"rival religions within a culture" Topic

This is a follow-up from the thread back in December about cosmology and theology in designing fantasy worlds for gaming -- especially my own.

TMP link

Someone -- Dunadan I think? -- raised good questions about situations where a culture might be torn internally by competition between rival religions. Someone mentioned Christianity versus the druidical religion in Arthurian Britain.

I'm beginning to write cultural work-ups for the (fantasy equivalents)Irish and Pictish neighbors of the Logres Godfearers (Roman-British) and am seeing the Picts as half-converted to ethical monotheism (not Christianity per se, as this is not our world) but with the druidical nature-worshippers still having widespread influence.

I'm thinking of the following mechanism, and would be glad of reactions, particularly as a game design element -- though theological argument is okay too.

A fantasy Pictish army may have two types of "magic" (which I define as any appeal to a power outside oneself): shamanic natural magic from the druids, and prayers and spiritual gifts from the Church. The druids and the priests are rivals.

Shamanic magic requires the druid to roll a power die against a Difficulty level; a powerful spell would have a difficulty of 10, so rolling a D20 a shaman would cast it successfully about half the time.

Godfearers' prayers are always answered, but with every prayer prayed successfully the likelihood increases that God will answer no further prayers during the game. Prayers are 1, 2, or 3 points depending on efficacy.

The mechanism I have in mind is this: any time a priest prays, the difficulty level of the druidical spells goes up by 1. And any time a druid casts a difficulty 10 spell successfully, the point level of prayers goes up.

The rationale is that the priests and the shaman are very much conscious of being rivals; the army, and in the long run the culture, will turn towards or away from their religion as it proves itself in battle. The stakes are high, and get higher as the rival does well.

I believe this works in terms of the political/theological/social dimensions of the rivalry. What I'm not sure about is whether this puts the Picts at too big a disadvantage in a game. They WILL, initially, have a wider range of magic to choose from, two rival traditions. Otoh, as the game goes along they are likely to find both priests and shamans exhausted and unable to provide further magical help.

The math of it is a little tricky, as Godfearer prayers ALWAYS work until suddenly that's it, no more. Shamanic spells will only work about half the time. But adding +1 to shamanic difficulty (from the priest praying) is a smaller penalty than adding +1 to a 1, 2, or 3 point prayer (from the druid casting an impressive spell). One side harms the other more easily but by a lesser amount; the other has a harder time hurting its rival but the harm is greater when it does. It is not symetical. I think it WORKS and is true to the cultures, but I am not at all sure it is balanced.

Hard to really say, as the nature of the prayers or spells in terms of actual game effects is a key element. I assume these are different and culture specific. (For example, I would expect a druidic spell might cause plant growth to entangle the enemy, preventing movement and impeding combat ability. A prayer might produce a blinding light that drives an enemy back and/or prevents missile attacks and/or hinders combat.) So the question is what do prayers and spells do, and how much do they affect the potential outcome of the battle?

As I understand it, back in the day, you seldom prayed directly to God; He has an entire universe to run and can't be bothered listening to everyone. Instead, you prayed to a saint to intervene with the Big Guy. On the one hand, some saints, like Peter, were really important, and they could get God's attention. Other saints, perhaps St. Paraskeve, would have trouble getting God's attention. However, Peter is really busy running the Pearly Gates, so you might not be able to get his attention, while Paraskeve would have more time to listen to those directing prayers to him. The intervening link gives the possibility that the prayer won't be answered or won't be answered in a timely manner.
Grelber

I believe this works in terms of the political/theological/social dimensions of the rivalry. What I'm not sure about is whether this puts the Picts at too big a disadvantage in a game. They WILL, initially, have a wider range of magic to choose from, two rival traditions. Otoh, as the game goes along they are likely to find both priests and shamans exhausted and unable to provide further magical help.

How does that compare to their national rivals?

Do the Picts consistently get magically-exhausted sooner than everyone else, do they last about as long as everyone else, or can the Pictish player carefully meter the magic out and outlast the opposition?

What happens if I run an army with pure-druidic magical support? Does that last as long as the opposing forces? (and vice versa for pure-prayer)

Shamanic magic works the same for every culture; it draws on a natural "force" or mana, somewhat akin to electricity in our world, and is as morally neutral as the rest of nature: "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." Shamans can overload on power (when they roll the max on their current power die) and get a Brainburn which reduces the maximum power they can begin with on future turns. The more spells a shaman tries to cast in a turn (since each is made with a decreasing die size -- D20 to D16 to d12 to d10 to D8 down to D6) the more likely Brainburn becomes. So by the end of a game it is not uncommon for shamans on both sides to be weakened to the point that they cannot even attempt the powerful spells, though they can usually manage some of the weaker ones, that can still be helpful.

Godfeaerer priests who have shamanic ability can have it consecrated by the Church; it becomes a Gift that includes a Holy element. So an air shaman might summon a sylph to blow away a gas attack, but a priest with comparable power gets Breath of Heaven which does the same and ALSO invigorates, removing bad morale.

Prayer always works but not indefinitely; I tried to find a mechanism that would instill in players the proper attitude; God can be relied on but He cannot be taken for granted. (See the ancient Hebrews and the Ark of the Covenant!) So a priest has a "holiness die", perhaps a D8. He prays a 1 point prayer and gets it automatically. But then he rolls his D8; if it is a 1 he will get no further answers to prayers this game. If on a future turn he prays a 3 point prayer (very powerful) he again receives it automatically; but now he must roll his D8 against a 4 (the 1 point earlier and the 3 point just prayed, as a cumulative total) or God's answers cease.

So Godfearers can drop in magic power during a game as well.

But an army with two groups of rival magic-users IS likely to drop a bit faster, using the mechanism I described. But their magic is likely to be a bit more powerful -- and certainly more flexible, able to do more different things -- early in the game.

Grelber, I'm a Presbyterian myself, but I don't think my Catholic friends would agree that your description of the role of saints is correct -- though I think ordinary and poorly instructed Catholics might see it that way, as praying TO a saint. We ask fellow believers to pray FOR us -- indeed, we are ordered to do that -- and Catholics, as I understand it, ask saints to pray for them. Especially if the saint when in this life overcame temptations comparable to the ones you are facing.

But we Presbyterians emphasize God's sovereignty. In my rules there IS a possibility that God will answer "not yet" or will give help different from what was requested -- though often very powerful help. It's HIS choice.

Parzival, there are indeed druidical spells and Godfearer prayers that do precisely as you describe. As to game effects, it varies a lot according to circumstances. Druidical spells are very powerful and flexible in woods, but of limited use elsewhere. Prayer and Gifts work everywhere, but a circle of holiness and light that is extremely useful against undead or light-sensitive goblins is probably not worth praying for when fighting the pagan Saex.

Overall magic is rather like artillery or air support; be happy when it helps but don't count on it; the troops on the ground will still decide the outcome with missiles and melees.

You CAN tell where the schwerpunkt is from where the spells are cast, but often the opposing magic-users largely cancel each other.

If I have multiple priests, do all their prayers stop working if any one of them blows the roll?

If so, that would make it more attractive to have both druidic and holy magical support (and to manage the use as much as possible).

If I was going to be a particularly gamey person, I would probably work the druidic magic first, early in the game, and try to save the 'will always work ONCE' holy support for what I see to be the crucial point of attack.

Godfearers can have their priests with big holiness or small. The point cost is 10xdie level, so two D6 priests would be120 and a D12 one would also be 120. (Actually there is a 10 point cost for a basic character, so one d12 priest = 130 and two D6 priests = 140). There are advantages each way.

Each priest rolls separately and only that one loses his ability to have a prayer answered.

But you raise a good point about gamesmanship. I may need to require that if one type uses magic, the rival must also use magic that same turn, or maybe during the following turn. after all, one rival isn't going to just stand there and let the other rival get all the credit and glory.

Also, in these cases (Druids vs priests) the shamanic spells include a lot of offensive spells that make actual attacks on enemy units, while prayers tend to be reactive and protective. for example, a 3 point prayer Heaven's Shield gives every unit in the army a one-use block against enemy magic. you'd want to use that early on, first turn probably.

situations where a culture might be torn internally by competition between rival religions

I heard there was a similar problem in the 17th/18th centuries in some North American Indian tribes where some members of the tribes were converted to Christianity by French missionaries and the other part of the tribes were not?

I think ordinary and poorly instructed Catholics might see it that way, as praying TO a saint

Er. I am an atheist, from a Catholic family (from Brittany which used to be a very Catholic part of France), I can testify that my grandmother did, and my mother still do, pray the Virgin Mary who should hear the prayers and pass it to Jesus. They have not been poorly instructed; as a child I understood that it could work both ways, you can pray to the saints themselves or suppose that they pass it to God.
And although I am a nasty unbeliever, I must recognize that when I have lost some object and am searching for it in the house I sometimes think: "Oh, saint Antoine, please help me to find it" (as I often heard my grandmother pray) and… er… it happens to work! (apologies to you Mr saint Antoine, no harm intended).

My understanding is that prayer is through saints rather than TO them. We are all told to practice intercessory prayer, i.e. praying for one another. There is a belief that Jesus is more likely to say "yes" if your request comes through his Mother Mary, but she is still interceding for you, not answering the prayer herself. Protestants, or at least Presbyterians, tend to disdain that idea.

(Otoh, if you asked me what I will say when I find myself before the judgement of God, I'd answer "talk to my lawyer." Joke, sort of, but really no joke: 1 John 2:1: but if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father -- Jesus Christ the Rightous One." So we wouldn't quarrel with the idea of asking someone in the royal family to speak to the King on your behalf. We'd just want to be asking the right person.

In a world where there is an actual intervening deity, and where "Magic" actually works, such disputes between religions are quickly resolved.

It simply becomes a matter of Darwinistic forces at that point:

Which system of magical intervention allows the society to flourish better (i.e. produce more offspring).

In such a world, the Druid v Christianity that is recounted in Aurthurian legends just doesn't really happen. People can readily see who derives the most benefit from their religious views in a tangible and direct manner.

Either magic/religion is real, and thus the gods are real, and the gods will battle it out if there are conflicts, not their minions. Those conflicts will get resolved rather rapidly (cfr. Greek or Norse mythology). Although of course there are examples in mythology when human armies are fighting on behalf of the gods … but then usually because they were tricked into it ;-)

Or, magic/religion are beliefs without the existance of interventionists gods (and hence do not have real material consequences), but then you should fold magic/religion rules into morale rules (as in our real world ;-)). Or do you know of any mainstream historical wargaming rules that tries to model religion for ancients/medieval battles except as a shady morale factor?

Or, the 3rd option (which is followed by most fantasy games): magic/religion exists 'for effect only', and we don't think too hard about the cosmological or theological background of a fireball spell because it doesn't play a role in the game anyway.

Trying to put a framework in games in order to rationalize the supernatural/releigion/magic runs into the same problems we have in IRL when we try to do that: it's impossible and there's never a satisfying way of doing it.

Alex: The point is that the Doc believes that his description of the godfearers religion is that of christianity as it exists in the real world. He seems to believe that all the things in the bible literally did happen for real. At least that is my impression from reading Pride of Lions, which devotes an uncannily large ammount of space to theological questions. Sorry if I am wrong about that.

He seems to believe that all the things in the bible literally did happen for real.

No, the Bible contains fiction -- Jesus' parables are stories told to make a point and probably didn't really happen -- and there are many metaphors and figures of speech. Jesus is the door, but he doesn't swing on hinges. As to events in Genesis or Exodus, what difference does it make whether they are history or myth; they reveal truths about God either way.

But I want my world to make sense, to cohere, and so it must have a theological/cosmological underpinning. It is a FANTASY world -- so Godfearers are NOT Christians -- and so it wouldn't be of much use to play fantasy games in if it didn't have magic. In fact it has many different types of magic. And they work differently, because the magic user is getting his power from different sources. I need to explain those sources.

PRIDE is certainly written from the perspective of a Christian, yes. If you are a materialist you are going to have to suspend or ignore that philosophy in order to play ANY fantasy including magic.

Hwarang, I'll be interested in what you think of the expanded magic -- much more for dwarven runelore, much more on spirits, much more for Godfearers, illusions -- in 2nd edition (which is now being laid out for publication.

I think Phil is correct that many fantasy rules' magic is for effect only. I think that trivializes something that is important (how we entertain ourselves, how we imagine, how we create). So I am indeed trying to explain the different sources of magic and their inter-relationships, and of course as a Christian I do so from that world view.

As I have stated before, you do not *need* to go into such details but you do very much *want* to.

"No, the Bible contains fiction -- Jesus' parables are stories told to make a point and probably didn't really happen -- and there are many metaphors and figures of speech"

That is not the point and you know that.

"As to events in Genesis or Exodus, what difference does it make whether they are history or myth; they reveal truths about God either way."

It makes all the difference in the world. If they are fiction you happen to take a bit more serious. If you believe that this actually is the true account of how the world was created, you are wrong.

Phil, & hwarang>/b>,

I am aware of the Theological leanings of the OP, and of the various problems (theological, philosophical, and existential) that come with those leanings.

I was just trying to point out one of the consequences of his assumptions as he lays them out in the game.

If the magic has real world consequences, then the God(s) capable of maximizing those consequences would be the one(s) with followers who rather quickly overwhelmed all of the others, and you would be left with a purely monotheist world.

EXCEPT…

If you are assuming that there is a shamanistic power in the world, then you are also tying the natural world to the existence of various spirits, without which much of the natural world will die.

At that point, it becomes in the interests of any Gods to make certain that they protect and maintain these domains in order to support their populations of followers.

Which of course also has Darwinistic consequences for the survival of those followers and the god(s) they worship.

I know from trying to create a workable theology and cosmology out of Middle-earth that using Christian Theology as it is described by Christian Theologians is just impossible given what we know about the nature of the world/universe (and as such, we had to make revisions to the cosmology such that the appearance only fit with Christian Theology, but the mechanisms, in fact deviated from that Theology).

Like most things that deal with religion, the existential contradictions are far too pronounced to deal with by simple philosophical tricks or rhetorical devices.

Above should have read: "If they are fiction you happen to take a bit more serious, that is your own decision for what kind of fiction you happen to enjoy."

Also, I believe that the role of religion in history is exaggerated in nearly all cases. There are better explanations (economics, power, megalomania, insanity, belly aches and all that.)

Doc here: I'm at David's for the day, visiting daughter and grandkids, so it will be this evening or tomorrow before I have time to address issues you guys have raised. I do thank you for being willing to continue this discussion/debate, which is helpful to me and which I am also enjoying. I'll have long replies tonight or tomorrow.

Sorry Doc, I can't take credit for raising the question. I do like what you're proposing here, and you may want to provide options for even more depth for gaming this kind of fantasy electronic warfare (if that's the feel you're going for). Holy relics that jam enemy magic, grams that boost it, etc.

Hey guys, I'm back.

First, Hwarang said:

Also, I believe that the role of religion in history is exaggerated in nearly all cases. There are better explanations (economics, power, megalomania, insanity, belly aches and all that.)

No, I cannot agree. Chesterton states it well (chapter 7 of THE EVERLASTING MAN:

It is always stubbornly and stupidly repeating that men fight for material ends, without reflecting for a
moment that the material ends are hardly ever material to the men who fight. In any case no man will die for practical politics, just as no man will die for pay. Nero could not hire a hundred Christians to be eaten by lions at a shilling an hour; for men will not be martyred for
money. But the vision called up by real politik, or realistic politics, is beyond example crazy and incredible. Does anybody in the world believe that d soldier says, 'My leg is nearly dropping off, but I shall go on till it drops; for after all I shall enjoy all the advantages of
my government obtaining a warm-water port in the Gulf of Finland.' Can anybody suppose that a clerk turned conscript says, 'If I am gassed I shall probably die in torments, but it is a comfort to reflect that should I ever decide to become a pearl-diver in the South Seas, that
career is now open to me and my countrymen.' Materialist history is the most madly incredible of all histories, or even of all romances.

Whatever starts wars, the thing that sustains wars is something in the soul; that is something akin to religion. It is what men feel about life and about death. A man near to death is dealing directly with an absolute; it is nonsense to say he is concerned only with relative and
remote complications that death in any case will end. If he is sustained by certain loyalties, they must be loyalties as simple as death. They are generally two ideas, which are only two sides of one idea. The first is the love of something said to be threatened, if it be only vaguely
known as home; the second is dislike and defiance of some strange thing that threatens it. The first is far more philosophical than it sounds, though we need not discuss it here. A man does not want his national home destroyed or even changed, because he cannot even remember all the
good things that go with it; just as he does not want his house burnt down, because he can hardly count all the things he would miss. Therefore he fights for what sounds like a hazy abstraction, but is really a house.

But the negative side of it is quite as noble as well as
quite as strong. Men fight hardest when they feel that the foe is at once an old enemy and an eternal stranger, that his atmosphere is alien and antagonistic, as the French feel about the Prussian or the Eastern Christians about the Turk. If we say it is a difference of religion, people will drift into dreary bickerings about sects and dogmas. We will
pity them and say it is a difference about death and daylight; a difference that does really come like a dark shadow between our eyes and the day. Men can think of this difference even at the point of death; for it is a difference about the meaning of life.

Men are moved in these things by something far higher and holier than policy; by hatred. When men hung on in the darkest days of the Great War, suffering either in their bodies or in their souls for those they loved, they were long past caring about details of diplomatic objects as
motives for their refusal to surrender. Of myself and those I knew best I can answer for the vision that made surrender impossible. It was the vision of the German Emperor's face as he rode into Paris. This is not the sentiment which some of my idealistic friends describe as Love. I am quite content to call it hatred; the hatred of hell and all its works, and to agree that as they do not believe in hell they need not believe in hatred.

Doc would add: fifty years ago the Crusades were commonly attributed to land hunger by second sons. But recent scholarship supports the view that the Crusader were primarily, in many cases, genuinely motivated by religion.

And closer to my own field: the Civil War. If Hwarang is correct that economics matters most, then perhaps it really was caused by tariffs and such. Because the North benefited at least as greatly from slave labor as the South; southern exports provided the capital from overseas that fueled the Industrial revolution in the north, as northerners were very well aware. It was only after Abolitionists made it a moral/religious crusade (after 1831) and provoked a defensive paranoia in the Southern mind (Nat Turner etc) that slavery -- or more properly the expansion of slavery into the west -- became the cause of war.

Alex wrote:

In a world where there is an actual intervening deity, and where "Magic" actually works, such disputes between religions are quickly resolved.

Okay, yes, except how "quickly"? Gotterdammerung may be coming, but it also may be centuries away. Gods might delay fighting because they are evenly matched, or because they are NOT evenly matched.

It simply becomes a matter of Darwinistic forces at that point:Which system of magical intervention allows the society to flourish better (i.e. produce more offspring).
In such a world, the Druid v Christianity that is recounted in Aurthurian legends just doesn't really happen. People can readily see who derives the most benefit from their religious views in a tangible and direct manner.

Again, I cannot see the "simply" and "readily" part. Gods may take a longer view than mortals, and mortals may not be such objective observers as to "readily" tell which one is stronger or more helpful. (And what if the weaker is beneficent and the stronger is inimical?)

Phil, I don't think the Norse saw themselves as being "tricked" into fighting alongside their Gods at Ragnarok -- and losing. Valhalla is only a temporary barracks for training and mustering. And it is not likely to be tomorrow or next week.

Trying to put a framework in games in order to rationalize the supernatural/releigion/magic runs into the same problems we have in IRL when we try to do that: it's impossible and there's never a satisfying way of doing it.

Except that billions of us alive today, and a majority of the human race always, DO find satisfaction in a framework whereby the supernatural explains the natural. I understand that you may not, but that does not make your view the correct or even the rational one.

More later; got chores to do.

Alex, who or what is the OP?

Let's see if I understand what you guys are saying (and if I'm getting it right, your argument is helpful): if gods and such really exist and are really actively engaged in mortal affairs (immanent like the Olympians in THE ILIAD) they will fairly soon sort themselves out, with the strongest left dominant. So religious war doesn't make sense.

I don't agree, but I do see that I need to explain why not, within my own dogma -- which I know doesn't agree with your dogma. (Alex is trying hard to argue from my assumptions even though he doesn't share them, which I appreciate.)

My view (of THIS world as well as of one I may imagine and write rules for)is that the Creator God is omnipotent and omniscient, ultimately sovereign. BUT He may permit -- does permit in our own real case -- the existence of lesser (and created) but still immensely powerful entities, even if they rebel against Him. His toleration and restraint are not forever, but may last millenia, which is quite a long time by human standards! Why does God restrain Himself in such manner? God knows!

But BELOW the omnipotent Creator there may be many "gods" (Paul says Powers and Principalities) and these may be relative peers in power, or perhaps of varying strengths. It seems to me the international system of nation-states is analogous; each is sovereign, but they vary widely in actual power. War occurs; yet most nations manage to muddle along across the centuries, sometimes even after being conquered or torn asunder repeatedly. ("A Pole and his country are soon parted," as one of my history profs was wont to say. But the Poles hang in there and Poland still exists.)

So my assumption is that the only agent -- the Creator God -- who is strong enough to end all conflict has chosen for a time to limit His power. (Although He WILL provide help to those who ask -- but not too much help.) So the rest of the supernatural entities can war among themselves -- or cooperate, or ignore each other -- as they choose.

Dunadan, thanks, electronic warfare is a good analogy, and to carry it further, the only One capable of EMP is the Creator, who chooses not to use it, or at least not yet.

Also, I am finding that the more fully I delineate these cultures AND their religious beliefs in my imagination, the more ideas for rules and scenarios pop up, coming out of the internal logic (if I'm doing my work as sub-creator well) of their own theology and cosmology. The dwarves can't do shamanic magic because their Earthsense blinds them to the flux of mana -- which is akin to electricity, and a natural force. But they are very sensitive to vibrations -- mostly as a danger -- and they know crystals, and so OF COURSE at some point they will have radio -- once they overcome their fear enough to figure it out. (BIG radios, not portable at all.) It had never occurred to me that dwarves would have radio, but one day I realized it made perfect sense within their imagined reality.

In other words, I am surprised, from time to time, by ramifications of my own creation. But that happy eventuality depends on my explaining, at least to myself, the how and the why of each race and culture and worldview.

Though I expect doing that for the really BAD GUYS will be difficult and unpleasant. CS Lewis' SCREWTAPE LETTERS were his most popular book, but he came to hate them and would never do the sequel readers clamored for; it was just too horrible to force yourself to see and think like a devil.

One last post tonight, on creation and Genesis and the age of the earth.

There's absolutely no reason why Alex or others should be expected to be familiar with complexities within a belief system they do not share. And I quit a teaching job at a Baptist high school because some parents objected that I did not subscribe to a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis. But . . .

I'm a deacon in my PCA (Presbyterian Church of America)congregation, and our doctrine is that the Bible is inerrant in its original form (no translation is inerrant). However, our denomination recognizes FOUR different interetations as "within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy."

PCA Report on Creation

On more than one occasion, someone has asked how my views on Genesis square with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Report of the Creation Study Committee on the days of creation. In my own local PCA congregation, we recently did a fascinating study on how Genesis relates to each of the four views presented in the committee report. Each interpretation is considered by the PCA to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. They are as follows:

Calendar Day View: The Genesis days of creation are "calendar" days. Therefore, God constructed the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. No attempt is made to accommodate the creation narrative to the scientific consensus on origins. Instead, an ad-hoc alternative science (creation science) is invented to accommodate the material details of Genesis 1.

Day-Age View: The Genesis days of creation represent undefined periods of time, or ages. The specific sequence given by Moses is taken as chronological, but the actual duration of each "day" is not limited to a 24-hour period. Overlapping of the ages is permitted to better accommodate the scientific consensus on origins, but the Genesis chronology is still difficult to align with modern science (i.e. the earth existing before the sun).

Literary Framework View: The Genesis days of creation are not intended to be solar days and are organized topically rather than chronologically. Days 1, 2 and 3 describe different realms (or creature-kingdoms) that God established, and days 4, 5 and 6 depict God populating these realms with created things (or creature-kings). Since natural history is not the focus of the framework hypothesis, there is no necessary conflict with modern science regarding the natural history of the earth or the cosmos. The ad-hoc rejection of some elements of scientific consensus might still be necessary strictly on theological grounds (i.e. common ancestry of humans with other primates), but science is generally not the focus of the narrative.

Analogical Days View: Very similar to the Framework Hypothesis, but with less emphasis on the "kingdoms-kings" structure.

Basically in that last one God is telling his people to have seven day weeks and to rest on the sabbath, and says "Look, even I the creator did that!"

Notice: my fairly conservative and holding-to-inerrancy Church recognizes four different interpretations as "within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy."

Again, no reason why non-Christians should be aware of this, and as my experience shows even a lot of Christians are not -- or would insist that their own interpretation is the only one possible. But folks should at least acknowledge that a faith with 2 billion adherents divided among 100s of church organizations has a LOT of variety in beliefs.

Holy cow, this took off since I last posted!

In a world where there is an actual intervening deity, and where "Magic" actually works, such disputes between religions are quickly resolved.

I dunno, the fighting between Catholics and Protestants (many of whom would not agree that they follow the same God) seems to have stopped, in Europe, at least. The battle between Islam and the rest of the world would appear to be undecided after 1400 years (and nowhere near becoming decided).

And generally the deities that get followed are the ones that put on a better show for the masses. (or the ones whose priests put on a better show…)

Which system of magical intervention allows the society to flourish better (i.e. produce more offspring).

In such a world, the Druid v Christianity that is recounted in Aurthurian legends just doesn't really happen. People can readily see who derives the most benefit from their religious views in a tangible and direct manner.

But when the 'weaker' deity is the one that allows you to have more offspring…

But seriously, can we check the Christians v everyone else debate at the door? This isn't a discussion about real-world religions. This is a discussion about how to balance two competing power sources in a game.

=================================

Doc, "OP" means "original post" or "original poster"

Back to my 'game-breaker' hat, complete with devil's advocate horns.

Hrmmm. Ok, so holy 'spells' (shorthand for 'supernatural effect, regardless of source') are more protective (and therefore generally advantageous to use early)…

If those spells are single-target, I would likely use a number of low-level priests and save one higher-level priest for later emergencies. That system does present some accounting headaches, since you'd need to track each priest's spell-use individually. I *really* don't like accounting in-game, unless you're using effects-counters on the table. It's too easy to forget something, whether accidental or intentional.

It would probably be a good idea to require both factions to use spells if one does, but that starts to turn into some lack-of-control issues. Priests cast 'holy armor', druids cast 'burning hail' on the enemy… And for some reason I am reminded of the Black Company novels, when the wizards would get into it with each other.

What a relief! I thought OP might be Old Phart or Old Prophet!

David and I both love the Black Company novels, and Glen Cook generally. You may recall that David has not-Goblin and not-OneEye ("mercenary wizards, I believe)in the Archer range for Splintered Light.

And there's already a write-up for my own Black Company, not QUITE the same as Cook's: a group of necromancers and weak shamans (and I might even throw in a possibly disgraced and defrocked renegade Godfearer priest) who have learned to cooperate effectively. The only necromancy they perform is to animate the bodies of the dead Company members, whose souls meantime go into Esprit de Corps, the Company's Guardian spirit. They are also expert at illusions. The far east of the Splintered Lands will be human city-states, often in war-over-trade-and-profits with one another (a la renaissance city states at the time of the condottieri) and the Company will be for hire in that region. I think.

I use spell markers a lot, and it is pretty easy with magic-users. If a shaman suffers a Brainburn I just put a small orange ring on the figure. For priests, just a token with a number on it for each prayer already prayed makes it easy to keep up with. I DON'T like having to write things down during a game, either.

The point system (in 2nd ed.) for characters equates a single D20 shaman with two weaker ones (D16 and D12); both are 40 points. The two weak ones will have a hard time casting the more powerful spells -- must roll higher than spell's difficulty, typically a 10 -- but are actually STRONGER in basic power, as the D20 averages 10.5 per turn and the D16 plus the D12 average 8.5 plus 6.5 = 15 points of power per turn. So the two weak ones will be more effective in Blocking enemy spells or Boosting an enemy shaman into a Brainburn. So choosing one strong or two weaker shamans is an important decision in army design.

A Godfearer army could certainly do as you suggest, with one or more army chaplains and local priests of holiness D4 or D6 -- good for one prayers, maybe a couple of weaker ones if they are lucky -- and a stronger bishop or such of higher holiness (D6 or D8) in reserve. A paladin typically has a fairly high holiness (D12 or so) plus a D20 charisma (plus combat skill, of course -- army champion) but is therefore quite expensive in points. A fighting saint even more so. More-and-weaker is quite possibly better.

OP=Original Post(er).

As for time, it doesn't matter about the Gods themselves.

What matters is the real world effect upon the people who use the magic provided by those Gods (or spirits).

Any slight advantage or edge provided by magic for one culture means that that population would quickly engulf the population for whom an edge was not provided in just a few generations.

If you look at it in terms of technology, look at what happened to the Native Americans due to their technological disadvantage.

And Darwinistic Forces tend to make technology look like soap bubbles in comparison (of strength to alter population sizes).

The longer Gods wait to do anything, the more followers they will lose, and as such, any power than they gain from said followers.

And if you are proposing that one of these Gods is really omnipotent, then its followers would rapidly become the only people left on such a world.

That's one of the consequences of a world where "magic is real."

But Alex, no, your logic works ONLY if the omnipotent God chooses to exert His power fully and immediately. The God of the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures chose one small people, protected them, demonstrated His power, but forebore any sweeping-away of rivals.

The longer Gods wait to do anything, the more followers they will lose, and as such, any power than they gain from said followers.

Right, PROVIDED a god's power really does come from the worship of its followers. A creator god who MADE those followers and didn't need to -- who doesn't need anything or anybody -- may have His own reasons for waiting.

In game and world design terms, what Alex says is generally correct -- but only at the level of creation. Angels and devils and independent spirits such as members of pantheons like the Olympians or the Aesir have great power but are not omnipotent, and may care about number of followers and perhaps even draw power from their worship (not sure how that would actually work, if the gods are real), and they are likely to act in ways such as Alex describes. Children squabble a lot, if Daddy is willing to put up with it. Which he may be, even a loving Father, if he is trying to teach them something from the experience.

What I would do is playtest your initial suggestion a few times and see what happens. The great thing about fantasy is that you can make up the rules first then define the universe rationalize them. Much easier than historical where you're trying to recreate some aspect of reality.

On Europeans versus the American Indians, or indeed Muslims versus the inhabitants of places like the southern Philippine islands, the invading culture was so much stronger that the original culture unraveled from multiple causes. The great religions of the world -- Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. -- are so powerful in their sophistication and appeal that whichever one of them comes into contact with a primitive animistic/totemic culture will dominate it. Quite apart from technology, and disease, and economics, etc. But one can look at India (Islam versus Hinduism) or indeed at Catholics versus Protestants within what used to be Christendom to see that the Big Boys are all major league teams capable of giving each other an even fight.

How that would be affected with gods directly and visibly involved in the affairs of their worshipping peoples is what we are debating. I think you (Alex)are over-emphasizing relative power, because the power differentials may be small, and because "power" is a broad term covering a wide range of things. "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Well, the organization the pope heads is still going strong, while the one Stalin headed is on the dust-heap of history. And when they came into direct conflict in Poland, we saw the outcome.

Murvihill, yes, and threads such as this are really part of a "playtest" process. In our case, we actually start with the miniatures. However, I find myself creating world and rules together -- though I certainly want the rules to be useful in another world than mine -- and I think they are flexible and modular enough to be. If someone doesn't like Godfearers, just leave them the hell out of your campaign!

The point is that they would dominate nothing without the technology, economics and diseases that come with them. Quite obvious, one should think…

Its hardly the pope that ended the Soviet Union and it is hardly the Soviet Union of Stalins days that was scrapped by Gorbachev and his cronies.

So who was stronger, Paul or Nero?

What?

Maybe we just need a special board for proselytizing under the guise of playtesting.

Yes, and a "Christian Theology and Wargaming" board. How many lead angels can dance on a needle's point if GOD wants them to?

Now guys, nobody compelling you to be on the thread.

This discussion has, again, been helpful to me, and will result in some changes in what I write or how I express it. I'm grateful to the TMP community.

Sam, you are a historian. How would you rank non-physical factors (the history of ideas, broadly) versus physical factors?

I'm not QUITE a geographical determinist, but I certainly stress geography in teaching US History.

Otoh, the American revolution was emphatically about IDEAS.

I'd tend to say that physical factors set limits, and within those limits -- or sometimes transcending them -- ideas are the main motivators. It's certainly hard to account for Mohammed and the Arab Muslim explosion except in terms of ideas and values.

I don't understand the question. "Rank" for what purpose?

I don't see the distinction that you're drawing. Ideas exist only in some physical context. Without pre-existing monotheistic religions in Arabia, and without the impetus provided by the persecution from the polytheists whom he despised… there is no Prophet Muhammad and thus no Islam.

I tend to think that most people react to circumstances, and to the actions of others around them, and then they may or may not attach labels and ideas to their actions – consciously or not (usually not) – as justification for why they act the way they do. In Muhammad's case, angels and revelations are just the way he chose to communicate and systematize it. (Pretty typical language in the 6th century). But had there not been a pre-existing motivation for a large-enough minority, he would have had no followers, no matter how charismatic he was.

"Come on boys, let's make Sam Adams even richer, but not change much else about daily life…!" is not nearly as good a rallying cry as, "Liberty or Death!" Nonetheless, the American Revolution is inconceivable without the pre-existing conditions of a frustrated – and politically-connected – colonial merchant class chafing under higher taxes and the restrictions of the mercantile system.

Ideas and ideologies are so malleable and subjective as to be useless as objective phenomena. For an African-American slave in the South, fighting for "Liberty," after all, would mean: fighting for the British, who had promised him emancipation if the rebellion was crushed. (And over 3000 were motivated to do so.) Were those slaves motivated by an "idea" of Liberty… Or by the very real possibility of a change in their poor circumstances? One assumes the latter is what matters, and the former is just the way to package it.

And Hwarang, the standard Christian answer is that angels are limited in location but occupy no space. If I held up a pin in front of a television camera and asked a million viewers to focus their attention there, and they did, their attention would be THERE in the sense that it is not somewhere else. But although their attention is there, it occupies no space there and there is no limit to how many different people's attention can be "there" at the same time. (Thanks to Dorothy Sayers for this illustration.) The subject of this famous but misunderstood scholastic debate was the nature of angels, but the real lesson was the necessity of clear distinctions and careful definitions. Don't use a word like "there" without clarifying whether you mean "located" or "occupying space."

Well, when you are explaining to students why something happened, don't you usually have one or more major or primary causes, and probably a larger number of secondary or subordinate or contributing causes? Would you agree that economic or geographic or other material causes are generally the most important, the most determinative? Or ideas including ideology and religion and such?

Okay, just read your addenda. Boy, my disagreement is profound -- bet that comes as a shock!

Again, we just begin from fundamentally different assumptions about reality.

But it occurs to me to ask: if ideas are so dependent on material circumstances, or of such limited impact, what is prosylatizing? It would either be ineffective or unnecessary, wouldn't it? And in either case, not something to be bothered by.

Btw, I do certainly agree that humans often make-up high sounding justifications, in terms of religion or ideology or idealism, for decisions they have already made for practical reasons. I can point to several examples in the American revolution, beginning with "Salutary Neglect."

YouTube link