Reconciling the massive failures of 'good' gods.

[mean_liar]

That a god is basically a character out of Heroes of Might and Magic or Warlords, as far as I can tell.

[Username17]

So there is no possible justification allowing for a cleric to act as a lens or catalyst for divine power, some way to convert a deity's power into work, or that a mortal could simply have something unique and wonderful to them that a god could not?

Interesting conclusion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Sure, you could have a situation like Hercules, where he got (past tense) his power from a god and now he has it and it has since grown bigger and now he can beat the fuck out of the god who gave it to him if he wants. But today right now, Hercules is stronger than Zeus. So Hercules is obviously not channeling a fraction of Zeus's power in the same way that the United States is obviously no longer a subset of the Unite Kingdom's economy.

Then clerics should get the same treatment as martial characters. They either get some phlebtonium that completely changes their original flavor, they should be forced to schtup some other power source after a certain point (such as drawing power directly from the universe), or they should immediately have to trade in all of their levels for demigod.

The difference between clerics and martial characters obviously being that clerics have a longer shelf life than the latter, but you play clerics under the assumption that the fundamental basis for the class will go obsolete sooner or later.

This. The shelf life on the concept "XXX graciously allows me to use some portion of its power" is actually pretty long in D&D terms compared to the shelf life on the concept "I am as hard core as a historical knight/viking/samurai/whatever." Especially if the XXX in question is a total hard ass. Indeed, since games rarely go on past level 12 or so, it's a problem that most games can simply ignore. But it is a problem nonetheless.

And frankly, I would adjust the class concept to be more like the priest wizards in Conan than to tell a player at the end of the fucking campaign that they are 19th level and they need a new character concept.

-Username17

[K]

I think Mean Liar wants some model where gods have some pool of power they can grant but not use. Of course, this means that at some point as you level the gods should be worshiping you because you are more powerful than them, but whatever.

Gods are not worthy of worship if they are simply middlemen for power, especially when there are other characters in the party who are getting power some other way. The minute the party Wizard can tell your god to go screw himself, your setting starts to fail.

The basic idea of gods granting power has always been at odds with a setting that has people earning power. You ask questions like "why won't the god grant more power" and "why am I paying XP for this if the gods is granting the power." These issues come into play because we shoehorned the Juedeo-Christian idea of a god into an ancient gods model and heroic myth model where it didn't make any sense.

[Orion]

Features brought in my having clerics get their power from gods:

--you can lose all your class features if you and the DM disagree about what "justice' is.
--you can lose all your class features because NPCs killed your patron
--you can outlevel your god, causing weirdness

None of these is desirable, so far as I can tell.

There's also the question of why Clerical powers progress by XP, although you can gloss it as the need to learn to control and shape the divine energy. Still, much better in my view to assume that divine magic is a kind of *knowledge*, like arcane magic, that happens to have been developed and perfected by outsiders, causing humans who want to learn it to seek their teaching (except, of course, for Archivists).

If you must make is somehow special and numinous, say that Divine magic is channeling the power of the Outer Planes. Clerics already get the best planeswalking, summoning, banishing, etc. So say that you're really drawing the power of Celestia, and that Bahamut just happens to be the foremost expert.

[mean_liar]

I may get my power to move and think from carrots and beets, but I sure as fuck can beat them in a wrestling match. Frank is making the case that I can stop eating, because I'm stronger than food and no longer need it's paltry power.

...at some point as you level the gods should be worshiping you because you are more powerful than them, but whatever.

I see no problem with this. Most of us still want a setting where you can kill gods, have them as deities in some fashion, and have clerics deriving power from them.

The minute the party Wizard can tell your god to go screw himself, your setting starts to fail.

This is true, but only because you have an Epic Wizard running around. And yes, it will upset the setting. How could it not? How could any Epic spellcaster not cause a setting to fail? They're rewriting the universe, apparently in a more immediate way than gods ever do.

How is that actually a problem? That's what an Epic spellcaster is supposed to do. If you're letting Epic spellcasters run around in your game, you're probably okay with letting them do their thing.

[K]

I may get my power to move and think from carrots and beets, but I sure as fuck can beat them in a wrestling match. Frank is making the case that I can stop eating, because I'm stronger than food and no longer need it's paltry power.

...at some point as you level the gods should be worshiping you because you are more powerful than them, but whatever.

I see no problem with this. Most of us still want a setting where you can kill gods, have them as deities in some fashion, and have clerics deriving power from them.

I don't think you can assume that people want all of those things, mostly because they are contradictory. I mean, if I'm level 21 and my god is level 18, it's hard to believe that I'm getting any portion of his power considering that I have more total power than him.

People want gods. Some want Roman/Hindu gods where you can punch them in the face, and some people want untouchable and unknowable and all powerful Judeo-Christan gods.

Some models make for settings that make sense. Others do not.

I don't even think people really want clerics. They want healers, and summoners of angels/devils, and they even want people calling on their patron god for the occasional favor, but clerics?

The minute the party Wizard can tell your god to go screw himself, your setting starts to fail.

This is true, but only because you have an Epic Wizard running around. And yes, it will upset the setting. How could it not? How could any Epic spellcaster not cause a setting to fail? They're rewriting the universe, apparently in a more immediate way than gods ever do.

How is that actually a problem? That's what an Epic spellcaster is supposed to do. If you're letting Epic spellcasters run around in your game, you're probably okay with letting them do their thing.

Again, I don't think that assumption is supportable. The setting does not automatically fail because there are high-powered characters running around in it, as long as your setting is designed to account for the presence of some number of epic characters.

Even if it did, it doesn't solve the problem of clerics being more powerful than their gods.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I think Cleric and Paladin can be melded into the same class. Really, a save bonus and a pony isn't enough to make Paladins worthwhile as a separate archetype.

[Crissa]

I think there's space for a caster-focus and melee-focus cleric. Obviously, the pony isn't it, you're right.

And yes, it seems a cleric concept which gets party favors from his god - if he levels past the god - ought to slowly make his own party favors. I think that's doable, but if gods are all over the spectrum, where that happens is somewhere random rather than fixed.

I'd think of it no different than playing a warrior that has a patron that gives him magic armor or a pile of potions to expend. Eventually those effects are too small and they need to get their own magic armor and potions if they want to level further.

I don't see why DM fiat is an argument in this case. If you disagree with the DM on anything in the game - how a spell functions, the range of your bow, the results of your critical hit to the dragon - the DM negates your character's actions or existence in the narrative.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

Gods are not worthy of worship if they are simply middlemen for power, especially when there are other characters in the party who are getting power some other way. The minute the party Wizard can tell your god to go screw himself, your setting starts to fail.

Not really K. People who are good clerics would not necessarily make good wizards. Therefore if being a wise guy means that your only path out of commonerhood is becoming a druid or a cleric, then you very well may get gods getting worshipped. You need to be smart to be a wizard and these guys aren't necessarily geniuses.

Offering another route to power for people with different innate talents is fine. It's only the problem of if someone can choose to be a wizard or a cleric, and in the case of your game world as a whole, they can't. Players may get to make a character but your average NPC is born wise and stupid or born a genius, and he has to make his own decisions about his career path.

Right now having high wisdom doesn't do anything for you unless you want to go into divine magic.

[Prak]

Warning, long post. I got bored so I started actually reading this thread.

Bahamut could make everything better for everyone right this second by telling his avatar to create a celestial bank with all of the money personally backed by him.

Um, exactly how many people, do you think, would trust a dragon, even a good one, to handle the world's economy?

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will deplete the local fisheries.

The fact is that the knowledge required to make vaccines and steam engines and combine harvesters an crap isn't that hard to impart. Entirely mortal people teach that shit to each new generation without the use of any divine anything on a daily basis. So one of the first assumptions you pretty much have to make is that the gods - good an bad alike - are basically ignorant savages. The reason they don't tell you about the germ theory of disease or how to build a suspension bridge is that they seriously don't know.

Well... it is technically possible that things like that don't work in D&DLand, but I hate "Science don't work heah, boy" worlds. I'm technically fine with the "diseases are evil spirits" model, but "physics is bullshit" worlds suck, you are practically unable to have any expectations for how the world works.

I can see why trying to keep things simple might make the game more fun, but as soon as you say "it doesn't work" to something simple like a steam engine, it ruins immersion.

Well, going by Runequest's Glorantha setting, the only game world I've seen where stuff like this is the case, it's because the world runs on symbols, not science. So a bird has wings because it flies, an arrow is a missile because that's what an arrow is (so it's totally possible to go into the world's command terminal, and name your sword "arrow" and then be able to shoot it from your bow). So, theoretically, a steam turbine may not work in that world, but I don't actually know.

Trying to come up with a power rationing model where it is somehow beyond the scope of Ioun to tell people about the scientific method simply lacks credibility. I mean fuck, if he can tell anyone about anything at any point in the history of the world - he could give that one out. Because it just snowballs. That's how progress works. So you pretty much have to posit that neither he nor any other go of any alignment is any more knowledgeable than a random philosopher of their time.

-Username17

well, in a model where the gods are a product of the people who worship them, rather than vice-versa... that works. But then they're not really gods, now are they?

"How does civilization advance?" is a legit question, but the answer need not be "they're all ignorant savages". A god of knowledge might actually be prevented from imparting that knowledge for the same reason that the god of plagues can't cover the earth in a life-ending plague, or the reason that the god of fire can't toss meteors around: gods can only have limited interaction with their worshippers and mortals are expected to advance under their own powers.

No, I'm sorry, if I'm a god of knowledge, then I'm giving my followers knowledge all the fucking time. I offer it as an alternative to a domain. You can learn an additional 9 spells over a time line if you, some how, actually get that powerful, or I can give you insight into the universe that allows you to better your, the church's, and the average commoner's lot in life. And unless they're adventuring, my clerics probably pick the knowledge, and even the adventuring ones probably pick it and grab weapon and defense knowledge, in addition to one domain.

By the same token, if I'm a god of plagues, then I offer all my crazy cultists the ability to be immune to the ill effects of plague, and become carriers instead of a domain.

(of course, this necessitates some new cleric abilities, but...)

You could take the idea and run with it. A god of knowledge gives out the great secrets of engineering and science, and within a few generations some small backwoods country has industrial technology, and everyone that uses that tech is worshipping the god in some way. Forces against that god turn into raging luddites. The technology itself becomes a threat to most every other god as the god of agriculture becomes irrelevant due to herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and farming equipment. The god of earth is pushed aside and the strip-mining begins. And so on. You'd have some gods siding with the tech - gods of wealth or industry, gods of healing - and others just using it for their own good - gods of destruction and war.

Or you have the god of knowledge working with his fellows and imparting knowledge that doesn't push them aside. Hell, if people worship the god of knowledge just by using tech, then don't people worship the god of agriculture just by agriculting?

Not a leap at all. "All elves can use swords" is the same as "all Asians are good at math" or "all Mexicans know how to steal a car."

"...I was walking out of a mall in CA once and a guy comes up to me and says 'I locked my keys in my car.....you're a Mexican you can get em out can't you!' I was like 'You asked the right beaner fucker' so I helped him out. I broke his window and said 'There get your keys.'....'Why'd you break my window?' Cause I don't have a fucking slim jim, do you have a coat hanger? 'No.' Then shut the fuck up."
-Carlos Mencia

1. Gods are not living beings in any normal sense, but are anthropomorphized representations of metaphysical concepts. An example: The God of Knowledge exists only so long as knowledge itself does - it isn't there as a free-thinking entity who happens to have stolen/earned/been anointed with the portfolio of knowledge, but rather it's only a representation of knowledge itself. It exists for it's own edification or exaltation, expanding knowledge where it can, but it's still not really a mortal in any sense, and killing it is basically impossible without burning every book or somehow transforming mortal concepts of knowledge into something different (such as conflating knowledge with secrets, changing the God of Knowledge into something different to mirror the popular understanding of what knowledge actually is).

2. Gods are different from mortals. Perhaps they were made of the same stuff of the universe itself and you can destroy them only as easily as you can destroy space, or time or the planes. There is something amazing and wonderful about mortals that the gods are envious of (such as limiting Epic capabilities to mortals alone, and/or only mortals can exist indefinitely outside a "home" plane, and/or mortals can exercise their full power without regard to planar location, etc), but the converse is also true: gods are a lineage or species unto themselves, and they are the only conduits of divine power in the universe. They need powerful mortals to act on their behalf to further their schemes and plots.

This is more or less what Glorantha does, the gods are just physical representations of the Runes, which are, themselves, symbol representations of stuff. Like the fire-sky rune representing the sun, and vice-versa, really, or the water rune which represents the concept (and baggage thereof) of water.

they should be forced to schtup some other power source after a certain point (such as drawing power directly from the universe)

Actually this idea is kind of interesting, and gives me an idea to reflavour clerics more as metaphysical parasites, latching onto some cosmic power source and appropriating it's power for itself. Which leads me to the idea that maybe the gods would be all powerful and able to change the world if it weren't for clerics draining their power...

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'm actually for the idea submitted that Clerics just get their powers independently from a deity. That way, the Deity can totally be a powerful monster, an insensate rock, or flat out not exist.

Make "priest" a character background where you get Knowledge: Religion and Perform: Oratory as class skills no matter what class you have. A priest can be a druid (for natural features or nature deities), a wizard (for deities of knowledge), a fighter (for martial deities), and so forth.

I think it could work.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Um, exactly how many people, do you think, would trust a dragon, even a good one, to handle the world's economy?

Why WOULDN'T you?

Banks can only exist in their modern form at all if they're a product of some kind of nation-state. Banks in pre-social contract times are little more than glorified piggy banks. Sure, the banker can perform superficial functions like giving out loans and having a fractional reserve, but there's no way he can do anything better than that.

Bahamut on the other hand is, if you believe 4E flavor text, the 'king' of the good gods. Bahamut's religion is the closest thing to stable government in D&D. And if the bank reserves and currency are personally backed up by Bahamut to the point where he'll ultimately ensure that any of his coins are good anywhere on the planet then you've taken a major step towards having a modern economy.

There's no reason why it has to be Bahamut in particular, he's just the big cheese and the mediator. If you can get people in two different countries to agree to use the same currency then that's an enormous improvement over current affairs.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Um, exactly how many people, do you think, would trust a dragon, even a good one, to handle the world's economy?

I would. In fact, I think that if anyone decides to start writing up any material as a result of this thread, one of the first pretender gods that they should focus on is the Draconic God Of Commerce. After all, dragons and treasure go together like peanut butter and jelly.

[Arcane-surge]

This seems like the place to try and develop and get feedback for an idea for religion in a setting. I like the idea of clerics being the source of their own power, but I also like the idea of gods. Ones so powerful that the side effects of their cosmic grappling can result in the accidental creation of outsiders, but not so powerful that they can intervene in the planes (or too powerful, maybe?). But certainly not limitless, because as Frank pointed out, it makes about as much sense in D&D as it does in real life.

But I'm finding it hard to reconcile these ideas, to have meaningful gods, in that the are capable of influencing the world in some way (otherwise who gives a fuck?), self-powered clerics, who can manage their power without being held captive by the whims of some jackass, and religious tradition, because if you've got your own power source and it doesn't come from the gods, then what do you really need their tradition for?

A concept I thought about playing around with is the idea that clerics are mostly self-powering, but get their domains from the gods, but that throws the whole "Cleric of an ideal" out the window.

The issue of good gods seems less of a problem, because it's straightforward enough to make something more powerful than the gods, and have that thing dictate that the gods don't get to play directly in the planes. They're not jackasses, they're just not able. My answer for "Why not just worship whatever it is that makes rules for the Gods" was going to be because that thing doesn't give awesome powers, but with the notion of self-powered clerics, that's less feasible.

Does anyone have some thoughts on how I can make this work?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Arcane-surge, the general idea is that the concept of 'person who gets their power from a deity/wizard/avatar/whatever' is a concept with a limited shelf-life.

That is, it works the same way as being a mundane viking or a samurai. Your character is made under the concept of only having a finite number of levels and after that point you need to evolve to a new concept.

IAW Clerics of Bahamut can only get to level 20. Clerics of Dionysus only go up to level 14. Etc. After that point you can either form a pact with a new deity (who has some other shelf life) or go the paladin route and get divine power from some unintelligent cosmic force. This way Pelor can still have a bevy of servants he can personally give power to but you don't have the situation of him having to be some all-powerful Yahweh/Allah. Or the foolishness of one of his clerics being able to kick his ass while still getting his Real Ultimate Power from him.

[Prak]

Clerics of Dionysus

I just have to say that at first glance I read that as "cleric of dienonychus".
The concept of a cleric of dinosaurs makes me giggle.

[Blasted]

Clerics of Dionysus

I just have to say that at first glance I read that as "cleric of dienonychus".
The concept of a cleric of dinosaurs makes me giggle.

But it's so full of awesome that whenever I get asked to come up with a deity, it now will be "Dienonychus"

[Prak]

yeah, I'm tempted to write up a dinosaur pantheon now... and not the weird "worship powerful, sentient dinosaur shaped gods" thing from pre-paizo Dragon magazines, clerics that worship actual dinosaurs.

[Username17]

Being a member of a religion doesn't mean that the guy with the next biggest funny hat can beat you up or channel more power than you can. If you think of gods as being like the founders of philosophical schools or like the leaders of organizations, that could totally work out.

If you insist on a definition of "gods" where they have to always be cosmically ineffable and unstoppable or they stop being gods, that just doesn't work in D&D land and you should scrap your gods altogether. Nothing in D&D land cannot be overcome by the player characters. If you go for gods as Nippon Kami or Norse Aesir, then it works fine.

-Username17

[Maxus]

I'm down with that. If I have to deal with religion seriously in the games I run (doesn't come up that often), I tend to use what I stated way back at the beginning of this thread, and what RC said: The gods are potent, and scient, and present. They are not omnipotent, not omniscient, nor are they omnipresent.

But they aren't pushovers, either. If you do something to get their notice, it's assumed they can look in on you later. They may also have bigger things going on than you and might not be able to offer immediate aide, but if they like you, they generally want you to become more powerful and more useful so you can do something awesome for them later. Some of them are even good people, and care more about the world than just their powerplays and struggles and immediate interests.

But Judeo-Christian all-powerful gods just aren't interesting. They have to be too all-encompassing. Now, a god of harvests whose sacred plant is the potato, or a chain-smoking god of justice? Those can be interesting to have show up.

[A Man In Black]

If you insist on a definition of "gods" where they have to always be cosmically ineffable and unstoppable or they stop being gods, that just doesn't work in D&D land and you should scrap your gods altogether. Nothing in D&D land cannot be overcome by the player characters. If you go for gods as Nippon Kami or Norse Aesir, then it works fine.

Or you can put the gods outside of the play area, or make the gods non-anthropomorphic forces.

[Wesley Street]

Or you can put the gods outside of the play area, or make the gods non-anthropomorphic forces.

Speaking of non-anthropomorphic, I think it would be interesting to see primeval Neil Gaiman-esque pantheons created for non-sapient creatures: the gods of jellyfish, the gods of badgers, the gods of dodos, etc.

[Prak]

actually where my mind went, as far as Neil's stuff is concerned, is the endless (though yes they are anthropomorphic), there is literally only one force above them, the Kindly Ones, but, if I recall, they don't particularly crave mortal worshipers (apart from Desire, but s/he/it is the oddball.)

[angelfromanotherpin]

actually where my mind went, as far as Neil's stuff is concerned, is the endless (though yes they are anthropomorphic), there is literally only one force above them, the Kindly Ones, but, if I recall, they don't particularly crave mortal worshipers (apart from Desire, but s/he/it is the oddball.)

What? The Kindly Ones cower and fawn when Death snaps at them. The only power they have over their target is the same power that target's guilt and shame has.

There are people stronger than the Endless, like Lucifer, but the Endless themselves are not all on the same scale. It's debatable whether Destiny has any power at all, or is merely a puppet who can see his own strings.

Speaking of non-anthropomorphic, I think it would be interesting to see primeval Neil Gaiman-esque pantheons created for non-sapient creatures: the gods of jellyfish, the gods of badgers, the gods of dodos, etc.

Wow, that's a lot of species. You might do better to do a generic beastly pantheon which the various animals interpret as parts of themselves. So for example Elahrairah and Anansi are two names for the same animal trickster god; rabbits revering the tricks that escape predators and spiders revering the tricks that trap prey. It could get even more divergent with one god serving as The Black Rabbit, being the rabbit's god of death; but also as Bagheera, being the leopard's god of hunting.

[Prak]

actually where my mind went, as far as Neil's stuff is concerned, is the endless (though yes they are anthropomorphic), there is literally only one force above them, the Kindly Ones, but, if I recall, they don't particularly crave mortal worshipers (apart from Desire, but s/he/it is the oddball.)

What? The Kindly Ones cower and fawn when Death snaps at them. The only power they have over their target is the same power that target's guilt and shame has.

Haven't actually gotten a chance to read that story yet, so didn't know, though through out a lot, IIRC, the endless are very proper about them, lest they piss them off.

There are people stronger than the Endless, like Lucifer, but the Endless themselves are not all on the same scale. It's debatable whether Destiny has any power at all, or is merely a puppet who can see his own strings.

I was thinking it'd be difficult for mortals to fuck with them, but I just remembered that's not true... it's difficult for mortals to fuck with the right one, but a bad DC villain stole Dream's ruby, and a dumb wizard trapped him, so....

Speaking of non-anthropomorphic, I think it would be interesting to see primeval Neil Gaiman-esque pantheons created for non-sapient creatures: the gods of jellyfish, the gods of badgers, the gods of dodos, etc.

Wow, that's a lot of species. You might do better to do a generic beastly pantheon which the various animals interpret as parts of themselves. So for example Elahrairah and Anansi are two names for the same animal trickster god; rabbits revering the tricks that escape predators and spiders revering the tricks that trap prey. It could get even more divergent with one god serving as The Black Rabbit, being the rabbit's god of death; but also as Bagheera, being the leopard's god of hunting.

I think that'd actually be a good way to do it, and allow for people who worship them too, maybe.