How hard is it to write pantheons people care about?

[Prak]

There's a huge difference between having a positive self image and thinking that you are on par with the gods for, at least, importance?

You believe there is some divine spark in humanity(you know what I mean...) that makes it possible for one to become a god, and are acting on it?

[fectin]

But seriously: is David Eddings a good model?

He has two series I can remember, and in each of them, the gods are basically just some dudes who happen to have a head start on everyone else. They don't grant powers to their followers; they personally know more about magic than anyone else, and sometimes teach it to people. But it works like teaching someone chemistry: once someone knows the recipe, they can't somehow "withhold" gunpowder; at worst they can refrain from teaching them about C-4.

For the most part, worship doesn't seem to do anything unique for them. It's convenient to have worshipers, because they can build stuff for you, and do your bidding and such, but that's true no matter who you are.

They do have some unexplained personal puissance, but that could just as easily be an aberrant bout of good writing.

Overall, they're basically wizards with a glowey racial template who have bothered to build themselves a following.

Now, I can't advocate for Eddings writing too hard (and however bad you think it was, his recent stuff has been at least two orders of magnitude worse), but the model seems like it fits what everyone wanted from earlier in the thread.

There are some drawbacks to that approach.

It strongly tends to favor the "ugly is evil" paradigm that Lago has talked about previously, and that's bad. If the points of your moral compass are all "some dude", then any conflict you introduce is pretty much going to be vendetta first and foremost, with any moral struggle tacked on as a justification. Worse, "some dudes" are going to tend to align themselves with people they get along with, so it is highly likely that your righteous paladin is actually crusading against whoever is most unpopular. That's also bad.

Eddings solves this by having all his actual conflicts be driven by some cosmic game of chess between blue rocks and red rocks (really), and that's a little unsatisfying. It's great that it gives some moral clarity (Blue is good! Red is evil! Empirical comparison of outcomes is superfluous!), but that is, on the whole, unsatisfying. That's not entirely due to the incredible triteness of the underlying conflict, it's also because it still undermines character agency.

It also sort of brings up the Elminster problem, though less so. After all, they're just some dudes, not incarnations of moral rectitude. Maybe they aren't going out and solving the world's problems because they're just assholes. That solution leaves characters worshiping assholes though, and that's also somewhat unsatisfying.

[Just another user]

Alternately, Eberron handled this by gods being very distant, not communicating much, and not really giving a shit about their Clerics' alignment. So yeah, the scheming high priest is still getting his power from the god of love and sunshine, but that doesn't actually preclude him being a dick who poisons all his rivals.

Actually, In Eberron there is nothing at all saying that the gods really exist. In character,the priests (most of them) and the people believe it, of course, but there is nothing out of character in the books AFAIR that actually confirm that the gods are real entities.

I like Eberron because is one of the few settings where you can play an atheist without feeling like an idiot. (I mean, in Planescape you can play an Atheist and a cleric atheist, too, but when you end meeting the gods is always a little awkward.)

[Caedrus]

I'm trying DDO out again, and, well, the setting is as shitty as I remember it. It's this generic, fantasy with english accents thing. Eberron has fucking airships powered by bound elementals, fantasy robots as a player race, and scorpion driders. How the fuck do you make that setting boring?

If that's all it were, I'd be able to deal.

No, what's worse are the gods.

The Silver Flame is some bland christian church stand in, which would be tolerable if it wasn't pushed as the main religion of the land.

The Sovereign Host is nine generic good or neutral gods pushed as the other main religion, generally worshiped as a whole neutral good pantheon.

The Dark Six are just crap mirror universe doubles of the SH.

The Drow god is only interesting because he's a bug man. Other than that, he's a generic "how did your culture not kill itself out in it's infancy" evil god.

The only pantheon in Eberron I can bring myself to give a shit about is the Undying Court, and that's only because the creation of the Deathless type "because undead are EVUL! so we have to make a separate type rather than say that 'hey, some undead are good,' like in FR*" pisses me the fuck off so much that I want to punch the setting designer and WotC who picked his setting from a contest in the face until they all stop twitching.

Seriously. How the hell hard is it to create pantheons people can care about (and not because the pantheon actually offends their intelligence)?

As a fan of Eberron, I remember playing the trial for DDO and thinking it did not really represent the setting well (and just was a bore in general, so I didn't go past the free trial). Don't be so quick to yell about the setting designer... a good deal of his stuff got reinterpreted by other writers.

If you read Keith's original versions of some of the religions, they actually look a lot better than in many of the actual Eberron books (especially the Blood of Vol). Also, stuff like Deathless didn't get made up for Eberron, and "Good" and "Evil" alignments expressly don't mean the same thing in Eberron as in other settings, and this is explicitly explained in the setting material.

[Gx1080]

FWIW, I don't like the people who feel the need to play atheists on D&D because they tend to be wankers.

[Libertad]

[quote="Gx1080"]FWIW, I don't like the people who feel the need to play atheists on D&D because they tend to be wankers.[/quote]

Most "atheists" in D&D tend to be anti-theists, like people who don't worship the Gods because they don't like them or some such. Some gamers I've chatted with get the two confused: they view atheist as being the same as "no patron deity" on the character sheet. The belief that "atheists believe in God but hate him" viewpoint is distressingly common among some religious subcultures and probably adds to the problem.

But I think the reason it's hard to write "interesting" pantheons is due to several factors:

Not all game designers are theologians and thus may not be able to craft an intricate religion.

The worship of evil deities and evil religions. The whole "evil people go to planes of suffering" just sets some gamers off in terms of suspension of disbelief. Why worship the evil gods when you can go to Elysium or the Good-aligned planes? The "I'm Evil with a capital E and loving it" comes across as lazy design in works of fiction intended for adults.

[Prak]

FWIW, I don't like the people who feel the need to play atheists on D&D because they tend to be wankers.

That's fair, GX, fwiw, I would never want to play D&D with you because you seem like a wanker yourself.

[Gx1080]

@Libertad

I understand your point, but:

...works of fiction intended for adults.

I'm skeptical on this one.

@Prak_Anima

There's no difference to me between the guy who brings atheism to a D&D game and the guy who brings religion or politics to it. They are all wankers.

[Caedrus]

FWIW, I don't like the people who feel the need to play atheists on D&D because they tend to be wankers.

@Prak_Anima

There's no difference to me between the guy who brings atheism to a D&D game and the guy who brings religion or politics to it. They are all wankers.

Wait. You have a problem with people playing characters who aren't religious and a problem with people being religious.


Yeah, I agree with Prak, you really do sound like a wanker.

[Gx1080]

Not talking about religion (real religion, not fictional) or politics on a game is just good manners. Same as doing it on a job.

[Caedrus]

Not talking about religion (real religion, not fictional) or politics on a game is just good manners. Same as doing it on a job.

And you're equating that with playing a character who's not religious. What.

[Swordslinger]

As a fan of Eberron, I remember playing the trial for DDO and thinking it did not really represent the setting well (and just was a bore in general, so I didn't go past the free trial). Don't be so quick to yell about the setting designer... a good deal of his stuff got reinterpreted by other writers.

If you read Keith's original versions of some of the religions, they actually look a lot better than in many of the actual Eberron books (especially the Blood of Vol). Also, stuff like Deathless didn't get made up for Eberron, and "Good" and "Evil" alignments expressly don't mean the same thing in Eberron as in other settings, and this is explicitly explained in the setting material.

The blood of Vol especially got really twisted around. The version from Faiths of Eberron is almost completely different from the version in the original campaign setting.

Where can I find the original concepts of the religions? I'm curious what was changed in all of them.

[Caedrus]

As a fan of Eberron, I remember playing the trial for DDO and thinking it did not really represent the setting well (and just was a bore in general, so I didn't go past the free trial). Don't be so quick to yell about the setting designer... a good deal of his stuff got reinterpreted by other writers.

If you read Keith's original versions of some of the religions, they actually look a lot better than in many of the actual Eberron books (especially the Blood of Vol). Also, stuff like Deathless didn't get made up for Eberron, and "Good" and "Evil" alignments expressly don't mean the same thing in Eberron as in other settings, and this is explicitly explained in the setting material.

The blood of Vol especially got really twisted around. The version from Faiths of Eberron is almost completely different from the version in the original campaign setting.

Where can I find the original concepts of the religions? I'm curious what was changed in all of them.

Keith Baker wrote enough material on the old forums to fill several supplements. Unfortunately, when WotC switched over to the 4e forums, much of it was lost. I have a few tidbits saved here and there, but I can't find a lot of stuff I wish I could. Also, Keith Baker wrote most of some of the supplements (like City of Towers and Stormreach). Mind, it's not quite accurate to say "what was changed in all of them" because both versions are used throughout the books, depending on who's writing them. And yes, they do often directly contradict each other (I remember some uproars on the old Eberron forums with complaints similar to this: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/65 ... -dune-sea/)

The Faiths of Eberron version of the Blood of Vol hewed a bit more closely to the original version given to WotC, which was cool, because Keith's versions of the religions are better in pretty much every way than they are after certain WotC writers get ahold of them.

The Blood of Vol isn't "Evil," it's a religion that believes in the potential of the human spirit and seeks to provide everlasting life for everyone through undead boddhisattvas who give up their divine spark in order to work eternally on fixing the curse of the gods that broke off humanity from immortality (which is how they explain why the material plane is the only plane with mortals). It's fucking awesome.

The Silver Flame resembled Jedi more than it did the Catholic Church (though it still did have some similarities). The Silver Flame is a mysterious Force, which was used by mystics long before Tira Miron or anyone else came along.

The Dark Six were not intended as an "Evil" counterpart to the Sovereign Host, but rather that they are the gods of wild nature while the sovereign host are the gods of civilization. The thing about the Sovereign Host is that they have a bunch of sects because the guys who took over everything in Khorvaire tried to say "Hey, your gods are actually one of the sovereigns! You just used the wrong name."

In fact, good and evil is depicted by Keith as positive and negative energy and NOT a moral force, though lots of people PROPAGANDIZE it as such (since the religions that use it are the majority and all that). Undead aren't "evil," they're just animated by negative energy. Characters can have alignments that are "Good" or "Evil" due to their attitudes too, but only because certain emotions make a person align with negative or positive energy or something to that effect (it's been a while). This means that "Detect Evil" is similar to a lie detector test in that a lie detector test measures your heart rate and such, not whether you're actually telling the truth or not.

[Swordslinger]

In fact, good and evil is depicted by Keith as positive and negative energy and NOT a moral force, though lots of people PROPAGANDIZE it as such (since the religions that use it are the majority and all that). Undead aren't "evil," they're just animated by negative energy. Characters can have alignments that are "Good" or "Evil" due to their attitudes too, but only because certain emotions make a person align with negative or positive energy or something to that effect (it's been a while). This means that "Detect Evil" is similar to a lie detector test in that a lie detector test measures your heart rate and such, not whether you're actually telling the truth or not.

Wow, that's a lot of interesting stuff... I wish this made it into the actual rules.

Hey another question, do you happen to know what the original price concept for the lightning rail was supposed to be? In the Eberron book, the rail was ridiculously expensive to the point that I'm not sure why anyone would want to ride it.

[Caedrus]

Wow, that's a lot of interesting stuff... I wish this made it into the actual rules.

Well it did make it, in scattered bits and pieces, into the 3.5e rulebooks (Haven't read the 4e ones). It just wasn't as clear as it could be because of the influence of some of the other writers. For example, Eberron removes all alignment restrictions (except paladins, because that's a sacred cow that couldn't be argued with) and explains why, for example, you can have an evil personality cleric of a Good religion and, because alignment is about energy and not morals, he would read as Good if you did a Detect on him (since clerics of "Good" religions channel positive energy). It also goes out of its way to note that "good" characters serving the cause of evil and "evil" characters serving the cause of good are major themes, and gives examples of Eberron's take on morality through its cast of characters (such as Kaius and Aurala). And even with the paladin nonsense thing they came out with things like a paladin prestige class that was a national hero of Karrnath that channeled negative energy and commanded undead and stuff.

It's just that in other parts it would have things that didn't fit with this model, and a big reason for that is because Eberron is written by multiple writers. The Blood of Vol is probably the most glaring example of WotC fvcking things up.

Hey another question, do you happen to know what the original price concept for the lightning rail was supposed to be? In the Eberron book, the rail was ridiculously expensive to the point that I'm not sure why anyone would want to ride it.

Sorry, I don't know offhand. I'd say just edit it to fit the atmosphere you want for your campaign *shrug.*

[Count Arioch the 28th]

The Dark Six were not intended as an "Evil" counterpart to the Sovereign Host, but rather that they are the gods of wild nature while the sovereign host are the gods of civilization.

That's how I always played it in my Eberron game.

the Dark Six were enemies of civilization and order, but not of beings in general. And I changed the patron of the Drow to an aspect of The fury rather than The Mockery because it worked better for my narrative.

Also, the Drow were convinced that the reason Khorvaire elves were pale was because their ancestors were necrophiliacs, and tended to use the term "Corpse-fucker" to describe them. The half-elf ranger took Elves as his second favored enemy because it pissed him off so much.

[Sashi]

Super heroes (and comic books in general) are fantastic sources to crib deities from. Most of them are well-known enough that you can just say 'I'm a cleric of Batman" and or "I worship Superman" and everyone gets what you're going on about, but the decades of writer changes and continuity reboots means that you can build cool funky religions out of it.

[icyshadowlord]

Super heroes (and comic books in general) are fantastic sources to crib deities from. Most of them are well-known enough that you can just say 'I'm a cleric of Batman" and or "I worship Superman" and everyone gets what you're going on about, but the decades of writer changes and continuity reboots means that you can build cool funky religions out of it.

Part of me hopes you are NOT serious about this.

[virgil]

Super heroes are a modern mythology, so I don't see why not.

[Caedrus]

I have a T-shirt that says "WW(batman symbol)D"

[tzor]

Super heroes (and comic books in general) are fantastic sources to crib deities from. Most of them are well-known enough that you can just say 'I'm a cleric of Batman" and or "I worship Superman" and everyone gets what you're going on about, but the decades of writer changes and continuity reboots means that you can build cool funky religions out of it.

I could definitely see that in a Parinoia game!

[Prak]

Rifts game too.

[Libertad]

Another source of problems is the nature of divinity in D&D. In the real world, religion relies upon faith as a primary motivator for behavior. In D&D, the gods not only have physical forms but can converse with worshipers via Commune and Contact Other Plane spells. These are both 5th-level spells, so it's entirely plausible that the PCs can easily get the straight dope on theological debates and interpretations by consulting the Gods' viewpoints directly.

Now, there were mythological stories of Gods interacting with mortals and stuff, but such a world would have a very different take on religious belief. And when the Gods act like flawed human beings, complete with emotions and biases, then many intelligent and educated people may wonder what makes a God any different than a supremely powerful spellcaster.

And that's the big thing about religion: it's an attempt to answer the mysteries of life. When one can answer pertinent questions like "what happens when we die" or "why and how was the world created," conventional religion as we know it doesn't really work in D&D without significant revisions. D&D religion is more like a business contract if anything.

Then there is polytheism. In D&D, the gods have dominion over different aspects. A blacksmith honors and respects many different deities, but he's likely to favor the God of the Forge above the others. Many D&D players grew up in a monotheistic Christian culture, and thus some portray Clerics in their games like Western priests: dedicated to one deity while offering respect to no other. A zealous Paladin following the "one true way" is not so feasible in a polytheistic culture with visible evidence of divine activity. A Cleric of the God of War does not have to honor and respect only one God in all endeavors; there should be nothing wrong with praying to the Goddess of the Harvest to help his farm's crops grow.

I think that it's weird when settings try to shoe-horn in deities like Pholtus (of Greyhawk) or Lothian (of Monte Cook's Ptolus) which are pretty much monotheistic Christian churches. It may plausibly work in Eberron, but in most settings such a deity will be viewed as a madman by most people for denying reality.

[Prak]

well, and again, this goes back to how early christianity was henotheist, rather than monotheist, basically "Our god can and will kick your gods' asses, so suck it."

But yeah, either every religious person in D&D needs to be a henotheist, or there needs to be more portrayal of common people honoring many gods. Honestly it wouldn't be so bad to have PCs being almost henotheistic, where they nominally recognize the whole pantheon, but specifically favour one god, but there does need to be less "those bad people don't worship Pelor!" and more "My patron Pelor has granted me power to protect people from the ravages of the fell god Orcus!"

[Swordslinger]

Another source of problems is the nature of divinity in D&D. In the real world, religion relies upon faith as a primary motivator for behavior. In D&D, the gods not only have physical forms but can converse with worshipers via Commune and Contact Other Plane spells. These are both 5th-level spells, so it's entirely plausible that the PCs can easily get the straight dope on theological debates and interpretations by consulting the Gods' viewpoints directly.

That's what makes the Eberron style of deities so good. There actually is no Sovereign host that you can go and talk to and get answers, so it allows for varied sects of each religion and for people to worship in their own way.

In standard D&D religions you won't have too many varying opinions because whenever there's a dispute, you can quite literally just ask the god himself, assuming the god doesn't decide to come down and tell you (or simply cut off your spells for going against his wishes). There's really no room for inter religion ideological debates in D&D.

I like the Eberron model because it allows varied individuals to have their own views about the Silver Flame or the Dark Six, or even worship new gods altogether.