Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Splits?  Different Interpretations of Doctrine, or differing opinions regarding which holy writings are to be officially recognized.

Quote from: Razor 007;1058019Splits?  Different Interpretations of Doctrine, or differing opinions regarding which holy writings are to be officially recognized.

I don't understand, is this a question, a comment, a rebuttal?


Yes to both, but differing opinions sounds pretty tame until you consider these differences were enough in some cases to accuse followers of heresy, result in ex-communication and in a few cases led to holy wars against others for "doing it wrong".

That is where I was going with this, ideas for handling these differences of opinion within a monotheistic setting.


Now personally, I kind of like the idea that "god" (whichever that may be) is not too closely involved and just kind of puts his stamp of approval on any of the religions that are sending the faith of their worshipers in his direction.

Using this theory of devineness (spell check tells me this isn't a word ), it could even be used to explain more dramatic differences such as that between the Christian and Islamic faiths which share some common history, but draw some very different conclusions. Taken to extremes this could even be expanded to explain the divine powers of many polytheistic faiths (god & angels interpreted as many gods). Perhaps polytheism evolved to monotheism as one deity gained power over the others leading to the weakening of the older Egyptian, Greek, Norse etc polytheistic pantheons as power was withdrawn from them and given to the monotheistic faiths that directed the energy of their followers to the one lead deity.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057958I asked this in the Lion & Dragon thread, but it hasn't generated any response.

I'm curious how people would suggest handling splits within a monotheistic religion. If you look at only Catholicism you have two major branches the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. These worked in relative cooperation for centuries with subtle differences in interpretation. A major split occurred in 1054 eventually leading to crusades in the 1200s by the west against the east.

In the later middle ages you see this again with the protestant reformations, Church of England etc as new religions form from the same basic sources.  

They worship the same god, yet feel the other "is doing it wrong".  


There are similar splits among other religions, it is certainly not limited to Christendom. Nobody hates the First Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster more than the followers of the Holy Orthodox Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There's no reason you couldn't have a Schism in monotheism, if you're using something like Lion & Dragon. The division could be over some very fine points of doctrine, and over administration (who's the boss), and 'schismatics' are not the same as 'heretics'.

It might be possible for Clerics not to receive any clear answer from God as to who was right.

Quote from: EOTB;1057962Yes, this is all good to include.  The one thing monotheism shouldn't include in an RPG game, is monotheism as a cloud oracle micromanaging things and clearly separating truth from fiction.  RPG Monotheism shouldn't be finally having the perfect sky-parent who helicopters in and makes everything right whenever the kids can't arrive at the same truth/solution.

The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

And then the clerics that agree with the non miracle working administration are posthumously declared Doctors of the Church.  The ones that don't are only ever talked about for their great deeds and not their beliefs and teaching.  While they are alive, the Church is very conciliatory with them about differences, knowing that the disagreement is only temporal while the Church is eternal.  Their differences are always framed as an ongoing conversation and never anything like opposition.

There's also the possibility that miracle working and the presence of real magic and demons will be sufficient validation of the Church's teachings to make actual splits almost never happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058500The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

I agree that not all churchmen are clerics; in fact, most won't be.  I don't put a hard line separating them from the administrative hierarchy (a cleric is eligible for the office of Patriarch), but their class powers give them no additional sway.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058500The thing that would be essential would be that Priests aren't clerics. Just like in the medieval period, you would have a priesthood and a church, most of whom had no miraculous powers, and then you'd have something like the Clerics as a special order, of people who do manifest miracles, and serve special roles (as defenders of the faith and inquisitors and priest-knights) but are kept separate from the administration of the Church itself.

I was just going to ask about priests in L&D and see they were one of the new classes you included. I think that is an important distinction as we have seen in other discussions many see clerics = priests in RPGs since there is rarely an in game distinction.

Quote from: NathanIW;1058530And then the clerics that agree with the non miracle working administration are posthumously declared Doctors of the Church.  The ones that don't are only ever talked about for their great deeds and not their beliefs and teaching.  While they are alive, the Church is very conciliatory with them about differences, knowing that the disagreement is only temporal while the Church is eternal.  Their differences are always framed as an ongoing conversation and never anything like opposition.

There's also the possibility that miracle working and the presence of real magic and demons will be sufficient validation of the Church's teachings to make actual splits almost never happen.

Or exacerbate them. The split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox was as much political posturing between the leaders as legitimate religious disagreement. The rank and file considered the whole thing academic until Rome sent armies against Constantinople.

Good point though actual magic would definitely change things, but just because the actual power comes from the same source, that wouldn't keep people from claiming otherwise out of ignorance or for personal gain. Pretty easy to claim the other guys power is fueled by demons trying to trick true believers. People still run the church and people can be real bastards.

re: magic and splits, I don't think it would matter.  Monotheism typically has lesser adversaries to the deity who rebel, or refuse fealty, in full knowledge; but human nature is less selfish?  

It's approaching it from an atheistic perspective in many ways.  I'm not saying that's wrong, but a no-faith-required monotheism isn't going to feel instinctively archetypal.

Personally, I think in such a setting spellcasting clerics work best as those 1-in-a-million wonder working Saints that people hear stories of, but only those in close physical proximity ever get to meet.

Historically those actually reputed to be wonder workers tended to so focused on their mission from God (saving souls, healing the sick, driving out demons, etc.) that they just don't get involved in whatever politics are going on (i.e. it's a distraction from God's work) and after they die every faction claims they were a member of their sect.

Wonder working saints also seem to get their actual call to work miracles via some personal vision of God separate from any sort ordination to Holy Orders (some are priests, brothers or sisters who recieve a vision, others have visions and then become priests, brothers or sisters, still others never join a Holy Order at all).

From a game mechanics perspective this sidesteps a lot of the "which sect is right" issue because God uses whomever God wills regardless of their current station and their mission as God's agent in the world rarely concerns itself with the temporal power structure one way or another (i.e. God doesn't say "only cure the faithful of X sect" it's "cure the sick wherever you find them").

Heck, the Bible says you don't even have to be a believer yourself to be chosen by God to fulfill His ends (ex. King Cyrus). Imagine those figures as clerics whose spells are less overt healing and such, but effects like bless upon their forces or divinations that provide the proper course to take; allowing success where none seemed possible because God was using them for His ends.

I would just let every consecrated priest cast spells. In case of extreme schism the other side might claim your spells really come from Satan - but who's to say what the truth is?

Quote from: S'mon;1058558I would just let every consecrated priest cast spells. In case of extreme schism the other side might claim your spells really come from Satan - but who's to say what the truth is?

I would go different ways depending on the direction and/or feel of the campaign. I think there's certainly room to handle this different ways.

The one thing I would say is that I think it will make a significant difference to how play goes. If clerics (and maybe paladins too?) aren't restricted to a particular code of behavior or alignment, then it would be a big difference from if they need to stick to their religious code or lose their powers. It'll definitely change the tone.

Quote from: EOTB;1058548re: magic and splits, I don't think it would matter.  Monotheism typically has lesser adversaries to the deity who rebel, or refuse fealty, in full knowledge; but human nature is less selfish?  

It's approaching it from an atheistic perspective in many ways.  I'm not saying that's wrong, but a no-faith-required monotheism isn't going to feel instinctively archetypal.

I would definitely require actual faith and faithfulness in a monotheistic religion in an RPG campaign.  The first side to lose their miracle working powers is going to lose the debate.  If you start claiming your opposition can only work miracles through the power of The Enemy when you know that's not the case, then you just lost your powers for lying about your brothers and sisters and turning them into enemies instead of having an honest disagreement with them.

I highly doubt the Catholic-Orthodox split would have happened had the side that escalated the split lost all their actual miracle working power.  If the Patriarch of Constantinople was a miracle working name level cleric and then he closes down all the Latin Rite churches in his city and then loses all his spells and all his abilities and no one he confers priesthood on can ever work miracles or cast spells, that'd be a pretty clear indicator.  Same goes for the Latin rite excommunicating anyone who doesn't fall into line with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Imagine the Reformation if all the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists couldn't work any miracles but every ordained priest in the catholic side of things could do at least some spell casting.  Even if it was limited to dispelling some fevers and closing small wounds or making light shine from their hands.  And if any priest suddenly decides to leave the church and join the protestants, they suddenly lose all their spells and are fully aware of why.

If I was doing a magical medieval Europe, I'd have the east-west split not really happen, but instead be a friendly disagreement where the moment anyone goes too far, they find out they are wrong directly from God through the removal of their spells.  The Patriarch of Constantinople ends up being the head of his own Orthodox Rite and the Bishop of Rome realized it's not his place to force the subservience of all other Bishops.  Instead the pope is universally regarded as the wisest bishop who should be listened to, not a special class of super bishop over the rest.

The biggest strength of Monotheism in an RPG is that there really is a single bulwark against supernatural evil.  I would not have it be a matter of interpretation, infighting, and corruption.  That's just cliche and typical of what we already expect from religion in the real world.  If supernatural power actually existed, then it would preserve the church as christ said it would.  His prayer that the church would be one would actually be listened to if he really was the son of god.

I would simply select a version of the many forms of Christianity that existed in the first four centuries as the right one.  And it would win the debates about the heresies from that time because it had the only actual magic spells and miracles.  The same form would last through the disagreement with the East and any proto-reformer.  And the reformation itself would be a non starter.

Similarly if I was making a monotheistic religion for a game universe that was not just ours with real magic, I'd have the religion just be right and proven with actual miracles and spells and the ability to call and commune with angels and past saints/holy people.

What about clerics with different alignment or splits?  Nope.  Alignment in my game will be the answer to the question "To whom are you aligned?" and if it's the One and His Church, then that's your alignment.  If it's the demons and monsters of the underworld, that's your alignment.  If you don't care either way, then that's your alignment.  No way would I ever have alignments as moral categories.  Not interested in that at all.

So what if you are an ordained priest who can cast spells but are a selfish asshole who wrongs people?  Then your discipline and walk of faith is going to be one of learning the hard way through constantly having to make amends to get your powers back.  And if you go so far as to instead channel the power of the underworld to imitate the power of the faithful, the Church has orders ordained for just such an eventuality and since they actually have access to the council of angels and real magic to find you out, tread carefully!

I'd also take an OD&D cleric and anti-cleric approach where you simply can't imitate the most telltale and basic powers of the good clerics.  You only have the reverse versions of the good spells.  So no healing, no blessing, etc.,  Instead you can only curse and wound and spread disease and not heal it.

Quote from: NathanIW;1058570I would definitely require actual faith and faithfulness in a monotheistic religion in an RPG campaign.  The first side to lose their miracle working powers is going to lose the debate.  If you start claiming your opposition can only work miracles through the power of The Enemy when you know that's not the case, then you just lost your powers for lying about your brothers and sisters and turning them into enemies instead of having an honest disagreement with them.

I highly doubt the Catholic-Orthodox split would have happened had the side that escalated the split lost all their actual miracle working power.  If the Patriarch of Constantinople was a miracle working name level cleric and then he closes down all the Latin Rite churches in his city and then loses all his spells and all his abilities and no one he confers priesthood on can ever work miracles or cast spells, that'd be a pretty clear indicator.  Same goes for the Latin rite excommunicating anyone who doesn't fall into line with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Imagine the Reformation if all the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists couldn't work any miracles but every ordained priest in the catholic side of things could do at least some spell casting.  Even if it was limited to dispelling some fevers and closing small wounds or making light shine from their hands.

I think we're using the same word ("faith") to mean different things.  You're presenting scenarios where its reasonable to infer dis/favor based upon the acts one side can do that another can't.  That's the opposite of what I'm talking about, and would insert a dynamic I'm trying to avoid.  

But that's me, only.

For a quasi-historical campaign I would only let the genuinely devout cast spells, but I wouldn't use Alignment as such. I'd expect to see Muslim/Muslim-analogue imans casting spells against spell-casting Catholic & Orthodox priests.

If it was a fantasy campaign, I'd run it like Narnia - those who believe in the Lion get spells (the good stuff, like cure light wounds & raise dead), those who believe in Tash get spells (the relatively crappy anti-cleric stuff, like inflict light wounds & slay living), equivocators get nothing. With the proviso that evil men who think they revere Aslan get their powers from Tash, and vice versa.

This is basically how original D&D already worked anyway.