| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 19:27:03
|
More and more, the impression we're getting of the deities is that they are shaped (at least to some extent) by the beliefs of their followers. Their avatar "image" and church teachings, even their thoughts and actions, seems to be affected by a "mass effect" of their faithful's beliefs.
Is this a good thing, though?
I get the basis for why this might be happening: it would explain why deities change (sometimes dramatically) due to heretical beliefs gaining popularity, or how they change when they absorb/kill another deity and adopt their followers, or even the "slow drift" change in a deity over millenia. Mortal beliefs change.
But is it that the deities are reacting and adapting to their followers' needs? Or is it really the case that mortals can have this kind of impact on the deity? So far, it appears to be the latter.
Would you want to be a Realms deity, if this is true?
In a world where deities physically interact and/or speak directly to their worshippers, what are the implications for high priests, the faithful, and the deity itself?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 19:52:32
|
-Goes back to a basic point: Do deities themselves shape the beliefs of their followers by stating specific rituals, rites, dogmas, and so on, or are the deities themselves shaped by the beliefs of their followers, a la Planescape?
-Since we're talking about the Forgotten Realms, I generally get the feel that deities simply adapt to the changing beliefs of their followers. We know that they exist, and that they can think independently of their followers, so it stands to reason that they identify that the beliefs of their followers are changing, and choose to change how they go about things. If it were the reverse, I think that in the annals of history, you'd see a lot more deities changing (their personas, their portfolios, their appearances, their dogmas, their rituals, whatever). Looking historically at Christianity, a single council attended by 200-300 men drastically changed the religion, from being much more theologically varied in nature to being the Christianity that it is right now. At various points in Faerūn's history, religious councils of however many have convened for whatever reason, it stands to reason. It'd be hard to have churches that extend across the entire continent, with various districts across multiple nations all preaching the same dogma without periodic meetings. While it theoretically could have happened, nowhere in canon do we have instances detailed where church dogmas have changed as a result of these kinds of meetings, and as a result, the personas, appearances, portfolios, whatever of the deities themselves have changed.
-As I mentioned in the other thread, deities objectively existing and mortals being able to interact with them directly causes a whole bunch of problems when you want to look at this question. The concept of deities changing, and the concept of deities allowing heresies to occur within their churches (especially ones that really differ a great deal from the orthodox church), has converted me into the Eberron way of handling deities in D&D- that they're seemingly there, as spells get granted, but they are mysterious and cannot be 'confirmed'. Selūne granting a corrupt priest spells, when we know for certain that Selūne exists, she is generally a good deity, and so on, it doesn't make sense. Selūne granting a corrupt priest spells, when we believe Selūne exists, and that is is a good deity and so on, but don't know for sure (or her followers), makes more sense. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 04 Jun 2012 20:00:44 |
 |
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 20:16:53
|
I've always held that deities can't or don't want to watch over the minds of every single worshipper. Sure they most likely pay attention to the most powerful, but the corrupt priest may not get caught unless a deity zeros in on them or perhaps someone brings it to their attention. A good deity supporting a corrupt priest sure doesn't make sense, but a good person can occasionally do some bad things. Plus, it's also possible that supporting a bad apple, may indirectly support or be working towards some other objective a power is working on, which us mortals just can't make sense of. Good and bad have always been pretty clearly defined and it is sometimes interesting to see things get muddied up and drift into the gray areas sometimes. Makes for interesting writing in novels, but I'm not sure we'd see that in actual gaming as most players want to know where to stick the business end of their sword and not worry about moral implications.
There's a lot we don't know regarding how deities work but I would assume they react, adapt, and are possibly influenced by follower belief. I'd also add in deities most likely have a goal or business plan so to speak that they are pursuing that can modify or tweak they interact with the world. And would I like to be a deity? Tempting, but I think I'd say no. Much rather be an individual that isn't constrained by all the rules deities have to follow. ;)
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7966 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 22:07:37
|
| D&D worlds are governed by magic, and one of the fundamental precepts of magic is (said to be) that belief becomes manifest. I suppose entropy is reversed; in our world complex things naturally tend to diffuse into simpler particles, in a magical world simple things naturally tend to form into complex things. If enough people in the Realms believe that their world is flat then their world (and the divine power who "created" it) will eventually change to make the belief into fact. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2012 : 23:48:48
|
I prefer to consider deities as the embodiment of concepts, like outsiders are.
That said, a deity behaves and appears to his/her followers as they perceive the concept he/she tries to represent. Some of them change depending on the point of view of their observer and their evolution over time (like, say, beauty); others are objective and cannot vary (like the idea of race. A deity who, among the other things, represent an elf should appear like an elf).
I wouldn't like it if belief alone shaped deities. Gods and goddesses -embodying ideas- should be definite beings and even capable of developing ''personalities'' which fit their spheres of influence. Only the way they appear should vary according to who is ''looking at them'', if their idea allows such variety (as I said above).
To be honest, if divine beings were just blobs of energy shaped by people's mind, then my interest in them would be next to nothing.
As for the corrupted priests, I like what Eilserus wrote. Deities are not all-powerful, they cannot know what's in the mind of each of their followers, so it is possible to have priest(esse)s who don't respect their deity's teachings while still receiving spells for some time, until they gets unmasked. Or they could be useful to accomplish something their patron(ess) desires. Or other things along these lines. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Jun 2012 00:01:36 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 00:03:45
|
This why I figure most powers (like archfiends, primordials, etc) do not want to be 'gods' - its a double-edges sword.
You get a huge power boost by tapping into the faith-pool, but you are then constrained by mortal belief. Most uber-beings simply do not want to take that chance. No followers = static existence.
Since most deities (probably all, but thats another argument) were once human, there shouldn't be a choice involved - the very act of ascendance means someone, somewhere already idolizes you (and probably a group of someones). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Gray Richardson
Master of Realmslore
USA
1291 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 00:57:02
|
I find the question odd. It seems akin to such questions as: Do you agree with gravity? I find Tornadoes inconvenient, do you think we should have them? Why doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics ever answer my emails?
I am not being mocking or dismissive, but it's such a long standing mechanic of the game (that gods and their divine planes are susceptible to belief) that it seems as odd to question it as it would be to question a physical constant or any other law of physics. I see it as a feature, not a bug. It's one of the concepts that inspires wonder in me and one that I find delightful.
If you are new to the game and haven't read any of the amazing Planescape supplements (run, don't walk, and get a copy of On Hallowed Ground or Guide to the Astral Plane), then I can see how the idea of it might be strange and counter-intuitive to you. It's an idea that informs a lot of fantasy literature, such as Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. (Another book worth reading!) But it's an idea that goes back a long time (see the original Star Trek episode, "Who morns for Adonais?")
In fact, you can even see it in Greek Myths, for instance: was Eros the son of Aphrodite? Or did Eros spring from the primordial egg of Nyx? Was it Apollo or Helios that drove the chariot of the sun? Conceptions of the gods and their myths were fluid and changed over time and geographic distance. Some Greek and Roman gods even ended up becoming Judeo-Christian devils -- for example, Dis Pater and Orcus were once Roman gods of the underworld. When you see how the Egyptian gods changed over time, how the Greek gods changed (especially as adopted by the Romans) or how the Mesopotamian gods changed through successive civilizations from Sumer to Akkadia, to Babylon and Assyria, you realize that the fluidity of identity of gods is as changeable as the evolution of languages over time, or in government, fashion, diet or any other marker of cultural identity.
One thing that I love about the treatment of gods in the Forgotten Realms, is that gods are mysterious and cannot always be pinned down. In some ways they are very human (most of them are ascended mortals); they can be capricious, vindictive, trusting, treacherous, merciful -- they can act and react emotionally in all the ways that mortals do. But in other ways they are inscrutable. They are forces of nature. They move in mysterious ways.
DM's are free to run their gods more "scrutably" if they like. But I, for the most part, very much like the way they have been handled in Forgotten Realms sourcebooks up to now. When I run my games, I can't recall ever having my players talk to a god directly. On a few occasions, characters have received signs or dreams to point the way, but I try to keep the veil of mystery always in place.
I think it's a mistake to treat deities as merely super-powered humans. Can you psycho-analyze a hurricane? Can you trick an earthquake? Yes D&D gods have personalities, and in D&D one may possibly encounter a god and speak with him. But to mistake gods for human is to try and put them in a box that is way to small. They don't fit and it's very disrespectful.
The dumbest god is smarter than any PC. They have access to senses beyond anything you can fathom. They are aware of everyone who is speaking their name in prayer at any given moment. They can sense anything anywhere having to do with their portfolio (within their geographical sphere of influence.) And yet gods will sometimes make colossal blunders. They do sometimes get tricked. They can be rash, lustful, jealous, or react in anger. After all, they're only human.
It's this dichotomy, their nigh omniscience and omnipotence combined with their almost human foibles and peccadilloes that makes them so compelling and interesting. And I wouldn't prefer it any other way. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 01:46:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
I find the question odd. It seems akin to such questions as: Do you agree with gravity? I find Tornadoes inconvenient, do you think we should have them? Why doesn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics ever answer my emails?
I am not being mocking or dismissive, but it's such a long standing mechanic of the game (that gods and their divine planes are susceptible to belief) that it seems as odd to question it as it would be to question a physical constant or any other law of physics. I see it as a feature, not a bug. It's one of the concepts that inspires wonder in me and one that I find delightful.
If you are new to the game and haven't read any of the amazing Planescape supplements (run, don't walk, and get a copy of On Hallowed Ground or Guide to the Astral Plane), then I can see how the idea of it might be strange and counter-intuitive to you. It's an idea that informs a lot of fantasy literature, such as Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. (Another book worth reading!) But it's an idea that goes back a long time (see the original Star Trek episode, "Who morns for Adonais?")
In fact, you can even see it in Greek Myths, for instance: was Eros the son of Aphrodite? Or did Eros spring from the primordial egg of Nyx? Was it Apollo or Helios that drove the chariot of the sun? Conceptions of the gods and their myths were fluid and changed over time and geographic distance. Some Greek and Roman gods even ended up becoming Judeo-Christian devils -- for example, Dis Pater and Orcus were once Roman gods of the underworld. When you see how the Egyptian gods changed over time, how the Greek gods changed (especially as adopted by the Romans) or how the Mesopotamian gods changed through successive civilizations from Sumer to Akkadia, to Babylon and Assyria, you realize that the fluidity of identity of gods is as changeable as the evolution of languages over time, or in government, fashion, diet or any other marker of cultural identity.
One thing that I love about the treatment of gods in the Forgotten Realms, is that gods are mysterious and cannot always be pinned down. In some ways they are very human (most of them are ascended mortals); they can be capricious, vindictive, trusting, treacherous, merciful -- they can act and react emotionally in all the ways that mortals do. But in other ways they are inscrutable. They are forces of nature. They move in mysterious ways.
DM's are free to run their gods more "scrutably" if they like. But I, for the most part, very much like the way they have been handled in Forgotten Realms sourcebooks up to now. When I run my games, I can't recall ever having my players talk to a god directly. On a few occasions, characters have received signs or dreams to point the way, but I try to keep the veil of mystery always in place.
I think it's a mistake to treat deities as merely super-powered humans. Can you psycho-analyze a hurricane? Can you trick an earthquake? Yes D&D gods have personalities, and in D&D one may possibly encounter a god and speak with him. But to mistake gods for human is to try and put them in a box that is way to small. They don't fit and it's very disrespectful.
Yes, deities are not super humans, but embodiment of concepts, beyond mortal nature and understanding and, by representing ideas, they are indeed influenced by how said abstractions are perceived among mortals, or by how they evolve with time (unless we're talking about fixed, tangible notions).
However, being ideas incarnate, god(desse)s have to be something definite, with their story and all that defines them for the entities they are. If they were just what their followers believed, their characterization would be too vague to attract my interest (i.e. they couldn't develop their personality, they couldn't have some sort of identity because they'd be too variable to be coherent). I'm not saying that belief shouldn't influence deities, far from it, I'm saying that it shouldn't define them.
If some idea about a deity which characterizes he/she in a way that doesn't mirror him/her at all started spreading among mortals, said deity shouldn't be changed to fit this new perspective.
quote:
The dumbest god is smarter than any PC. They have access to senses beyond anything you can fathom. They are aware of everyone who is speaking their name in prayer at any given moment. They can sense anything anywhere having to do with their portfolio (within their geographical sphere of influence.) And yet gods will sometimes make colossal blunders. They do sometimes get tricked. They can be rash, lustful, jealous, or react in anger. After all, they're only human.
It's this dichotomy, their nigh omniscience and omnipotence combined with their almost human foibles and peccadilloes that makes them so compelling and interesting. And I wouldn't prefer it any other way.
Yes, that's part of their charme. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Jun 2012 01:53:57 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 02:03:11
|
Gray:
I can understand how you might get the impression, from the way I asked the question, that I'm some kind of blind and ignorant noob. However, my interest, familiarity and intent in asking this question may be different than what you think.
As we are seeing the beginnings of 5E, and with the upcoming Ed Greenwood Realms, we have opportunities here to examine core concepts, ideas and beliefs about "the" Realms as well as the different choices both Ed and individual gamers make for their Realms.
Myself, having been with D&D since Chainmail and a fan of the Realms since it first showed up in Dragon articles, I started diverging my Realms from canon prior to the ToT. One major difference with mine is that I never have the gods personally interact with people. You'd never see an avatar show up in my Realms, much less provide answers through conversations. Even celestial/angelic representatives are extremely rare. The gods in my Realms are entities that are far more distant and mysterious than in the canon Realms. And I have incorporated parts of Planescape, as well, but not Spelljammer or On Hallowed Ground.
Still, I am interested in the canon world, how other players and DMs perceive these elements, and what they use and discard.
So it's not a lack of familiarity or pure ignorance on my part. I've also studied history and mythology at the college level but I don't like blurring RL myth with game "reality". I'd never run my game deities as they've been shown in some FR novels, and I'd argue with your statement that "The dumbest god is smarter than any PC." Often in novels, even typically, their actions are incredibly myopic and poorly thought out. But that's a separate issue.
I'm just curious what other people think, and how they feel about these issues. That's all.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 04:25:36
|
The idea that mortal belief can influence the gods doesn't bug me too much, because of one simple factoid: the gods can influence mortal belief.
Say there's a deity name Pruf. Pruf is the god of alcohol. He's into imbibing freely and having a good ol' time, but not into getting drunkenly violent or getting so plastered you do or say something stupid.
Now, a bunch of happy drunks can be happily drinking and imbibe a little too freely, and descend into drunken debauchery. If this happens frequently amongst Pruf's followers, then he could change from being a god of happy drunks to a god of general drunkeness, leaning more towards its negative aspects than its postive aspects.
But -- here's the rub. Pruf doesn't have to sit back and let this happen! Pruf could easily show his disfavor by making the drinks of those who've had to much taste really bad. He could show his disfavor by rewarding drunken debauchery with debilitating, days-long hangovers, or by visiting loud noises and the smell of food on those with hangovers. He could cause those who drink too much to suffer all of the physical effects, but remain mentally alert and fully aware of their loss of control, not to mention feeling every minute of the subsequent hangover.
All Pruf has to do is show his favor to those who never get worse than being a happy drunk, and to show his disfavor to those who overdo it -- as long as he stays on top of that task, he'll not change involuntarily.
A deity who is changed by mortal belief is one who issn't safeguarding his duties and portfolios. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 04:56:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The idea that mortal belief can influence the gods doesn't bug me too much, because of one simple factoid: the gods can influence mortal belief.
Say there's a deity name Pruf. Pruf is the god of alcohol. He's into imbibing freely and having a good ol' time, but not into getting drunkenly violent or getting so plastered you do or say something stupid.
Now, a bunch of happy drunks can be happily drinking and imbibe a little too freely, and descend into drunken debauchery. If this happens frequently amongst Pruf's followers, then he could change from being a god of happy drunks to a god of general drunkeness, leaning more towards its negative aspects than its postive aspects.
But -- here's the rub. Pruf doesn't have to sit back and let this happen! Pruf could easily show his disfavor by making the drinks of those who've had to much taste really bad. He could show his disfavor by rewarding drunken debauchery with debilitating, days-long hangovers, or by visiting loud noises and the smell of food on those with hangovers. He could cause those who drink too much to suffer all of the physical effects, but remain mentally alert and fully aware of their loss of control, not to mention feeling every minute of the subsequent hangover.
All Pruf has to do is show his favor to those who never get worse than being a happy drunk, and to show his disfavor to those who overdo it -- as long as he stays on top of that task, he'll not change involuntarily.
A deity who is changed by mortal belief is one who issn't safeguarding his duties and portfolios.
I'm inclined to agree, but it raises another thorny question: how far can deities go, in such a direct way?
With your Pruf example, is he interfering with free will? Is he only allowed to directly punish his committed faithful, or can he do this to everyone that follows his pantheon? Making mortals seriously ill will indeed shape belief, but would he be crossing the line of other gods' portfolios? Really sick, those people would ditch farm work for the morning... at which point the deities of work and sunshine get mad and consider more punishments... and your mortals are now under a tyrannical pantheon.
How punishing can gods be in the name of shaping their portfolios? Or is he only allowed to influence his church's dogma? Or prevent heresies? What's the limit, before all gods are made tyrannical?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 15:27:59
|
| What I wouldn't like is to see the principle working too obviously and openly; it's fine as an interpretation and a partial description, denaturing and dispiriting if done too straightforwardly and mechanically. These are supposed to be mysteries. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 17:29:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
I'm inclined to agree, but it raises another thorny question: how far can deities go, in such a direct way?
With your Pruf example, is he interfering with free will? Is he only allowed to directly punish his committed faithful, or can he do this to everyone that follows his pantheon? Making mortals seriously ill will indeed shape belief, but would he be crossing the line of other gods' portfolios? Really sick, those people would ditch farm work for the morning... at which point the deities of work and sunshine get mad and consider more punishments... and your mortals are now under a tyrannical pantheon.
How punishing can gods be in the name of shaping their portfolios? Or is he only allowed to influence his church's dogma? Or prevent heresies? What's the limit, before all gods are made tyrannical?
Pruf, like all deities, can protect and enforce his portfolio. Doing so doesn't interfere with free will -- people are free to disobey and still get plastered. Anytime someone is drinking alcohol, that's his domain, so he'd be free to show his pleasure or displeasure to drinkers.
If a drunken farm worker was too hungover to get up in the morning, that's not going to affect Lathander or Chauntea. The farm worker would hopefully learn his lesson and stop drinking so heavily. Again, it was his choice to drink.
If, on the other hand, one drunken farm worker resulted in an entire community having a nasty hangover, then that's going too far, and other gods would be justified in reacting.
Now, obviously, a deity is not going to be eagerly eyeballing every single person interacting with their portfolio, ready to smite or reward for the slightest action. But they will pay more attention to their own followers, and they will be able to send signs of pleasure or displeasure -- maybe not as overt as what I described, but that will still be an option. A deity who is tweaked will start with smaller signs of displeasure -- perhaps a favorite beer would taste really bad, for a moment or two. Then, if the follower continues to misbehave, the signs get more noteworthy, to the point that major transgressions can result in a divine servitor showing up to say "Knock it off!"
Of course, a deity could go the other way, and reward those he feels are sticking to his teachings, and not reward at all -- perhaps to the point of weakening or withholding spells -- those who don't.
The point is, though, that a deity is not powerless. If a deity does not agree with how people are worshipping, that deity has options for showing people the right way. Therefore, while a deity can be influenced by its worshippers, the deity can also influence how it is worshipped.
So a deity that changes because of its worshippers is a deity that either wasn't paying attention, or one that chose to allow the change.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 18:27:31
|
Thats an excellent point - if a deity is the sentience of a racial overmind and/or concept, and that concept is worshiped in some form, then the consciousness itself should be able exert certain influence over its own existence.
For example, a mortal can let time slip by, and their hair can start getting grey, and they could start piling on the pounds, maybe start walking around in frumpy pajamas (or a moo-moo) all day...
Or they could decide to do something about it - go to the gym, get a make-over, go on a diet, dye that grey hair... and be a whole new them.
Ergo, a god's 'body' is really just the belief itself, and if it tries hard enough it can alter it. It's a lot of work, and to be honest, most deities are very lazy, and just let time take its course, but an active, ambitious (and probably fairly new) deity should be able to steer its own existence somewhat.
So I guess a good saying amongst gods would be, "It's your portfolio, don't let it go to pot."
Interestingly, this brings up another 'cosmic conundrum' - suppose an immortal IS lazy and doesn't take care of it's faith. The followers will start to believe they have an angry and vengeful god... and they will, because that is what they believe. Thus, if a deity isn't very careful, it's entire nature could change due to mismanagement of its earthly interests.
This means its more likely for a deity to become evil then the other way around, because once your own followers start to think that, then you will be.
Another concern would be becoming part of a set pantheon. I think the reason why Faerūn doesn't really have official pantheons (in the normal, Earth-like sense) is because that would mean people who DON'T provide you much worship could still greatly influence your existence. For instance, suppose Helm became part of the Maztica pantheon (a very natural conclusion), and his faith began to spread throughout Maztica, and even into Anchorome and Katashaka. Except people there believe he is a 'vengeful punisher' - a demon of death and destruction all other gods fear, that brings all peoples to heel beneath his tyrannical rule.
Now, its a good thing there are much more people in Faerūn then Maztica, but if his religion did spread out of (his) control, it would be possible his very nature could change.
Hmmmmmmm... you know..... Naaaahhhhh....  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 05 Jun 2012 18:30:15 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 18:43:41
|
Interesting, so it might be said that a great deal of the "work" being a deity is maintaining the stability of the portfolio, not just advancing its "cause" so to speak. It not my preference, but I can definitely see this happening. Millions of mortals all with their individual perspectives of the deity, not only creating a "mass effect" but also additive whirls and eddies of new beliefs that might develop into heresies and spread.
And in the midst of trying to do all that maintenance work, there's also the desire to broaden one's influence, conflicts with other deities, and wars with other cultures/gods/pantheons.
When a deity tires of this, or loses power, they can be killed, subsumed, absorbed, or fade away.
Oddly, it makes them seem a bit like the middle management of a company, where the company in this case is mortal life or just "the world."
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 21:19:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
In fact, you can even see it in Greek Myths, for instance: was Eros the son of Aphrodite? Or did Eros spring from the primordial egg of Nyx? Was it Apollo or Helios that drove the chariot of the sun? Conceptions of the gods and their myths were fluid and changed over time and geographic distance. Some Greek and Roman gods even ended up becoming Judeo-Christian devils -- for example, Dis Pater and Orcus were once Roman gods of the underworld. When you see how the Egyptian gods changed over time, how the Greek gods changed (especially as adopted by the Romans) or how the Mesopotamian gods changed through successive civilizations from Sumer to Akkadia, to Babylon and Assyria, you realize that the fluidity of identity of gods is as changeable as the evolution of languages over time, or in government, fashion, diet or any other marker of cultural identity.
-The biggest problem I have with this line of thinking is that deities in our world are subjective things, whereas deities in the Forgotten Realms are objective things. In other words, in the present moment, we have Christians who say that their god is a trinity, that their god is a unitary entity, that their god is one of many gods, that their god is a man, that their god is a woman, and various other claims. While I don't believe that a god, or any gods exist, personally, I'll say that for the sake of the example that one might. Because there is a partial or complete lack of direct contact between said god and the followers of said god, there is no way that anybody can verify anything, and as a result, reality is in the eye of the beholder. Catholics can say that their God is a trinity. Arianists can say that their God is a unitary entity. Mormons can say that their God is a man. Certain Gnostic off-shoots can say that their God is a woman. Because the target of worship that these people are sending their prayers to is not outright, directly, and blatantly answering them, or offering them any other kind of guidance, they don't have any direct guidance as to what said divine entity wants/likes/is and so on, and it is up to those individuals to determine themselves. An Athenian Greek could have said that Zeus especially loved Athens in a way to merge nationalism and religion and because Zeus was not there to answer anybody, the claim survived. A Spartan Greek could have said that Zeus especially loved Athens in a way to merge nationalism and religion and because Zeus was not there to answer anybody, the claim survived. A Corinthian Greek could have said that Zeus especially loved Athens in a way to merge nationalism and religion and because Zeus was not there to answer anybody, the claim survived. And so on.
-Because deities objectively exist (in some shape or another; all we can know, to paraphrase Descartes, is that they exist in some manner) in the Forgotten Realms and actively (for the most part) take an interest in guiding and tending to their worshipers, the ability to make various claims that contradict other claims is minimized greatly. A church in Tethyr can teach that Lathander is actually a divine purple satyr whose bald head is the sun, but if for whatever reason Lathander wanted to correct his followers, he could. A cult in Waterdeep can teach that Jergal actually is a doe, but if for whatever reason Lathander wanted to correct his followers, he could. It's not that Lathander or Jergal might have reasons to allow their followers to think that they are a bald purple Satyr or a deer, respectively, but that their very well defined (from our metagame point-of-view) and distinct, independent from what their worshipers might want them to be like sentiences would make it that much more difficult, and as such, unrealistic. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 05 Jun 2012 21:20:57 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 22:06:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
In fact, you can even see it in Greek Myths, for instance: was Eros the son of Aphrodite? Or did Eros spring from the primordial egg of Nyx? Was it Apollo or Helios that drove the chariot of the sun? Conceptions of the gods and their myths were fluid and changed over time and geographic distance. Some Greek and Roman gods even ended up becoming Judeo-Christian devils -- for example, Dis Pater and Orcus were once Roman gods of the underworld. When you see how the Egyptian gods changed over time, how the Greek gods changed (especially as adopted by the Romans) or how the Mesopotamian gods changed through successive civilizations from Sumer to Akkadia, to Babylon and Assyria, you realize that the fluidity of identity of gods is as changeable as the evolution of languages over time, or in government, fashion, diet or any other marker of cultural identity.
[...]
-Because deities objectively exist (in some shape or another; all we can know, to paraphrase Descartes, is that they exist in some manner) in the Forgotten Realms and actively (for the most part) take an interest in guiding and tending to their worshipers, the ability to make various claims that contradict other claims is minimized greatly. A church in Tethyr can teach that Lathander is actually a divine purple satyr whose bald head is the sun, but if for whatever reason Lathander wanted to correct his followers, he could. A cult in Waterdeep can teach that Jergal actually is a doe, but if for whatever reason Lathander wanted to correct his followers, he could. It's not that Lathander or Jergal might have reasons to allow their followers to think that they are a bald purple Satyr or a deer, respectively, but that their very well defined (from our metagame point-of-view) and distinct, independent from what their worshipers might want them to be like sentiences would make it that much more difficult, and as such, unrealistic.
I fully agree with this.
This is what I meant in my other posts: if some people thought something about a deity, he/she shouldn't be forced conform to those thoughts if they were in discord with his/her nature.
However mortals could be able to somehow influence a deity, by evolving with time the widespread ''image'' of the concepts said god(dess) embodies. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 05 Jun 2012 22:16:49 |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 22:53:00
|
-Particularly throwing a wrench in things, it would seem, would be deities who were once mortals, the reason for this being that the various basic facts really can't be twisted through the passage of time, or a lack of information. In 1,480 DR, worshipers might think that Finder Wyvernspur is a Gelatinous Cube that has existed since the dawn of time. In reality, barring retcon, we know that Finder Wyvernspur was a Human who ascended to godhood in 1,358 DR. That doesn't necessarily address worshipers' beliefs influencing the deity him/her/itself, but that worshipers can get it wrong, and that their beliefs won't necessarily make their take on their patron correct.
-That's a bit cut and dry, since it's having to do with historical event, as opposed to more esoteric things, but... |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 05 Jun 2012 22:54:37 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 00:32:40
|
What I meant is that if one of the spheres of influence under the control of a deity changes with time, because of how mortals perceive it, then the deity will not remain exactly the same.
For example, a god(dess) of war would be influenced by how warfare evolves, but couldn't be changed in his/her very nature by it. War is still war after all, no matter how you fight it. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 06 Jun 2012 00:38:25 |
|
|
|
Gray Richardson
Master of Realmslore
USA
1291 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 03:53:30
|
I would argue that gods do not have an objective reality, as such, in the context of the Realms. Their reality is more akin to quantum phenomena, they are subject to the uncertainty principle and what can be known about them is limited and changed by observation.
I am going to cite a gazillion quotes by Ed Greenwood, which you can find excerpted from various of Ed's own posts in his thread here on the forums. I don't have the exact links, most of them are from 2004 or 2005 or so, but if you search using the words I will quote here you can find the originals. Each one of these paragraphs is a quote from Ed, as reported by the Lady Hooded One:
"...mortals 'know' lots of things about the gods that are just plain untrue, because gods lie to them, priests lie to them (sometimes unwittingly, through passing on church doctrine they don't know to be false or invented by a priest sitting nearby or of a previous century or three), and rumors distort everything, leading to 'common folk knowledge' that says a lot of things about the gods that aren't true. After all, almost everything we know about the Realms has come to us from Elminster -- and how do we know HE'S been straight with us, all or even part of the time?"
"I can reveal that both freelancers and TSR/WotC staffers debate the true nature of the FR gods frequently, and that one of the reasons fan arguments about the gods are largely useless except as entertainment for all involved (ahem, like the Eilistraee/Vhaeraun discussions that proceed sporadically here in Candlekeep) is that we still havent published some important things about the gods (in other words, the views and understandings of them held by all readers of Realms material are limited and therefore almost certainly incorrect or only partially correct). Which is a long way of saying that the tendency of gods, priests, lore-books, sages, and those who report the Realms to us (such as Elminster) to lie, distort, omit, or just pass on their own ignorance to us gives wiggle room to every DM to answer the blizzard of questions I posed above any way they like."
"...mortals can never perfectly understand the gods, because mortals can only see things with mortal perceptions and senses."
"Its hard for mortals to know the motives of gods. All we can do is endlessly examine and speculate about their actions (or what were TOLD are their actions), and draw our own conclusions."
"In the case of the gods, Beowulf has hit upon Eds approach: eschew the Graeco-Roman view of making the gods larger than life mortals with very human foibles in favour of keeping them VERY mysterious... Ed prefers manifestations rather than avatars striding around talking and doing things. An example of a manifestation: a worshipper of Lathander wonders aloud if an action is right, or a battle should be joined and a rosy glow appears out of nowhere to surround their weapon, or point the way. Keeping things mystical avoids all of the problems of disrespect or incorrect divine details Beowulf mentions, makes for better roleplaying, and really makes us regard the gods as special."
"December 27, 2004: Ed has always steadfastly clung to the view that mortals can never know the whole truth about any of the gods, and that much of what we believe (know to be true) about any god is largely a result of visions mortals have had (sent by the gods, most believe, but that doesnt address the which god? and the yes, but accurate visions, or meaning what? problems) or taught/preached by, yes, mortal priesthoods."
"...we know that gods can and have been subsumed by other gods, and that dead or fallen gods are still worshipped fervently, just as before, because other deities adopt their followers, still grant spells, and so on - - so mortals may or may not know the true fate of the deity they worship."
"...almost all mortals of Faerūn dont KNOW how the prayers for spells are answered, or even who answers them. It may be servitors of the god theyre praying to, or another god entirely. Some gods, as we know, masquerade as others or work through others or aid others, from time to time. Divine assistance is always needed to receive divine spells, but that does not mean that your god pays direct attention to your request for that spell, or to your use (casting) of it."
"Regarding dead gods: mortals of Faerūn dont know the true current body count, or where the residue of the divine essence of a dead god lies.
In part, this is because its very hard for a god to truly die unless very carefully destroyed by another god: otherwise, if some mortal of Faerūn still worships them or discovers them and starts worshipping them, later (even centuries later), they rise again, albeit as almost powerless ghostly awarenesses (at their weakest).
The arguments among churches (about what god did what to which other god) confuse the average inhabitant of the Realms (who to believe?), but Id say that among humans, most are aware that Bhaal, Iyachtu Xvim, Leira, and Myrkul are dead. Only sages and some priests and wizards have even heard of, say, Karsus, and most folk accept that there are countless godlings worshipped by various cultists here and there across the Realms (from Savras and other half-remembered names to the beast-cults to those dangerous folk who worship the skeletons of DRAGONS if ye can believe it, aye?).
So some of them are dead and gone forever (although one can then debate just how long forever is, of course :}), but most are, as you say, just dead, ready to be revived thru some epic act or worship.
"mortals (PCs) just can never know the truth about divine matters; even the gods lie and distort, and their priesthoods certainly do. So knowing exactly when the Dawn Cataclysm happened, or if Mask is a more effective liar than Leira was, isnt really of much practical use to a Player Character.
Ive spoken about this here at Candlekeep before. Simply put, we can never know the truth about the doings of the gods (unless Im writing about it, of course [Insert Big Cheesy Grin])."
Remember how I keep reminding you there are secrets about the gods I havent divulged yet, and cant just yet? Lets just say most of these discussions about what god could or would do what to which other god are just what they tend to be in the real world: so many futile words exchanged between mortals who can never know the truth. Now, back to home sweet mud hut and lets all have dinner.
"The plain truth is: mortals (and therefore all Player Characters) dont know and can never know for certain the exact details of anything pertaining to the gods. Even if a supreme priest or even a god tells you something personally, they may not be telling the truth. They may believe theyre imparting the truth, or may be lying, but either way their answer cant be trusted."
"Remember, human standards and definitions dont precisely apply to the gods. A rock or a potted plant can be the divine son or daughter of a god. :} The various game rules regarding gods are at best a vague way to describe what mortals have observed of their behaviour. They are NOT complete, clear, and absolute. Or as too many priests Ive overheard are too fond of saying: Its a mystery, my son. A mystery.
"First and foremost, all gamers should remember that none of the information about the gods of the Realms can truly be trusted: its a collection of what mortals imperfectly understand and can visualize (muddied by the pet theories of many sages and priests, both current and down the centuries) about divine beings who may or may not impart accurate information to their worshippers (as the power of deities is related to the number and strength of their worshippers, its best to think of deities as somewhat akin to used-car salesmen in the real world, presenting everything to make themselves look good or at least vitally necessary and as important as possible). So arguments about specifics of the gods (as opposed to their mortal churches and faithful) are essentially futile, because none of the data those arguing use can be trusted." |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 09:46:59
|
Ok, basically in the Realms mortals know very few about their deities, and what they know might be false. That's understandable.
However, as a reader, I don't like this so much. From a metagaming point of view I'd like to know with surety at least the fundamental characteristics of the various god(desse)s (ofc, the mysterious, deep nature of deities can remain unknown/uncertain), because I find having even their identity to become vague (from our point of view) slightly annoying, besides lending itself to cheesy retcons (like the ones that merged a lot of deities at the start of 4e). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 16:14:10
|
Gray:
I understand all of that. Realms inhabitants are never likely to know absolute truths about the gods because of all the obfuscation, outright constant lying, and misrepresentation (intentional or otherwise). I've seen nearly all of these comments before.
But I don't think we should stop asking questions, trying to analyze what we do know, or speculating about the various mysteries. Not only is it fun and entertaining, it can be important in helping us understand the deeper concepts and implications for our own game world design and what we want in them.
Having said that, here's some commentary.
1) All the lying and uncorrected misrepresentations... honestly, I think it's kinda horrendous. It's one thing for an evil god to lie to their followers and not correct the lies and mistakes promoted by their high priests. It's quite another for a lawful good deity to do the same thing. Can a mortal of Faerun really trust anything about the gods? Truthfully, you can't even trust local "manifestations" because the "good god" could be lying to you, intentionally pointing you down an immoral or unholy path, or heck... it might even be an evil deity providing the manifestation just for kicks. As a mortal, you can't trust anything, then.
2) If you can't trust anything a good deity says, or points you toward, how can you trust that your lifelong faith will be rewarded after death? Certainly you can't trust the priests, but if you also cannot trust your lawful good god (when technically, he shouldn't be lying at all), it's really just a big dice toss on where you end up: the Wall of the Faithless, or serving Kelemvor, or serving some deity that you might not have actually worshipped, or who knows what? With the very clear punishments in place for either not having a faith or ditching a faith (and who wouldn't when lied to?), it's just a horrible system if you can't trust anything. Let's say a Lathander paladin asks his god if an action is right, gets a nice rosy manifestation of golden light, and it all just happens to have been a lie... or worse, Cyric misleading the paladin just for kicks... is the punishment fair?
3) Even more importantly, at the "meta" level of being a Realms DM, all of this lying and manipulation can be a very bad thing. It can lead DMs with a sadistic streak to make PC Paladins fall "just for the fun of it" - and the DM would be totally justified. Just show the player a printout of all Ed's comments about how even the good deities lie and distort things all the time. Even if your DM isn't sadistic, what's a player to do really when it comes time to "trust" a manifestation or make a decision based on faith? If you cannot trust the basic, fundamental characteristics of even the good deities, or even the intent of a lawful good priest at a church, then it's pretty awful as a system.
4) Finally, there's a part of me that clearly is getting the impression from this that even I, as a reader, gamer, consumer and supporter of the Realms, will not really ever be allowed to know the bottom line truth of the gods, except that they lie about everything and we can't trust anything published about them. But we -have- been presented with material published in 1st person narrative. If I can't trust even that to be true, then I find it difficult to invest in anything published for the Realms. It means that even long-standing factual material can be totally redacted and made "untrue" or retconned with no explanation. Not good, really.
Now I know that there are some very important and good reasons for Ed's "unreliable narrator" to come out at times. But this is to remind us that different DMs will want to pick and choose from canon and not all Realms will be the same; I don't think the intention is to say that we will never have control over anything as DMs because we can't trust even the factual published material. In a game world where the gods are real, there has to be some certainty, not only for us as gamers/consumers, but also for the mortal inhabitants of the Realms. Sure, there should be mysteries. Lots of them! But mysteries and faith require at least a minimal foundation of some known truths.
Mod edit: language, please.
Edit by Therise: Fixed it with an entirely different word, since it was apparently too vulgar.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 06 Jun 2012 20:02:04 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 17:39:41
|
| Those are fair points, but I think this focus on the gods themselves rather than their followers is a product of the misguided Avatar books, and that if we'd put as much effort into writing up priesthoods, rituals and local temples and factions as we have into speculating about this unverifiable ultimate stuff we'd have a lot more useful material. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 19:21:57
|
A bit of HB lore I came up with, about how Modrons view various beings.
Their word for people from the Prime Material translates as 'solid'. When used in this fashion it denotes a certain amount un-changeability.
Their word for outsiders is 'liquid', which is to say that their forms are much easier to change, but also have a certain amount of 'texture' as well.
Their word for powers (deities, primordials, archfiends, etc) translates to 'gas' - they are amorphous, can change on a whim, can grow in stature or shrink down to nothing, combine with other 'gases' to become something new, etc, etc...
This how the Modron view the universe - as creatures existing in different states.
A god - a being who creates a Faith (divine conduit) to receive worship energy - is the sum total of all that is believed about it (including itself). It is an amalgam of all these thoughts.
And this is why heresies can become such a dangerous thing. What happens when enough people start to believe Lolth and Shar are one and the same? Just ask Lathander and Aumanator.
"With great power comes great responsibility", and in the case of gods, much danger. Faith is a two-way street, and a very fickle thing. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 20:00:23
|
quote:
Mod edit: language, please.
Oh dear lord, Wooly... how does replacing what I had with your word make things better, if it means exactly the same thing?
Seriously, if it's that vulgar I'll just change the entire word to something else.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 20:10:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Mod edit: language, please.
Oh dear lord, Wooly... how does replacing what I had with your word make things better, if it means exactly the same thing?
Seriously, if it's that vulgar I'll just change the entire word to something else.
Your word is considered profanity, which is officially verboten. My word was not.
It's a word I've been known to use, myself, but it's just not a word that's allowed per the Code of Conduct. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 20:25:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gray Richardson
I am going to cite a gazillion quotes by Ed Greenwood, which you can find excerpted from various of Ed's own posts in his thread here on the forums. I don't have the exact links, most of them are from 2004 or 2005 or so, but if you search using the words I will quote here you can find the originals. Each one of these paragraphs is a quote from Ed, as reported by the Lady Hooded One:
-All fine and accurate quotes, but they primarily address in-world considerations, as opposed to our discussion, which is more or less centered around metagame considerations. Catholics, Mormons, Unitarians, Gnostic sects, and anybody else whose worship falls under 'Christianity' can "know" (ie, believe and hope for the best) that various tenets of their religion is true. To the aliens who have created this world in their own RPG game, looking at their 'Earth Campaign Manual', they have the facts in front of them that state whatever, in regards to Christianity. To Aurilians, Lathanderites, Cyricists, and anybody else who worships in Realmspace, they can "know" (ie, believe and hope for the best) that various teachings of their religion is true. To us, looking at their Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (or any other relevant book), we have the facts* in front of them that state whatever, in regards to their faiths, and deeper truths that they might not have access/awareness to.
*In so much as what is printed is fact (which it is, until it is changed). If what we have as printed is not fact- to whatever degree- it brings up Therise's point: If we can't trust these printed statements to be true, than it is difficult to find anything printed as truth- Waterdeep is really on a small island floating above the planet, Drizzt is actually a bullfrog that lifted Mjolnir, magic utilizes symbiotic microorganisms that lives within everything to function, and anything else. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 06 Jun 2012 20:32:42 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 20:31:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Mod edit: language, please.
Oh dear lord, Wooly... how does replacing what I had with your word make things better, if it means exactly the same thing?
Seriously, if it's that vulgar I'll just change the entire word to something else.
Your word is considered profanity, which is officially verboten. My word was not.
It's a word I've been known to use, myself, but it's just not a word that's allowed per the Code of Conduct.
Profanity is subject to context and interpretation (even the American FCC has never actually maintained a list of "profane" words), but that's not what I find silly here. If you're going to mod a word that you deem inappropriate, that's fine. But don't replace it with a silly children's word that literally means the same thing but totally changes the intent of what's being said. Change the word to a synonym appropriate for the original contextual meaning. Otherwise, it's a serious eye-roller.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 15:18:50
|
Personally I don't think Gods should be the divine equivalent of crazy putty, constantly being reshaped by whatever their congregation currently believes.
A god is or at least should be the divine manifestation of some attribute or way of life, which is represented in their portfolio.
This then is something their faithful can follow wholeheartedly as it matches their own inner beliefs, even if it is some 'evil' doctrine of a god like Bane.
A god should be an immovable object that you can build your life around and even if an individual God falls then someone else generally takes over that vacant portfolio or the faithful can switch to whichever god is closet to their old faith. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 16:19:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Personally I don't think Gods should be the divine equivalent of crazy putty, constantly being reshaped by whatever their congregation currently believes.
A god is or at least should be the divine manifestation of some attribute or way of life, which is represented in their portfolio.
This then is something their faithful can follow wholeheartedly as it matches their own inner beliefs, even if it is some 'evil' doctrine of a god like Bane.
A god should be an immovable object that you can build your life around and even if an individual God falls then someone else generally takes over that vacant portfolio or the faithful can switch to whichever god is closet to their old faith.
Well, that's certainly an understandable viewpoint. But it's canon in the Realms that gods can and do change, and that they are influenced by their worshippers. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2012 : 16:54:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
Personally I don't think Gods should be the divine equivalent of crazy putty, constantly being reshaped by whatever their congregation currently believes.
A god is or at least should be the divine manifestation of some attribute or way of life, which is represented in their portfolio.
This then is something their faithful can follow wholeheartedly as it matches their own inner beliefs, even if it is some 'evil' doctrine of a god like Bane.
A god should be an immovable object that you can build your life around and even if an individual God falls then someone else generally takes over that vacant portfolio or the faithful can switch to whichever god is closet to their old faith.
Well, that's certainly an understandable viewpoint. But it's canon in the Realms that gods can and do change, and that they are influenced by their worshippers.
Despite tangents, this thread isn't intended to answer "what is canon?" but rather is a place for people to explore their thoughts about canon and the ramifications of that canon. Whether or not you'd have things that way in your game. And if not, why?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 08 Jun 2012 16:55:16 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"Mobthink" impact on deities, is it a good thing?
