearly wasn't the original intent of the class.  Similar to how the Ranger began as a Dunedain elvish special forces good guy soldier for those who wanted to play Aragorn, and then became.. well.. .something else.  The thief was originally a sneaky sneaky weasel and is now more a kind of warrior.



Oh for sure. No question about that. This is why, IMO, the Cleric as written only really fits in with certain types of campaign.  The cleric in Lion and Dragon?  Fits perfectly.  Ravenloft?  Ab so-fucking-lutely.   Other worlds... eh... not so much.  It was such a bad fit for Dark Sun the whole class had to be ported over to some kind of elementalist.  

I believe BECMI D&D had Shamans and Wigans (Witch-doctors) for humanoid spell-casters, and the humanoid shaman showed up in 2nd ed.  3rd ed had the "Adept" as an NPC spell-caster class.  I don't see any reason those couldn't be taken up again and expanded upon.



Depends on the version, but Runequest rules distinguished between Shamanic magic, Priestly (God based) magic and Sorcery / Wizardry.  Not all were found in all Runequest cultures, but there was some overlap.  It was theoretically possible to operate in multiple categories, but this would depend on the individual cult.  


Sure.  We're talking about the same basic function - doing magic or serving as a living bridge between "material" and "spiritual" worlds.



My point is that their working methodologies are different enough that we can express them in mechanical variations in game.  If you want them all to be "magic users" with different spells under their belts and slightly different costumes... I'm okay with that too.  If, however, you want to draw some broad distinctions in TYPES of magical operator.. well.. that threefold division is a pretty good one.  But it's your game.  Do what thou wilt.  



As per my earlier point, I don't see any problem with that but even here you are admitting to the fact that there are differences between Shamans (proto-magicians) and Magicians (magician-magicians), and that those differences are significant enough that you model them mechanically.  If you want to use the same class or different ones or whatever.. well.. there are a multitude of ways to sacrifice a goat to Hecate.  To each his own, I always say.

 
Depends on whom you ask.




Cool, thanks for the links. Will check those out.

IMO, the best RPG supplement I've found to date to model what I consider "real world" magic is the CoC "Mythos Magic" imprint.  https://www.chaosium.com/mythos-magic-pdf/

It's definitely for a more "low magic" or "subtle magic" setting, and you have to file off all the Cthulu serial numbers (unless you... well.. don't want to), but the author did his research.

I definitely think a magical traditions mechanic or skill-based mechanic a la BRP is better than D&D's class-based systems. D&D just throws a bunch of stuff in a blender and ends up producing an incoherent mess of a setting.

I think there's a place for a generic Indo-European setting that isn't bogged down in D&Disms. At this point, however, I'm almost certain that d100 would be a better fit for it than D&D.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127796I definitely think a magical traditions mechanic or skill-based mechanic a la BRP is better than D&D's class-based systems. D&D just throws a bunch of stuff in a blender and ends up producing an incoherent mess of a setting.

I think there's a place for a generic Indo-European setting that isn't bogged down in D&Disms. At this point, however, I'm almost certain that d100 would be a better fit for it than D&D.

Yeah. There are things that D&D does well that I really enjoy, but the bog standard setting / rule-set doesn't really do it for me for exactly the reasons you laid out.  There's too much accumulated junk from various campaigns, often now completely removed from their original vision, that have become enshrined as "canon".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127662What is the difference between a spirit and a god?

One is called a "spirit", which potentially has broader applications, and the other one is called a "god", which is a narrower concept that in this context means essentially the same as "spirit"--a supernatural agent called upon to intercede on a mortal's behalf. But "spirit" might also be used to refer to minor otherworldly entities that don't have much to offer in terms of power, while "gods" tends to be used only to refer to major otherworldly entities that govern different aspects of reality or human experience or activity, but basically reside in essentially the same state of reality as spirits.

TL;DR: The difference is semantics.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1127662I forgot to mention it before, but Spheres of Power has a public wiki: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/

It uses casting traditions to represent what you're talking about: http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/casting-traditions

I keep meaning to check out Spheres of Power but I get lost in all the links or caught up with other stuff and keep putting it off.

I've been working on my own "Spheres" to handle paranormal powers in my effect-based system, but from what I can tell mine seem to be more simple and straight forward, but also more focused on supplementing my system, which is based on a different and more flexible set of assumptions than D&D. So it might not require as much supporting material to define different types of magic and paranormal abilities, given that customization and commonly defined core functions are already ingrained into the system from the ground up.

Spheres just offer a way to handle access to paranormal abilities by focusing on common functions or aspects of reality that are not setting-specific and  can be readily adapted to most worlds. They are divided into five spheres: Artificial, Dimensional, Elemental, Mental and Vital. Each sphere is further divided into more specific Domains that cover specific aspects of the sphere.

• Artificial: Power over objects, constructs and synthetic mater. Domains: Control (manipulate or control objects and machines, including lock picking and hacking), Enchantment (imbue objects with mystical power) and Manifestation (create objects out of thin air).
• Dimensional: Power over time, space and reality. Domains: Reality (dimension travel), Space (teleport) and Time (time control).
• Elemental: Harness the power of elements (energy and matter). Domains: by Element (air, fire, ice, magnetism, etc.).
• Mental: Mind over matter. Domains: ESP, Psychokinesis and Telepathy (mind control).
• Vital: Power over life, death and organic matter. Domains: Death (life drain/physical de-buffs), Life (healing/physical buffs) and Transformation (shapeshifting).

Characters will need to gain access to a specific domain in order to develop powers tied to its functions, but learning two domains from the same sphere grants access to the entire sphere.

There will also be "Thematic Domains" focused on specific styles or traditions that can be more setting specific, like the Sense, Alter and Control skills used in some Star Wars material to define Jedi powers, or maybe Magic Schools from D&D, etc. But they basically follow the same rules as Spheres, with a focus on defining access to different types of powers rather than specific abilities (those are defined by Powers themselves) or restrictions (defined by the character's Limitations, which are not necessary power-specific).

A character's Origin (Class, Background or Profession, where "class" or classification means species, race or equivalent) may also influence access to paranormal powers or provide certain bonuses or penalties, but these are treated as ability packages using the commonly defined abilities used in the system.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127807One is called a "spirit", which potentially has broader applications, and the other one is called a "god", which is a narrower concept that in this context means essentially the same as "spirit"--a supernatural agent called upon to intercede on a mortal's behalf. But "spirit" might also be used to refer to minor otherworldly entities that don't have much to offer in terms of power, while "gods" tends to be used only to refer to major otherworldly entities that govern different aspects of reality or human experience or activity, but basically reside in essentially the same state of reality as spirits.

TL;DR: The difference is semantics.

As far as I know the semantics were invented by fantasy gamers (or writers?), and don't exist in any real religion past or present.

Google dictionary gives:
Spirit: "a supernatural being"
God: "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes"

Theoi.com, an academic resource, uses the words "god", "deity", and "spirit" interchangeably. It does make distinctions between gods based on their generation, influence, and whether they personify something physical versus abstract. https://www.theoi.com/greek-mythology/greek-gods.html

Those examples contradict the definitions you give. For example, dryads and satyrs are rustic gods but hardly as powerful as your "aspects of reality" claim. Meanwhile, the demons (daimones) personify abstract concepts relevant to humanity like death, victory, discord, love, etc.

(I'm sorry I'm relying overmuch on Greek, but out of all the Indo-European religions we know the most about it due to the surviving writings.)