TheRPGSite

How many religions in RPG settings do you know which have different sects or groups?

Because this is another big issue in why (in particular in fantasy setting) RPGs' treatment of religion is so fucking off; all too often all the faithful are of one big mono-cultural mono-dogmatic bloc, which is not how religions work in real life.

RPGPundit

This is an aspect that is respected in Glorantha in different pantheons. The Malkioni (Believers in the Invisible God), for instance, have different confessions within the same religion: Hrestoli, Brithini etc.

For what it is worth, I'll be having some of this in my upcoming SBA game.

Worthwhile point.


"And as with any institution run by mortals yet fueled by the passion of belief, players in Celtricia find sects, cults, and power-bases in a state of growth, change, or upheaval, as often as in a stable state.  In Argus, the Vernadalian worship takes the form of the Church of the Serpent Queen, while in Igbar the Serpent Queen cult has been banished and repudiated, replaced by the Church of the Green Mother.  The different foci and different morality systems of these related groups creates a conflict more bitter than a typical rival. "

(from  the Celtrician worship page (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955390/Celtrician-Worship)

"Two faiths of Great Nebler dominate Igbar.  The now-taken country of the Theocracy of Nebler lies to the east of Trabler, and most of the priesthood escaped into Igbar; but there is also a very large Church of the Lawful Triumverate, (which includes Nebler, along with Rakastra and Abradaxus the harsh), so those two groups are at odds."

"As with almost all Celtrician populations, the Planars that are not well represented in their own church or faith find refuge in small shrines or in alcoves of the dominant faiths.  For example, the Planar Froji has almost no churches or religions of his own. He is worshipped in the southern areas as part of 'The Reborn Anteledar-the faith of the Six', a religion based on the Idea that there is a dream world below the 'Waking Dream' of Celtricia. He was a minor player in the Faith of the Entropic Overlords in the days of Old Venolvia.
And this is what I meant by finding a shrine in a church that is dedicated to another religion. Many planars are not part of the major religions in a town or city, but over time small alcoves or shrines are often put up in related churches. And in this way, the individual parishes slowly change to reflect the needs of that locality."

"In Igbar, there is actually a full Alcove with a font and small statuette dedicated to Froji in the Church of Chaos and Change (Jubilex). Those who seek his favor will go there, and the priesthood of that Church will tend to the needs of Froji, as well as the Shrines of Paz-Hazzle, Orcus the Shepherd, and Lesmick of the Word."

"Someone down on their luck might visit the Dou~his of lucky Ishma, someone depressed might visit Jubilex, the Patron of Irony, and farmers who are planning might visit the Church of the Green Mother or the Church of the Earth. Stopping by a church or shrine is also a very social event, and carries connotations uniquely Celrician.  Almost everyone is greeted by name, or in the case of travelers with the term "Kerma, Amigal!" (Debased Klaxik for 'Most Welcome, Friend').  Churches always have hot tea in the winters or chilled 'Kerri' (chilled, sweetened, and watered down Vneersberry wine) by the front door, and after respects are made to the icons, there are always sitting areas where elders gather and mothers and youngsters stop by."

all from Religions and Faith in Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/25028789/The-Religions-and-Faith-of-Igbar)


"Church sponsored groups are a huge can of worms, as they can be very different. Some operate like the multinational groups mentioned above, like the Tristonian Knights of the Church of the Theocracy of Nebler (also of the Lawful Triumverate), the Defenders of the Land or the Bowyers of Ceminiar.  They are attached to Faiths but seperate from them, more similar to a sect.

On the other hand, The Cobranic School of the Church of the Green Mother, the Bone Knights of Orcus and the Armor of Trade are different, as these groups require more total commitment. These groups take most of their members in from the youth of their faith, and groom them.  These knighthoods act as arms of the particular churches they are attached to, more than as a seperate entity of the faith."

From Knighthoods and Fighting schools (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955684/Knighthoods%20and%20fighting%20schools-Igbar).

There are definitely sects in my homebrew campaign.  There is one big monotheistic religion that is predominate in urban areas, but there are splinter sects that differ from the main church's orthodoxy.  In particular, sects within the religion that revere particular saints are popular even though this is viewed as idolatrous by the mainstream church.

Outside the urban centers, there are all sorts of splinter sects that arose as the admixture of the main church and whatever "pagan" religions used to hold sway in those areas.

Hell, one of the PCs in my current game is an outlaw cleric who is basically Martin Luther if Martin Luther carried a mace and could rain fire down from the heavens.

Friction between sects was a major theme in one of my homebrew campaigns, but the players didn't get into it.  They're not comparative-religion nuts, so it didn't do it for them.

I try to have at least a veneer of 'realism' (there's that word!) when I design religious organizations for my games.  Enough to satisfy me if I were a player, but no more.  Designing minutiae is something I could easily get lost in, and if the players aren't into it, then the time spent is a little masturbatory.

That said, I prefer settings with well-thought-out religious structures - and that includes sectarianism and such.

Quote from: VectorSigma;445791Friction between sects was a major theme in one of my homebrew campaigns, but the players didn't get into it.  They're not comparative-religion nuts, so it didn't do it for them.

I try to have at least a veneer of 'realism' (there's that word!) when I design religious organizations for my games.  Enough to satisfy me if I were a player, but no more.  Designing minutiae is something I could easily get lost in, and if the players aren't into it, then the time spent is a little masturbatory.

That said, I prefer settings with well-thought-out religious structures - and that includes sectarianism and such.

This describes my games, too.  I like putting stuff like this in campaigns, but my players rarely give a crap.

I imagine if there are sects amongst WFRP Halflings each one will have a different prescribed filling for Pie Week!

Quote from: KenHR;445801This describes my games, too.  I like putting stuff like this in campaigns, but my players rarely give a crap.

The trick, I think, is to make these kinds of details intersect with the characters' livelihoods.  

For example, a charismatic sect-leader is kidnapped by a group of gnoll mercenaries and his faithful flock hire the PCs to rescue him.  When the PCs intercept the gnolls they discover that the mercenaries are in the pay of a corrupt orthodox cleric who wants to silence the sectarian leader by any means necessary.  

Once rescued, the sect-leader offers to reward the PCs if they step forward to the church's leaders and expose the corrupt cleric's evil plot.  Now they're firmly embroiled in sectarian warfare...especially if they guy they rescued has some dark secret that they eventually learn.

High Valor has the Church of the Martyr, which is its primary faith (and rewards faithful with miracles, blessings, etc.) However, it has numerous potential sects, orders of monks, and holy knights. They don't all agree on the same stuff either.

There are other religions, but they mostly rely on passed down magic (as opposed to true faithful rewards/guardianship.)

For most people though, faith is faith, no big supernatural stuff in their day to day lives.

The issue about this is the issue about how heretics get power from god(s).

So in the real world you can have all sorts of sects for a particular religion. the Catholics can burn the Protestants etc etc It doesn't 'matter' to god because he doesn't exist (the actual main difference between real religion and game religions).

Now in a game world where god(s) are real you have an issue. If the general population worship Odin and there is a sect that say they are all heretics and to worship Odin you have to wear the lightning-bolts right to left not left to right and so they go round burning the heretical R2Ls then Odin as a real deity that cares enough to grant his followers real manifest magical powers will step in and say "um ...Dave you got it wrong dude the R2Ls guys are spot on" or he will stop giving Dave the ability to summon divine thunderbolts...or he will do the same to the R2L guys.

So real sectarianism isn't goign to work becuase it tends to exist as opposition within one faith.

You can however get Aspects of a single faith that different cults latch onto. One of my Favourite Homebrewed dieties is The Sacred Flame. I built 3 different priest types that all worshiped the Flame

• The Fire of Truth - these guys were monastic and spent their time in serious study (d4 hp no armour lots of extra spells and spheres) and some of them were part of the Inquisition.
• The Flame of Vengance - these guys were a Militant Order (d8 hp, any armour, any weapons and could specialise - still with Priest THACO- restricted spheres, less spells) and they guarded holy sites, acted like the SS to the Inquisitor's Gestapo etc
• The Flame of Hearth - these were the guys that ran most of the temples, covered of the standard weddings, funerals, etc etc  they were (d6, limited armour and weapons, lots of spells but not quite as many etc ) and were the most common sort.

Now the deity The Flame was an abstracted LN fire diety and saw no real need to differentiate between the 3 branches of the religion as they were all Lawful and stuck to what it wanted. There was political tension between them and the inquisitors who were pretty strict on LAW burnt a few people but only those that didn't obey the law.
If a sect had turned up that said that Fire was free and destructive and Chaotic and had tried to drum up followers then well... The Flame wouldn't have granted them any magic power so they wouldn't have gotten very far against the Flame sword weilding militants.

I can see that a Chaos god might encourage schism and internicine warfare however. And that is actually a pretty good hook for a game right there.

Quote from: jibbajibba;445831Now in a game world where god(s) are real you have an issue. If the general population worship Odin and there is a sect that say they are all heretics and to worship Odin you have to wear the lightning-bolts right to left not left to right and so they go round burning the heretical R2Ls then Odin as a real deity that cares enough to grant his followers real manifest magical powers will step in and say "um ...Dave you got it wrong dude the R2Ls guys are spot on" or he will stop giving Dave the ability to summon divine thunderbolts...or he will do the same to the R2L guys.

I get around this by having clerics explicitly *not* get their powers directly from a god.  Rather, they get their powers from a ritual of initiation.  Splinter sects just up and use the initiation ritual of the orthodox church to bestow divine power upon their clerics.

Once bestowed through the sacred rites, such powers cannot be taken away.

Then again, in my campaign the gods are distant, uninvolved figures anyway.

Quote from: misterguignol;445834I get around this by having clerics explicitly *not* get their powers directly from a god.  Rather, they get their powers from a ritual of initiation.  Splinter sects just up and use the initiation ritual of the orthodox church to bestow divine power upon their clerics.

Once bestowed through the sacred rites, such powers cannot be taken away.

Then again, in my campaign the gods are distant, uninvolved figures anyway.

That would be different.
I tend to treat Priest casters like Christian Saints who are the 'real' equivalent.
You could go down the Islamic Marabout route and have a priests power contained in physical baraka and I think that would make a good game mechanic but for D&D the Christian Saint is a perfect match and I am sooo lazy :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;445840That would be different.
I tend to treat Priest casters like Christian Saints who are the 'real' equivalent.

That is how I tend to treat paladins, for the most part.  They're a bit like Joan of Arc; they aren't learned warriors of the faith, but rather normal folks who hear divine forces in their heads that tell them to go fight evil.

I take my cues from henotheism rather than the implied monotheism which tends to seep into gamer concepts of religion. There's no "faith" (believing in something unseen as St Paul said) because that shit is visible. There's little preaching or proselytising, heresy or dogma. Instead, it's about propitiation, group membership (larger community or exclusive cult) and when there is conflict it tends to be a sniffy attitude of "my god is bigger than yours" followed by a shrug of the shoulders.

Tékumel. The highly structured society meant that temples were superficially monolithic, but internally rife with secret societies which were often at odds with each others. And of course, the fact that gods have multiple, distinct Aspects meant that two priests or two shrines inside the same temple complex could be dedicated to very different deities with different rites, dogma, etc.

Forgotten Realms. I distinctly recall mention of distinct sects for Helm, and at least one "heretical" cult of Lathander.

Birthright. Different temples dedicated to the same god vying for the worship of common folk, was a staple of Birthright. Haelyn was the patron god of the Anuire, but off the top of my head I recall at least three distinct churches competing for the Anuirean flock. You could actually play a religious reformer heading a "new" temple, fighting older, estabvlished faiths of the same god for the people's "souls". Much fun was had by us back then.

The only reason the "Gods are utterly provably real" model in a setting would create a barrier to having multiple sects in a religion is basically if the designer of the setting wants it to be that way (i.e. if he gets the gods in question to be so all-out on the intervention scale that they personally detail how they should be worshiped, and also care enough to demand that be the only way).

Otherwise there are at least two basic reasons for divergent sects, neither of which are really limited by the fact of a god being provably real: the first would be location (deities worshiped in different regions should take on different modes of worship, and maybe even different names and physical appearances), and the second would be disagreements over what aspects of the deity (or the believer's relationship with the deity) are really the "most important".

RPGPundit

Besides I know of at least two Fantasy settings where the gods aren't provably real.

In Connan the lead doubts his God constantly even cursing him. The evil cultists he constantly faces may have their gods occasionally manifest but they seem more like demons.

In the Warhammer world it may seem Sigmar, Ulric, Morr etc. have power through their priests but the villain in Vampire slayer Krieger points out "cannot your wizards also heal the sick and cast out our kind? Just because you don't call it magic doesn't mean it isn't."

Speaking of the Warhammer world there is a definate divide in the cult of Sigmar between Luthor Huss' reformers and the conservative establishment. Although the return of a favourible Grand Theoginist may heal that rift.

Oh and speaking of the idiot humans and their false gods there is a rumour that the Bretonian "Lady" is infact a rather canny Lhamian Vampire.

Quote from: RPGPundit;445753How many religions in RPG settings do you know which have different sects or groups?

Because this is another big issue in why (in particular in fantasy setting) RPGs' treatment of religion is so fucking off; all too often all the faithful are of one big mono-cultural mono-dogmatic bloc, which is not how religions work in real life.

RPGPundit

In my own homebrew campaign, everyone essentially recognizes the same gods (there existence is just hard to dismiss since they intervene and grant spells). All the faiths are essentially different interpretations of the pantheon (some place more importance on certain deities, others view the same deity differently). The sects are wildly different enough to sometimes feel like different religions.

I believe Book of the Righteous also had different sects, at least for one of the churches.


Easy explanation for any religion: God grants spells to all who believe in him. The various canon nazis fight over exactly what is important. One sect is very ascetic, even self-mutilating. Another hoards wealth and builds giant cathedrals using slave labor. Both sects still get their spells, since they still believe in God.

Quote from: jibbajibba;445831So in the real world you can have all sorts of sects for a particular religion. the Catholics can burn the Protestants etc etc It doesn't 'matter' to god because he doesn't exist (the actual main difference between real religion and game religions).

Please leave your militant atheism out of this.

Quote from: danbuter;445970Please leave your militant atheism out of this.

Oh I am not milliant , more resigned.
But if the Pope could indeed bring down the power of the lord and smite his opponents with fire then the Irish unionists would look pretty silly.

In the Real religious schism often leads to sectarian violence, Sunni vs Shiite, Catholic vs Protestant, Muslim vs Jew, Christisn vs Muslim,  etc etc . Any lawful or good diety that would provide both sides of a conflict with magical powers to go out and kill each other is dubious.

As I said I could imagine a Chaos god, say Eris, gleefully powering up 4 or 5 different sects with magical thunderbolts and getting to work out what colour robes the high priest ought to wear through internicine conflict.

I really don't have an issue with lawful deities allowing sects. Think of how attorneys work. They follow the letter of the law as far as it will help them, only going by the spirit if necessary.

Quote from: Ian Warner;445955Oh and speaking of the idiot humans and their false gods there is a rumour that the Bretonian "Lady" is infact a rather canny Lhamian Vampire.

Vampire?  I always assumed it was Wood Elves.

Quote from: danbuter;445976I really don't have an issue with lawful deities allowing sects. Think of how attorneys work. They follow the letter of the law as far as it will help them, only going by the spirit if necessary.

As I tried to explain in my example above I think a lawful deity can have orders or separate tradditions but I don't think they can have sects.

Now this is a narrow distinction but I think sects differ in that a sect come into being because of a disagreement between how somethign should be done, a schism, and I am pretty sure a lawful deity has pretty strict ways about how something should be done, 10 commandments, books of Law etc whereas a Chaos god might well not.... Let what thou would'st do be the Whole of the Law.

Now that is my own pretty narrow defintion of a sect and I could see that you might have a different view but if you end up with two sects actually in antagonism and conflict with each other a 'real' lawful deity who provides actual material power due to some effort on their part is going to have an opinion on who is right.

PS. as per lawyers they follow the law to a degree but only in as much as they don;t actually care about the truth. In a legal battle a lawyer is duty bound to put their opinion about their client's actual innocence or guilt to one side. Their job is not to uncover the truth but to present their client's position in a s favourable light as possible, within the letter of the law.

Over in the real world there was certainly a time when pretty well everyone believed the gods were absolutely real. And yet in those times, there were still schisms.

The gods in our own history tended not to resolve schisms, except for once in a while bringing down chosen prophets.  They either didn't care about the variety of modes of worship of them, or they felt that to be a "true" believer you had to come to the true and non-heretical faith for yourself.

I don't see anything, again, in a fantasy world that is necessarily bound to be different.

RPGPundit

"It takes some courage mistress Wetherwax to stand before a god and declare yourself an athiest"

-One of the Discworld gods

Quote from: The Butcher;445866Birthright. Different temples dedicated to the same god vying for the worship of common folk, was a staple of Birthright. Haelyn was the patron god of the Anuire, but off the top of my head I recall at least three distinct churches competing for the Anuirean flock. You could actually play a religious reformer heading a "new" temple, fighting older, estabvlished faiths of the same god for the people's "souls". Much fun was had by us back then.

Yeah, Birthright did it well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;445936the second would be disagreements over what aspects of the deity (or the believer's relationship with the deity) are really the "most important".

RPGPundit

This is why there are different sects of Wee Jas in the Greyhawk setting.

Some worshippers place a lot more emphasis on her "Death" aspect than on her "Magic" aspect.

Quote from: PaladinCA;446446This is why there are different sects of Wee Jas in the Greyhawk setting.

Some worshippers place a lot more emphasis on her "Death" aspect than on her "Magic" aspect.

Great example. And all too rare in RPG settings.

RPGPundit

The Church of St. Cuthbert (Greyhawk) has the Chapeaux, the Stars, and the Billets.  Chapeaux focus on recruiting new worshipers of St. Cuthbert.  Stars focus on doctrinal purity.  Billets focus on ministering to and protecting the faithful.  I'm not a Greyhawk expert, so I'm not sure if there is a spirit of cooperation or a spirit of competition between the various orders.

Quote from: RPGPundit;446356Over in the real world there was certainly a time when pretty well everyone believed the gods were absolutely real. And yet in those times, there were still schisms.

The gods in our own history tended not to resolve schisms, except for once in a while bringing down chosen prophets.  They either didn't care about the variety of modes of worship of them, or they felt that to be a "true" believer you had to come to the true and non-heretical faith for yourself.

I don't see anything, again, in a fantasy world that is necessarily bound to be different.

RPGPundit

Bold is my emphasis..... really ? this is really a valid point ?
Believing gods are real and actually getting magical powers from that belief are very different.
If everyone believes but there is no actual proof then schisms are totally inevitable.

The gods in our own history didn't resolve schisms..... um no they didn't owing largely to their non-existance.
When someone worshipped Shiva in the wrong way Shiva didn't show up and give them a kicking. When someone said Zeus was more important that Apollo, Apollo didn't get all upset by it and have a hissy fit. Now if you look at the actual myths of Apollo and Zeus then that is exactly what they would have done but as they are metaphysical entities that exist only in as much as they allow us to examine elements of our own psyches and personalities ..... not so much physical manifestation.

I'm sure Pundit thought of a smart angle to this perception that gods really existed in antiquity and how it could give us ideas for rpg settings and how it works with sectarian dynamics. I just can't see it right now though.

ETA: Is it something about the Greeks and others always dealing with an intermediary (priests and oracles) and the absence of a bible? Meaning that they couldn't have a very strong orthodoxy in the first place?

For instance: Artemis in city A might feel different to Artemis in city B but the overall consensus is that "it's still the same goddess" and it even work with deities from different culture like Egyptian gods for instance. I find this impulse to find deity analogies radically different to the Judeo Christian mindset in many ways. The liturgy and doctrine become secondary to a perceived primal essence for each god.

I'm not sure I get that right but I'd suppose that in a polytheist mindset there had to be a god for every significant phenomenon of life. How could the people over there not have a god of war? Of course they must have one! They have a twisted way to honor Ares but they are faithful in their own way. Oh they were struck by an earthquake? See I told you their way to honor the gods were screwy!

So it's like in the case of a polytheist game setting there shouldn't be such a thing as orthodoxy right? All local cults and stuff. That's even more work for the GM than a monotheistic setting. You'd better make that fun to your players otherwise that's going to be wasted time though.

I don't use sects in my games where the gods are very involved and close to the world.  Here the issue is more rivalries and trouble within a pantheon, such as the crazy high school known as Olympus.

I do use schisms in settings where the gods rarely manifest and where the heretics somehow can tap into power just as the orthodox.

Quote from: boulet;446557I'm sure Pundit thought of a smart angle to this perception that gods really existed in antiquity and how it could give us ideas for rpg settings and how it works with sectarian dynamics. I just can't see it right now though.

ETA: Is it something about the Greeks and others always dealing with an intermediary (priests and oracles) and the absence of a bible? Meaning that they couldn't have a very strong orthodoxy in the first place?

For instance: Artemis in city A might feel different to Artemis in city B but the overall consensus is that "it's still the same goddess" and it even work with deities from different culture like Egyptian gods for instance. I find this impulse to find deity analogies radically different to the Judeo Christian mindset in many ways. The liturgy and doctrine become secondary to a perceived primal essence for each god.

I'm not sure I get that right but I'd suppose that in a polytheist mindset there had to be a god for every significant phenomenon of life. How could the people over there not have a god of war? Of course they must have one! They have a twisted way to honor Ares but they are faithful in their own way. Oh they were struck by an earthquake? See I told you their way to honor the gods were screwy!

So it's like in the case of a polytheist game setting there shouldn't be such a thing as orthodoxy right? All local cults and stuff. That's even more work for the GM than a monotheistic setting. You'd better make that fun to your players otherwise that's going to be wasted time though.

That is fine but if Ares is actually REAL then he might well have an opinion. So these guys over here worship him like this these guys like that but if one of the guys moves too far well Ares is just going to stop making them magical and so in the next meeting of the global Ares followers club one bunch of guys won;t be able to summon magic armour and smote their opponents any more.

And if God are real then that Earthquake may well be a bit of devine retribution or at least he didn't care enough to protect you from it.

And where you have sects actually fighting each other .... well then most gods will favour one side, actually maybe not Ares as maybe the best outcome for him is everyone to be at War all the time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446536Bold is my emphasis..... really ? this is really a valid point ?
Believing gods are real and actually getting magical powers from that belief are very different.
If everyone believes but there is no actual proof then schisms are totally inevitable.

The gods in our own history didn't resolve schisms..... um no they didn't owing largely to their non-existance.
When someone worshipped Shiva in the wrong way Shiva didn't show up and give them a kicking. When someone said Zeus was more important that Apollo, Apollo didn't get all upset by it and have a hissy fit. Now if you look at the actual myths of Apollo and Zeus then that is exactly what they would have done but as they are metaphysical entities that exist only in as much as they allow us to examine elements of our own psyches and personalities ..... not so much physical manifestation.

My point was that for most of history the vast majority of humankind believed these gods to be absolutely literally real, and had no deep conundrums over the fact that said gods didn't physically show up on a constant basis to set right the unbelievers; that was supposed to be peoples' job, not the gods.
And there's no reason why this same model can't parse over to a fantasy world; you are assuming that because the fantasy world presumes gods to be real in it and grant real powers that this means that they will automatically be "micromanagers" of all their religions, clearly highlighting the One True and Approved Way.  I'm saying, there's absolutely no reason this needs to be so.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;446865My point was that for most of history the vast majority of humankind believed these gods to be absolutely literally real, and had no deep conundrums over the fact that said gods didn't physically show up on a constant basis to set right the unbelievers; that was supposed to be peoples' job, not the gods.

Absolutely. Worshippers also applied the wisdom of hindsight. If a faith had a schism and one side was ground into the dust by the opposing believers, then that was obviously the god expressing his will.

We even have examples in the Hindu faith where deities incarnate themselves as humans for a cycle of the wheel in order to rectify or change some important issue in the world.

QuoteAnd there's no reason why this same model can't parse over to a fantasy world; you are assuming that because the fantasy world presumes gods to be real in it and grant real powers that this means that they will automatically be "micromanagers" of all their religions, clearly highlighting the One True and Approved Way.  I'm saying, there's absolutely no reason this needs to be so.

Indeed. Why would a deity have any interest what its worshippers are doing, provided it is fed mana, treated with respect, or simply left alone to pursue its own desires without pesky mortals impinging on its quality free time. Do deities even comprehend they have worshippers or any responsibility towards them? Are they by nature amoral due to their power and scope?

I include hot elf sects with priestesses in most of my games.

ba-dum.

Anyway, Pundit's initial point is well taken. If you wanted to rationalize homogenous sectuality in fantasy worlds, though, you could do it by way of the supernatural powers: human internecine warfare is effectively quashed by the gods revoking clerical abilities or whatever from those on the wrong side of every schism.

I don't see gods leaving priests without spells, especially big chunks of them, over an issue of dogma. If they did, there's lots of other gods who would happily jump in and offer spells to those same priests. If gods get power based on worship, they aren't going to risk that.

Quote from: Pete Nash;446886Absolutely. Worshippers also applied the wisdom of hindsight. If a faith had a schism and one side was ground into the dust by the opposing believers, then that was obviously the god expressing his will.

We even have examples in the Hindu faith where deities incarnate themselves as humans for a cycle of the wheel in order to rectify or change some important issue in the world.

Avatara, yes. Its where the D&D concept of Divine Avatar comes from. Only in hinduism the Avatar needs to be born, grow up, and live as a mortal, not just suddenly appear full-grown out of nowhere with supreme power.

QuoteIndeed. Why would a deity have any interest what its worshippers are doing, provided it is fed mana, treated with respect, or simply left alone to pursue its own desires without pesky mortals impinging on its quality free time. Do deities even comprehend they have worshippers or any responsibility towards them? Are they by nature amoral due to their power and scope?

Well put.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;445968In my own homebrew campaign, everyone essentially recognizes the same gods (there existence is just hard to dismiss since they intervene and grant spells). All the faiths are essentially different interpretations of the pantheon (some place more importance on certain deities, others view the same deity differently). The sects are wildly different enough to sometimes feel like different religions.

That's a lot like the setup for my upcoming Chronicles of Amherth campaign setting for Labyrinth Lord. The main difference is that on Amherth, the ability to cast spells (magic user or cleric) is rooted in genetics. Since religion is more prevalent than magic, most of these "latent" spellcasters tend to become clerics. And it explains how each person can interpret the wants and needs of his or her god in vastly different ways. After all, if you start slaying followers of a rival sect and your god does nothing to punish you, you must be acting according to his will.

Pete

If I was running a game with a monothestic religion, different sects would be a given.

Given most game worlds have polythestic religions, sects within the faithful come up less reguraly than "false religions" (druids, wizards, and charlatans pretending to be clerics).

Quote from: RPGPundit;446910Avatara, yes. Its where the D&D concept of Divine Avatar comes from. Only in hinduism the Avatar needs to be born, grow up, and live as a mortal, not just suddenly appear full-grown out of nowhere with supreme power.

I must admit of late that I've had an urge to write a Mahabharata book for BRP or MRQ2. I think I could squeeze a lot of gaming goodness out of the setting, though sadly it probably wouldn't be that popular outside of a core niche.

Kings, heroes, honour, war, castes, proper polytheism, duels, impossible challenges, devastating astras and an opportunity to weave in pre-destiny into character creation. Lots of potential! :D

Quote from: Pete Nash;446977I must admit of late that I've had an urge to write a Mahabharata book for BRP or MRQ2. I think I could squeeze a lot of gaming goodness out of the setting, though sadly it probably wouldn't be that popular outside of a core niche.

Kings, heroes, honour, war, castes, proper polytheism, duels, impossible challenges, devastating astras and an opportunity to weave in pre-destiny into character creation. Lots of potential! :D

I wouldn't say it's my #1 choice for a MRQII "mythic historical" setting book (that would be Arabian Adventures, which sounded pretty damn unlikely last time I asked (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44890)).

But I'd buy it, and run it, in a heartbeat. Make it PoD or a ransom or whatever, I'll be there. With money.

Sometimes I use a monothestic religion based on Atenism, divided into sects centered around angelic/saintly patrons inspired by other Egyptian gods.

I like players to create their own new religions whole-cloth. But I usually create or borrow a handful of colorful religions for the players to start with, and to give the setting some flavor. The players can add some of their own sectarian ideas (based on background, prophetic vision, etc), either at character generation or developing during play.

While this can lead to dogmatic paradox, schism or whatnot I think it also gives players some investment in the success of their characters faith.

Quote from: Pete Nash;446977I must admit of late that I've had an urge to write a Mahabharata book for BRP or MRQ2. I think I could squeeze a lot of gaming goodness out of the setting, though sadly it probably wouldn't be that popular outside of a core niche.

Kings, heroes, honour, war, castes, proper polytheism, duels, impossible challenges, devastating astras and an opportunity to weave in pre-destiny into character creation. Lots of potential! :D

I was tempted to do something similar, though not for those systems.  I even tried starting on it a couple of times; but it never seemed to manifest.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;445974In the Real religious schism often leads to sectarian violence, Sunni vs Shiite, Catholic vs Protestant, Muslim vs Jew, Christisn vs Muslim,  etc etc . Any lawful or good diety that would provide both sides of a conflict with magical powers to go out and kill each other is dubious.

Real religious schisms most often lead to sectarian violence when there is a political or cultural angle to the conflict that is the primary driving force rather than a religious one that often leads adherents of the sects to do things that run counters to their religion.  Those conflict generally break along cultural lines as well as religious lines.

There is a reason why Quakers, the Amish, and Suffis aren't generally mentioned in discussions of sectarian violence, except maybe as victims of it.  There is also a reason why there has been relatively little sectarian violence in the United States despite the numerous religious sects that live there, including several home-grown ones.  It's not a given that religious sects will try to kill each other, particularly when the sects in question are truly and deeply religious or when political power is not also at stake.

I do agree that a Lawful deity would only provide magical powers to the sect or sects that get the doctrine and rules right.  A (Neutral) Good deity, on the other hand, may care less about doctrine and rules but would withdraw magical powers from sects that start hurting or killing innocents if they engage in any sectarian violence.  A Chaotic deity would probably not have rigid doctrine, and would probably withdraw magical powers from anyone who tried to create a rigid sect or doctrine.

Quote from: John Morrow;447264Real religious schisms most often lead to sectarian violence when there is a political or cultural angle to the conflict that is the primary driving force rather than a religious one that often leads adherents of the sects to do things that run counters to their religion.  Those conflict generally break along cultural lines as well as religious lines.

There is a reason why Quakers, the Amish, and Suffis aren't generally mentioned in discussions of sectarian violence, except maybe as victims of it.  There is also a reason why there has been relatively little sectarian violence in the United States despite the numerous religious sects that live there, including several home-grown ones.  It's not a given that religious sects will try to kill each other, particularly when the sects in question are truly and deeply religious or when political power is not also at stake.

I do agree that a Lawful deity would only provide magical powers to the sect or sects that get the doctrine and rules right.  A (Neutral) Good deity, on the other hand, may care less about doctrine and rules but would withdraw magical powers from sects that start hurting or killing innocents if they engage in any sectarian violence.  A Chaotic deity would probably not have rigid doctrine, and would probably withdraw magical powers from anyone who tried to create a rigid sect or doctrine.

I would agree with all of that.

Wow is that a first :)

Probably worth pointing out that the Quarkers and Amish are both Active pacificists as well, the the point of going to prison rather than get drafted to the army. I imagine an Amish internicine war would be quite amusing with 2 or 3 groups of very serious men with beards staring at each other and tutting.

Quote from: John Morrow;447264I do agree that a Lawful deity would only provide magical powers to the sect or sects that get the doctrine and rules right.

I would suggest that it would be quite possible for more than one sect to "get the doctrine and rules right", at least inasmuch as those matter any given Lawful deity.  Unless said deity is the God of Micromanaging Every Last Fucking Detail, there would no doubt be more than one way that a sect could vary from another and still end up satisfying any conditions set by a Lawful deity.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;445753How many religions in RPG settings do you know which have different sects or groups?

Because this is another big issue in why (in particular in fantasy setting) RPGs' treatment of religion is so fucking off; all too often all the faithful are of one big mono-cultural mono-dogmatic bloc, which is not how religions work in real life.

Assuming that the existence of gods is trivially verifiable, I think you need to go one way or the other. Either:

(a) The gods are real and involved in the daily business of the church, in which case sects are unlikely to exist because you can actually get reliable updates from god. "Is Bob right or Paul right in interpreting scripture X?" "Bob. Here, lemme just update that blog post to clarify things." "Well, I guess that settles that question."

You can get some interesting stories about Paul, angry with his god's betrayal, storming off... but since he's no longer part of the god's faith, it's not really a "sect". If gods can't cut off their clerics from spells, Paul might be able to sow some confusion, but that's about it.

(b) The gods are more hands-off... or at least, more ineffable. (Paul storms off... but he keeps getting spells even as he starts preaching his alternative doctrine. Is the god really that flexible? Is there a new god? Is Paul's god the true god and the original church has been subverted by a demiurge or demon? Or vice versa?)

I've taken the latter approach in the campaign world I've been running since 2000: I consciously chose to limit myself to a single pantheon of the Gods of Civilization (the good guys) and a single pantheon of Demon Gods (the bad guys).

The worship of the Gods of Civilization is dominated by the Imperial Church, but over the past few centuries a wide panoply of Reformist movements have been gaining traction. The Imperial Church itself has also changed over time, and there are even older belief structures which venerated the Gods of Civilization (and out of which the orthodoxy of the Imperial Church evolved).

I've found this can be particularly rewarding when it comes to adapting existing modules into the campaign world: Rather than just adopting the new gods talked about in the adventure, I'm instead forced to figure out how the religions depicted can be translated into legitimate aspects of the Gods of Civilization. Over time this has tended to add depth to the pantheon, instead of simply spreading all that detail out in a thin smear over a multitude of pantheons.

Quote from: VectorSigma;445791Friction between sects was a major theme in one of my homebrew campaigns, but the players didn't get into it.  They're not comparative-religion nuts, so it didn't do it for them.

My current campaign is set in Ptolus, which has been re-tooled to fit into my campaign world. The biggest changes focus on the practices of worship. (So the Street of a Million Gods, for example, is still primarily focused on Pantheon worship -- although some of it gets pretty esoteric.)

I was pleasantly surprised when the players jumped into a sequence of events I intended to be mainly background detail: They are now deeply involved in the politics surrounding a schism within the Imperial Church involving the local equivalent of a Bishop declaring the rest of the church corrupt and naming himself the equivalent of the True Pope.

Quote from: misterguignol;445803The trick, I think, is to make these kinds of details intersect with the characters' livelihoods.

Matches my experience, too. In the case of the current church-schism plot, the PCs got tied into it because one of the PCs was a living saint for the God of Magic. I was anticipating him going to the local Bishop for guidance, but once he did the local Bishop realized that having a living saint under his influence gave him the political leverage he needed to launch his True Pope campaign.

That put the PCs pretty much front-and-center in this one.

In another campaign, a player took it upon himself to found his own Reformist sect.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447401the God of Micromanaging Every Last Fucking Detail

If someone gave me apotheosis that's the field I'd choose!

Glorantha.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447401I would suggest that it would be quite possible for more than one sect to "get the doctrine and rules right", at least inasmuch as those matter any given Lawful deity.  Unless said deity is the God of Micromanaging Every Last Fucking Detail, there would no doubt be more than one way that a sect could vary from another and still end up satisfying any conditions set by a Lawful deity.

RPGPundit

I am pretty certain that is exactly what a god of law would be like, come on they're a omnipotent diving being who's one aim in life is to make sure that everyone does exactly what they are told. It would be like my wife crossed with the Taliban :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;447401I would suggest that it would be quite possible for more than one sect to "get the doctrine and rules right", at least inasmuch as those matter any given Lawful deity.  Unless said deity is the God of Micromanaging Every Last Fucking Detail, there would no doubt be more than one way that a sect could vary from another and still end up satisfying any conditions set by a Lawful deity.

Quote from: John Morrow;447264I do agree that a Lawful deity would only provide magical powers to the sect or sects that get the doctrine and rules right.

That's why I included both the singular and plural as possibilities.

Quote from: jibbajibba;447723I am pretty certain that is exactly what a god of law would be like, come on they're a omnipotent diving being who's one aim in life is to make sure that everyone does exactly what they are told. It would be like my wife crossed with the Taliban :)

I think that's a pretty narrow view of Lawful that you have there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;447768I think that's a pretty narrow view of Lawful that you have there.

RPGPundit

I am not so sure,  have you read Deuteronomy.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;447776I am not so sure,  have you read Deuteronomy.....

So what? That's just one perspective of what a Lawful deity need be like.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;447866So what? That's just one perspective of what a Lawful deity need be like.

RPGPundit

I am open to ideas give me some examples.

Some Law gods

Jehovah
Marduk
Maat/Thoth
Quetzalcoatl

All of these gods inspired some pretty proscriptive Laws with plenty of sacrifice and execution for minimal crimes. Now if we put to one side the concept that these were all ideas used by an educated elite to manipulate the prolitariat :) and assume they were divinely inspired then these gods of law are petty micro-managers.

Now if you are saying that a God might not care about what their follows do and grant powers to anyone without paying due care and attention then ... possibly but it doesn't sound much like a god a law to me. I would have thought that paying attention and sticking to the rules were pretty much a given. We are not talking Bacchus here after all.

But again give me some examples I am not religious about this :)

I also think it's useful to get away from the whole "Gang of Yahwehs" model of godhood. Pagan gods are closer to what we think of as superheroes than invisible, omnipotent, beneficent abstractions like Yahweh's supposed to be.

The reason a god can't clear up its followers' confusion could be as simple as being in a different country sorting some other shit out. Or he might be around, but too busy fucking those sweet high priestesses / wandering shepherdesses to pay attention to your stupid problems. He might be drunk. He might be stuck at the bottom of a pit he fell into. Or the other local gods might've told him to fuck off and stay away, or else they'll cut his bollocks off.

Maybe he hasn't decided which kind of worship he prefers, and is letting them sort it out themselves. Maybe he likes the variety in sacrifices and demands (sometimes you want horse, sometimes you want roast chicken, sometimes you want a nice warm blanket). Maybe his servants and vassals in the spirit world handle most request and appeals, and they're pretty dim, or open to bribery, or unable to communicate in a clear way due to their character. Maybe he spends most of his time on the road, away from his nagging god-wife, and therefore rarely visits his temples. Maybe he doesn't like his high priest, but is stuck with him for some reason.

He's probably worshipped by an incorporated group of his descendants (supposedly) who trade off duties and who change things whenever they want, rather than a specific ecclesiastical organisation interested in maintaining well-defined dogmas.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;447938I also think it's useful to get away from the whole "Gang of Yahwehs" model of godhood. Pagan gods are closer to what we think of as superheroes than invisible, omnipotent, beneficent abstractions like Yahweh's supposed to be.

The reason a god can't clear up its followers' confusion could be as simple as being in a different country sorting some other shit out. Or he might be around, but too busy fucking those sweet high priestesses / wandering shepherdesses to pay attention to your stupid problems. He might be drunk. He might be stuck at the bottom of a pit he fell into. Or the other local gods might've told him to fuck off and stay away, or else they'll cut his bollocks off.

Maybe he hasn't decided which kind of worship he prefers, and is letting them sort it out themselves. Maybe he likes the variety in sacrifices and demands (sometimes you want horse, sometimes you want roast chicken, sometimes you want a nice warm blanket). Maybe his servants and vassals in the spirit world handle most request and appeals, and they're pretty dim, or open to bribery, or unable to communicate in a clear way due to their character. Maybe he spends most of his time on the road, away from his nagging god-wife, and therefore rarely visits his temples. Maybe he doesn't like his high priest, but is stuck with him for some reason.

He's probably worshipped by an incorporated group of his descendants (supposedly) who trade off duties and who change things whenever they want, rather than a specific ecclesiastical organisation interested in maintaining well-defined dogmas.

Oh I can totally agree that a god of shagging sheperdesses or getting drunk isn't going to be paying much attention to their worshippers. In fact it might be quite nice to have their followers miraculous powers fail pretty consistently as a result.

Justin summed it up very accurately. Either the gods pay attention in which case this shit matters or they don't.

But surely if they don't then that should have an effect on play? So if you are the servant of a lawful god then you can guarentee getting your spells on time, that your turn undead power won't fail you at that crisis point etc ..
If you are the Servant of Blauugh the Lord of Hangovers and Lost Weekends then whilst dogma isn't goign to be high on your priority list maybe consistency isn't goign to be very good either.

Now as I mentioned up post you coudl go to the Marabout tradition. These Islamic Saints have magical power, baraka, and it can be physically manifest. There are plenty of examples of Marabouts tricking each other and stealing their Baraka. ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X8waCmzjiD4C&pg=PA931&lpg=PA931&dq=marabouts+and+baraka&source=bl&ots=hG-jm-02L5&sig=ZntubaFnpe9YB1saovXJWQIxFp8&hl=en&ei=VUiLTaSoDMXBhAfwhrC4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marabouts%20and%20baraka&f=false )
But you will note that whilst Marabouts are closer to god their baraka doesn't seem to be god given but rather is their own. So this is a substantial break with the typical D&D cleric (well the typical D&D cleric where some attention has been paid to religion so not really typical at all but you get what I mean)

I'd be suspicious of gods "of" things though, if we're going for the full pagan experience. The kind of systematised, rationalised pantheon we think of when we think of the Greco-Roman religious systems is very much a post-facto creation. Gods were powerful beings with specific areas of interest, just like Superman spends most of his time dealing with Metropolis, but occasionally steps out to save the entire world. Superman isn't Metropolis, or even the personification of Metropolis. But it's his home, and you'd better watch out if you try and fuck with it while he's around.

Dionysus was the patron god of Thebes not because Thebans were notorious drunkards or some other thematic relationship, but because his mother was from there, and because he would fuck you up if you failed to respect him in what he considered to be his home. Athena was the patron god of Athens because she won a bet, not because the Athenians were particular wise or virginal. The gods favour individuals less because they're devout or representative of the god's theme, and more because they're interesting, or pretty, or useful, or relatives, or a representative of the city or region the god considers their home turf and therefore part of the god's "team", or members of a traditional phratry the god owes protection to.

Gods don't get drunk and fuck because they're the god of drinking or the god of fucking, they get drunk and fuck because drinking and fucking are fun, and gods are powerful enough that they can have fun whenever and with whoever they want.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;447944I'd be suspicious of gods "of" things though, if we're going for the full pagan experience. The kind of systematised, rationalised pantheon we think of when we think of the Greco-Roman religious systems is very much a post-facto creation. Gods were powerful beings with specific areas of interest, just like Superman spends most of his time dealing with Metropolis, but occasionally steps out to save the entire world. Superman isn't Metropolis, or even the personification of Metropolis. But it's his home, and you'd better watch out if you try and fuck with it while he's around.

Dionysus was the patron god of Thebes not because Thebans were notorious drunkards or some other thematic relationship, but because his mother was from there, and because he would fuck you up if you failed to respect him in what he considered to be his home. Athena was the patron god of Athens because she won a bet, not because the Athenians were particular wise or virginal. The gods favour individuals less because they're devout or representative of the god's theme, and more because they're interesting, or pretty, or useful, or relatives, or a representative of the city or region the god considers their home turf and therefore part of the god's "team", or members of a traditional phratry the god owes protection to.

Gods don't get drunk and fuck because they're the god of drinking or the god of fucking, they get drunk and fuck because drinking and fucking are fun, and gods are powerful enough that they can have fun whenever and with whoever they want.

I can see the logic of that and I certainly agree with your post-facto point that later observers try to categorise patheons into working groups. However, if we are talking about a fantasy game where god are real I think the "God's of ...." take is a very powerful one mechanically. If you go the other route then  all goods can grant all spheres and there is no concept of being a Cleric of Law, or Chaos, or Goats, or Cheese as basically you can get those benefits from any god.

Without a doubt historically the vast majority of gods are gods of places or groups. So as you state Athena is basically the god of Athens, Jehovah is basically the god of The Hebrews etc ... but typically in a fantasy Pantheon we do tend to opt for some flavour of those classical divisions, spliting Polytheistic collections into specific Spheres. In D&D terms this was specifically written into the Priest Class in 2e.

As for sex and drinking well some gods do it and some don't. So the Greek God do it quite a lot the Hebrew God a lot less. I can't really recall a Greek Law god. I guess the most lawful Greek god is Hades in as much as he manipulates 'rules' to get what he wants rather than just taking it (Persephone, Orpheus and Eyridice etc).
Actually that is quite interesting when yu consider Greek City states were pretty strong on Laws. They just seem to be less theorcratic. hmmm....

Quote from: jibbajibba;447952Without a doubt historically the vast majority of gods are gods of places or groups. So as you state Athena is basically the god of Athens, Jehovah is basically the god of The Hebrews etc ... but typically in a fantasy Pantheon we do tend to opt for some flavour of those classical divisions, spliting Polytheistic collections into specific Spheres. In D&D terms this was specifically written into the Priest Class in 2e.

Yeah, but I tend to think of as a misapprehension that's been carried over across editions, rather than something you really need to follow. Runequest is the easiest system to move away from that paradigm in, but I think even in D&D it's possible.

QuoteAs for sex and drinking well some gods do it and some don't. So the Greek God do it quite a lot the Hebrew God a lot less. I can't really recall a Greek Law god. I guess the most lawful Greek god is Hades in as much as he manipulates 'rules' to get what he wants rather than just taking it (Persephone, Orpheus and Eyridice etc).
Actually that is quite interesting when yu consider Greek City states were pretty strong on Laws. They just seem to be less theorcratic. hmmm....

Lawfulness is more a theme for spirits in the Greco-Roman religious systems, if I understand things correctly. The semo Sancus and the Eumenides are examples of near-gods that sanctify certain laws, oaths and courts. Daimones were frequently invoked in Athenian law cases to guarantee certain claims. You don't see many full-on pagan gods obeying laws because they are the sovereigns of the natural world - they create its laws, but are not themselves governed by it. Heroes are humans who attain some element of this (usually in the form of immortality and supreme arete).

Quote from: jibbajibba;447936I am open to ideas give me some examples.

Some Law gods

Jehovah
Marduk
Maat/Thoth
Quetzalcoatl

All of these gods inspired some pretty proscriptive Laws with plenty of sacrifice and execution for minimal crimes. Now if we put to one side the concept that these were all ideas used by an educated elite to manipulate the prolitariat :) and assume they were divinely inspired then these gods of law are petty micro-managers.

Now if you are saying that a God might not care about what their follows do and grant powers to anyone without paying due care and attention then ... possibly but it doesn't sound much like a god a law to me. I would have thought that paying attention and sticking to the rules were pretty much a given. We are not talking Bacchus here after all.

But again give me some examples I am not religious about this :)

I think you're mixing up "law" (ie. the "divine sphere") with "lawful" (the alignment).
For example, I would list Zeus/Jupiter as a lawful deity.  Krishna too.

In any case, you're seriously putting the cart before the horse here; you're suggesting that the Jewish God, for example, would necessarily and automatically be giving clear signals as to how he demanded to be worshiped, based on a particular reading of the Jewish biblical texts; and yet, those texts PRE-SUPPOSE a deity that is real and has basically unlimited divine powers, and the people who worshiped him imagined him to be so, and yet there were a great number of different sects of ancient/classical Judaism; nor did all of them necessarily assert that all of the others were not Jewish.

And again, there were tons of different "sects" of Jupiter-worship, based on the different aspects of Jupiter as a god.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jibbajibba;447942Now as I mentioned up post you coudl go to the Marabout tradition. These Islamic Saints have magical power, baraka, and it can be physically manifest. There are plenty of examples of Marabouts tricking each other and stealing their Baraka. ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X8waCmzjiD4C&pg=PA931&lpg=PA931&dq=marabouts+and+baraka&source=bl&ots=hG-jm-02L5&sig=ZntubaFnpe9YB1saovXJWQIxFp8&hl=en&ei=VUiLTaSoDMXBhAfwhrC4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marabouts%20and%20baraka&f=false )
But you will note that whilst Marabouts are closer to god their baraka doesn't seem to be god given but rather is their own. So this is a substantial break with the typical D&D cleric (well the typical D&D cleric where some attention has been paid to religion so not really typical at all but you get what I mean)

Yes, well, mysticism is another area where traditional D&D and traditional D&D fantasy worlds fail miserably at adequately reflecting.   There were plenty of traditions all over the world that believed that "spirit men" got their power from sources other than just direct divine adoration/prayer, without being in any way definable as "wizards".

In many traditions, the source of your spiritual power was far more likely to come from your lineage and (human) teacher than directly from deities.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;448070I think you're mixing up "law" (ie. the "divine sphere") with "lawful" (the alignment).
For example, I would list Zeus/Jupiter as a lawful deity.  Krishna too.

In any case, you're seriously putting the cart before the horse here; you're suggesting that the Jewish God, for example, would necessarily and automatically be giving clear signals as to how he demanded to be worshiped, based on a particular reading of the Jewish biblical texts; and yet, those texts PRE-SUPPOSE a deity that is real and has basically unlimited divine powers, and the people who worshiped him imagined him to be so, and yet there were a great number of different sects of ancient/classical Judaism; nor did all of them necessarily assert that all of the others were not Jewish.

And again, there were tons of different "sects" of Jupiter-worship, based on the different aspects of Jupiter as a god.

RPGPundit

Not sure I see Zeus as alignment lawful (and no I am not mixing them up honest) . Zeus basically does what he wants he certainly doesn't pay much atention to the laws of marriage for example. :)
Jehovah on the other hand is truely lawful of alignment. He actually makes a contract with his chosen people that he promises to abide by, before he smotes a city he sends a guy along to give them a change , Jonah, and he gives his people strict rules to abide by. If anything I see Jehovah as LN in D&D terms.

I bow to your superior knowledge on the worship of Jupiter, afterall that is very much in your sphere of expertise.  However as I posted up thread I would see groups worshiping different aspects of a god as orders rather than sects and was refering to sects as groups with opposing views of the gods will. I know that is not a strict defintion of sects but it relates back to my fundamental point that a lawful (or a good diety) wouldn't magically endow two sides of the same battle with power to kill each other.

Quote from: jibbajibba;448083Not sure I see Zeus as alignment lawful (and no I am not mixing them up honest) . Zeus basically does what he wants he certainly doesn't pay much atention to the laws of marriage for example. :)
Jehovah on the other hand is truely lawful of alignment. He actually makes a contract with his chosen people that he promises to abide by, before he smotes a city he sends a guy along to give them a change , Jonah, and he gives his people strict rules to abide by. If anything I see Jehovah as LN in D&D terms.

In the OT, at least, he keeps on changing the bargains and deals, and he spends a lot of time dicking around and being a douche to individuals I don't think the D&D alignment system adequately characterises most real-world gods.

Yeah, I was going to say that it takes a rather directed reading of the scripture to judge that Yahweh is a guy who acts much differently (with regard to "law", anyways) than Zeus.

RPGPundit