Roleplaying religion
What is it about Gnome Stew? Must all their posts strike a nerve?
Their new post is about religion, presumably in a D&D setting or similar. As I read it (and now, as I re-read it), I’m filled with tons of counter-points and a strong desire to point out their assumptions. Instead, I shall endeavour to answer their questions, and preach on my own:
Why would people be evil if they know with a certainty what will happen in the afterlife?
Because they do not. That is one of the “ultimate” laws in every one of my D&D games — though I will admit that it’s another one of my “stolen” ideas — nobody knows for certain what happens in the afterlife. If you’re raised, you forget. If you use a Speak With Dead type of spell, it ceases to function if you ask the question. The Gods in a D&D campaign can promise, but there is no way to be certain. So why do evil people act evil? Presumably because their evil gods promise them rewards in the hereafter, much like suicide bombers are promised virgins.
Polytheism and the Cleric
I like how the Second Edition of D&D handled Polytheism. Cleric spells were divided into spheres of influence (healing, weather, etc.). In the Priest’s Handbook, they introduced many different types of gods. Each had major and minor spheres of influence, from which worshipers could choose their particular priestly spells. A priest could conceivably be an Oracle, Smiter, Healer, Nature-person, or whatever best fit the god they worshiped.
In the fourth edition, D&D has gone back to the 1st edition Cleric, more-or-less. This Cleric is based on the Christian God — they heal, they smite. A true polytheistic priest would either worship one God, and have very specific powers, or would be a priest of the entire pantheon, with a more broad set. But it’s hard to imagine a worshiper of Thor handing out Cure Serious Wounds, and then casting Shillelagh.
However, the Christian Cleric (and Paladin) are the current classes, as such as they are. If you’re really going for realism in your game, you have to cut out the pantheon — these classes simply do not make sense, otherwise. Or, you can throw reality out the window, and worshipers of the God of Mischief can be mischief-free Christian Clerics. Your choice, I guess.
A better choice is to leave out the Cleric altogether, or force them to worship one of a couple of Gods, who allow for adventurers (Justice, Wisdom, and the like), and fit the Cleric ethos, more or less.
Polytheism and that other polytheism
Another concern is the “competing polytheism”. Earth has had a Greek pantheon, a Norse pantheon, etc. So clearly your fake world needs all these too.
Wrong.
I mean, sure, you could … but the real-world multi-pantheons (and single God) set-ups were a result of the gods being made up by people, and not actually being real. Presumably, in D&D land, if you don’t believe in a God they might just show up and bitch-slap you. If the Gods are real, they do not need to be different in different places … they could go by different names, of course. And the weather god in the desert could quite well be different from the weather god in a jungle. But why do the sun gods need to be different in the two places? Really?
In answer to all these questions, Gnome Stew comes up with one answer: Belief defines reality. I love this answer, and have played several games in which this is the case. But it is not the only answer. One God, a small group of competing gods, a single pantheon, or multiple pantheons with cross-overs (sun god, moon god, and the like) are all perfectly acceptable solutions to the question of religion in a game. Even competing pantheons can be interesting in the right light (the “new” pantheon and the Titans of old).
As has been mentioned, No Clerics Allowed is another. I’ve played in a lot of games over the years, and it seems to me that all the best ones were lacking in Clerics. No judgment intended, that’s just the way it was. There aren’t any Clerics in Lord of the Rings either. Just sayin’.
Belief defines reality is interesting, but can be a rather deep concept to explore via D&D, which is a very combat-oriented system. Developing it, but not exploring it will just make a GM sad.
At least, it did to me.
Related articles: