View Full Version : Polytheism in BR
Osprey
03-07-2004, 01:16 PM
So I've been trying to imagine how BR's polytheistic religions really work. There's obviously a great deal of competition and rivalry between temples and temple regents, but there also seems to be a fair bit of tolerance, acceptance of certain sects by certain other sects, and even occasional alliances or "companion" churches.
Breaking it down to real facts, we see that in general, only 1 or 2 temples dominates a given region in most places in Cerilia. As I understand the domain rules, the levels of temple relative to the province level should give us a proportion of a province's dominant faith and spiritual loyalty.
The problem with all of this is that it doens't seem reflective of a polytheistic approach to religion, wherein each of the gods is revered and believed to preside over an essential aspect of life or the world.
For instance, Neserie's clergy are supposed to be responsible for presiding over the rites of the dead, and then maintain a period of mourning and remembrance for a certain time after a death to ensure the soul reaches the gods' realms. Now if we (or the people of Cerilia) are to give this any real credence, what happens to the souls of the dead in the 95% of Cerilia that doesn't have a Temple of Neserie?
Must we assume that the Neserians are called in as travelling clergy to do these rites?
Have the other temples learned to do without, and now have their own funerary rites?
Or do the temple levels represent Major Temples only, but it's safe to assume that there are minor shrines and household offerings, along with a small body of attendant priests, in most provinces where the gods or goddesses are venerated at all?
Finally, another question: How does all of this reflect upon the spiritual bractice and beliefs of the typical Anuirean, Brecht, Khinasi, Rjurik, or Vos? Do most of them believe in the existence of all of the gods? Are most of the gods venerated? (Historical examples would say yes, as most commoners always want to be on the safe side when it comes to appeasing the gods or gaining their blessings!)
Anyways, thought this would be an interesting topic for general discussion while adding yet more depth and a sense of reality to the world of Cerilia. :)
graham anderson
03-07-2004, 03:43 PM
Ok there are a lot of different things to talk about here. I think you really have to take each race separately the rjurik generally only see erik as worth worshiping and don’t really follow a pantheon like say the anuirians. Indeed the rjurik also have no afterlife to speak of so they have no need of nesirie.
The anuireans and brechtur both seam to follow more of a pantheon with many gods having places in a hierarchy led by a dominant god haelyn in anuire and sera in brechtur.
The khinasi revere avani and like the rjurik generally only see her as worth worshiping.
The vos worship the gods of darkness and this could be viewed as a second pantheon of darkness separate from the pantheon worshiped elsewhere. Why would the vos want nesirie presiding over their dead it is more likely the kriesha will fill this area.
There are of course exceptions in each of the area's that can be seen as the differences between Christian or Muslim sects.
I prefer to think of the temple level as church attendance rather than faith.
The book of priest craft gives each of the greater gods no superior making them the head of the pantheon for that race with the other gods lower down the scale.
There is a lot of room for interpretation.
Osprey
03-07-2004, 04:37 PM
There is a lot of room for interpretation.
Oh yeah...that's why I thought it would be a great topic for discussion. ;) I look forward to seeing some grand treatises in coming posts.
geeman
03-07-2004, 07:10 PM
At 05:37 PM 3/7/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
>
There is a lot of room for interpretation.
>
>
> Oh yeah...that`s why I thought it would be a great topic for
> discussion. ;) I look forward to seeing some grand treatises in coming
> posts.
Well, if that`s the case... here`s a treatise that I`m going to split up
into two posts (it`s too long for one.)
This information is a first draft of a chapter in my little fan-produced BR
text that might contextualize some of the issues of the Cerilian attitude
towards death, the afterlife, and the role of the gods in relation to
death. While it doesn`t specifically address all of the above questions it
does address a few.
One could see the following info as being the BR equivalent of the
Ghostwalk setting, though it isn`t particularly inspired by that
campaign. (At least, I started it before I saw the GW stuff.) It lacks
stats for the Spirit Guides, lesser and greater Lost souls, which I`ll post
once I come up with them. What I`d like to do is have some examples of
"challenges" faced by souls as their traverse the SW, to outline the
process itself, but that`s going to have to wait for a bit since it seems
like all I want to do for BR materials right now is write up materials for
new awnshegh and ershegh....
Comments welcome,
Gary
---ooOoo---
Death: The Final Adventure
“Look upon me, sojourner. I am the angel of death. I am come for
thee. Cast your eyes down to the ground at thy feet. There thy mortal
form lies. Thou art dead. Thou hast been slain in battle serving thy
lord. Fear not for I am here to guide thee to the halls of heroes. Come
now, let us tarry here no longer. There are many souls to gather up this
day, and the paths of death are long and shadowéd.”
Birthright Cosmology and the Gods
There is no god of death in the Birthright pantheon. Not even the most
powerful of the gods are immune to death. In the hearts and minds of many
Cerilians Azrai came to symbolize much of that aspect of the spiritual life
of Cerilian mortals, but in the end Azrai was defeated and even he
succumbed to death. Despite the fact that they were able to pass on their
power to their closest mortal followers does not diminish the fact that the
gods themselves died at the Battle of Deismaar. In such a world death
itself is greater than godhood. It is part of the primal nature of existence.
In the Birthright setting one of the most important roles of death is
embodied in the Shadow World and its relationship to the world of
light. Some scholars and theologians speculate that it was Azrai’s
connection to the Shadow World in his role as the god of shadows that gave
him access to the energies of the Shadow World itself, and that he gained
the ability to utilize the power of that dark reality. It is this supposed
ability that explains his unusual power in relation to the other
gods. Theories on the divine mechanisms of this relationship abound. One
theory is that the shadow god tapped the Shadow World in a manner similar
to the way Cerilian wizards establish source holdings and forge ley
lines. By tapping the power of an entire plane Azrai gained access to
great power and influence, for in the Shadow World lies not only the
darkened image of the world of light, but the embodiment of the
supernatural forces associated with that power; entropy and death. Another
theory is that the Shadow Lord was unable to completely control the forces
that he tampered with and that it was this lack of mastery the gods who
opposed him at Deismaar exploited to create the explosion in which they
sacrificed themselves and destroyed Azrai in the process. Others speculate
that it was the consciousness of the Shadow World itself that rebelled
against Azrai’s control, and it was this rejection that that resulted the
Dark Lord’s ultimate defeat. In the end, however, what matters is that
Azrai was not himself the master of death, as is evidenced by the fact that
he was subject to the same primal forces as any other being.
Whatever the truth of these matters may be, the power of the Shadow
World and its influence upon the world of light is felt not only in the
occasional breech of the veil between the two realities which creatures
from either world use to travel back and forth. The Shadow World and the
world of life and light are intertwined. The Shadow World touches all
things just as all aspects of the Shadow World are influenced by the world
of light. Manifestations of reality are paralleled on both planes and,
though there is variation in physical form and location, all things that
exist on one plane exist on the other. To a person from the world of light
the manifestation of objects and places on the Shadow World seem a warped
and twisted version of reality, dark and ominous. A Shadow Worlder,
however, would find the manifestation of objects in the world of light
equally strange and degenerate, perverted by the nature of the world of
light and life.
The Power of Light and Shadow
One important difference between the two planes is the generative power
of the world of light and life where new souls are continually created,
developed and released from their mortal, material forms. Most living
things in the world of light have a dark, deathly parallel on the Shadow
World. A tree, for instance, will have a withered and twisted counterpart
on the Shadow World. The life cycle of a tree in the world of light is
constantly recycled reincarnated, if you willso that the overall energy it
represents on the plane of light remains relatively unchanged. This allows
its Shadow World twin to remain similarly a constantalbeit less tied to the
cycle of birth, growth and death as are living things. Similarly, the
non-sentient life of the world of light and the World of Shadow exist in
equal proportion on either plane remaining in constant balance to one
another. Animate dead or similar forces in the Shadow World requite the
energies of living things. As such, the two realities are inextricably
linked. Nothing can exist in one reality without a counterpart on the other.
However, those beings with souls that exist on either plane are not
paralleled on the opposite plane. There are living beings in the Shadow
World, of course, many beings are even born, live and die there, but they
are far fewer than those of the world of light and the immortality of their
souls somewhat questionable. The energy of the immortal soul is greater
than that of life alone and represents a disharmony in the planar balance,
creating a state of flux. When the mortal form that houses a soul
perishes, its energy cannot remain in the world of light. It must pass
beyond to a final destination beyond light and shadow.
Thus, when a mortal dies his soul must traverse the Shadow World where
the process and ordeals it endures during its travel releases the energies
that return the worlds into balance before it can pass on to its ultimate
destination in the afterlife. While traveling through the Shadow World the
soul expends energies by facing challenges that not only release energies
into the plane, but test its worthiness to enter whatever version of
paradise awaits it. The number and types of challenges faced by the
aspirant soul varies according to that soul’s allegiances and purpose in
life as well as its ultimate destination, but there are some commonalities
to the process. All souls face challenges that test their faith in a
higher power, challenges that test how closely they adhere to the beliefs
they espoused in life, and challenges that determine whether the soul is
ready to move on to a more spiritual existence, away from their mortal
concerns of the body; food, sleep, comfort, physical pleasure, possessions,
etc. No two souls are identical. Each will inspire unique challenges, so
the challenges themselves come in an infinite variety.
The Final Journey through the Shadow World is a long and perilous
one. Many souls are not ultimately successful in passing through to the
planes beyond. They expend their energies on the Shadow World, and are
ultimately absorbed into the plane itself.
geeman
03-07-2004, 07:10 PM
The Menagerie of Death
Spirit Guides do not accompany a soul through every aspect of its
travels through the Shadow World (their duties are many and the souls they
shepherd unlimited) but their aid can greatly assist an itinerant soul
complete its journey. Ultimately, every soul must face and overcome its
own challenges. The Spirit Guide may not intervene directly but it can
help prevent the soul from becoming lost between challenges as well as
offer some assistance (in the form of hints or advice) and
encouragement. The Spirit Guide also acts as proof of the ultimate reward
for the soul should it overcome its challenges. When a spirit is stripped
of its mortal trappings by completing all the challenges that it must face,
the soul passes on to the appropriate location in the planes of existence
beyond the Shadow World for its race, ethos, morality and ultimate reward.
The dead do not reckon time in the same way that mortals do. In fact,
they hardly reckon time at all, so there is no time limit set upon the
length of a soul`s journey. Because time is often not a factor in
determining the success or failure of a challenge, a soul`s journey can
take years. The journey of some souls may take many times the length of
their mortal lives. Generally speaking there is no "failure" of a
challenge. Souls cannot die in the Shadow World though they can be
dispersed in such a way that they must reconstitute, a process that can
take the equivalent of several weeks in mortal time so they can attempt a
challenge over and over again until they complete it. Many challenges,
however, are insurmountable to a particular soul, effectively trapping it
in the Shadow World in perpetuity. Such spirits become ghostly permanent
residents of the Shadow World. Souls that exist for too long in the Shadow
World may begin to take on some of the characteristics of Shadow. They
lose their sense of purpose and become lost in the glooming mimicry of the
mortal existence that is the Shadow World. Eventually, the Shadow World
itself becomes their ultimate destination. The lost souls of the Shadow
World are often driven mad by their frustration. Filled with bitterness,
envy and hatred for all things living and dead. The weaker souls that are
unable to move on become lost spirits whose ghostly, wind-like voices howl
or weep eerily. Eventually, they lose the capacity to even understand the
nature of their predicament and their energies disperse into the stuff of
the Shadow World itself.
The stronger souls trapped in the Shadow World sometimes become the most
feared agents of evil on that plane. They can become Greater Lost
Souls. Filled with jealousy and malice they revel in sabotaging the
efforts of sojourning souls to reach their final destination, as well as
tormenting any living beings they come across. Such beings take on
monstrous forms as warped as their own tortured souls. On rare occasions
these tortured beings have been able to employ complex rituals (invariably
involving the sacrifice of mortal lives) in order to cross over into the
mortal world. Such beings wreak havoc upon the living for not only because
are they cruel and hateful, but also because their power is both deathly
and beyond death.
Because of the difficulty of traversing the Shadow World the gods have
created beings to aid souls in their journey. These beings, sometimes
called "guides" by mortals, act as advisors and mentors to the souls of the
dead, assisting them through the paths they must take to escape the Shadow
World.
The deaths of many mortals on the material plane will often attract the
attention of the agents of the gods. Battles of great size will attract
several guides, as will the death of great heroes. Though they are visible
only to the souls of the dead, their appearance is often seen by the living
as a shimmering or glowing around or above the dead. To the dead a guide
appears to be a mortal of noble bearing and demeanor. A guide usually
takes on a form similar to the race and cultural heritage of the soul or
souls it is sent to gather.
Amongst humans Spirit Guides are called "Wolken" by the Rjurik, and
"Valkyr" by the Brecht. The Vos call Spirit Guides "Walkarai." Both
Anuireans and the Khinasi use angelic terms for the Spirit Guides;
seraphian, cherubian, etc. in the belief that there is complex spiritual
hierarchy or classification to which each belongs.
Elven souls remain rooted in the Aebrynial plane upon death, rejoining
the natural energies that drive the world of light, but they know of and
have interacted with the beings that shepherd the souls of mortals after
death. Elves call them Annwndalien ("those beyond death.") Much like
their attitudes and beliefs regarding the gods, elves acknowledge the
existence and power of Spirit Guides, but attach no special reverence to
them. They are respected for their role in the cosmos as well as their
personal grace and power, but since they do not figure prominently in the
spiritual life of Cerilian elves they are not given any theological reverence.
Halflings have their origins in the Shadow World, and they do not speak
of Spirit Guides openly. The soul having to return to the Shadow World in
death represents a special terror to many of that race, so it is not a
commonly discussed belief among halfling theologians. Whether their racial
distaste for the subject affects their ability to traverse the Shadow World
after death is a matter for debate. Some human scholars have speculated
that most halfling souls enter the Shadow World and remain rooted there for
eternity much the same way elven souls remain in the world of light. In
effect, they pay for their ability to enter the Shadow World in life by
having difficulty passing through it in the afterlife. Whatever the truth
of these matters, halflings find the topic of the soul`s disposition after
death extremely unsettling, not to mention distasteful. On those rare
occasions when they do refer to Spirit Guides they are content to describe
them using whatever word is used by the culture in which they are living.
Dwarven clerics refer to Spirit Guides as the Truok, and their role as
guardians of the dwarven people is believed by many of that race to be more
extensive than merely shepherding their souls through the Shadow
World. Dwarves believe that the Truok represent a higher level of
advancement for a dwarven soul and that exceptional members of their race
will return to the worlds of light and shadow as Spirit Guides. The
"ascension" of the dwarven soul into Truok represents an extensive system
of ancestor worship. There are long, hagiographical lists of Truok that
have been compiled by dwarven theologians, including the names of those
believed to have been the first dwarves ever created. Furthermore, dwarves
believe that Truok influence their daily lives. They watch over the
dwarven people and inspiring dwarves in all aspects of life. Dwarves will
commonly evoke the names of particular Truok as part of daily ritual and
observances. Many dwarves emboss their equipment with runic symbols
referencing particular Truok, call out their names in battle, while forging
metal or working in stone. "Illich vanikar Truok vey" is a common dwarven
expression meaning, "I was inspired by a spirit guide."
Amongst the humanoid races, goblins call the Spirit Guides the Kachar,
while among orogs they are called the Chacktar. Though it appears their
souls must go through the same ordeal as the souls of other mortal beings,
gnolls and most other races of Cerilia have no independent concept of the
Spirit Guides. There has been some speculation by theological scholars
that patron gods of goblins, orogs and gnolls draw some of their power from
the Shadow World and thus find the concept of their follower`s souls
diffusing into that realm more acceptable.
Upon rare occasions a Spirit Guide will appear to a living being. Such
an appearance is usually viewed as a sign of impending doom. However,
there are tales of great heroes seeing a spirit of death in a moment when
his fate is near, but by cheating death avoiding his journey through the
Shadow World (for a time.) In other fables the nobility, bravery, beauty
or virtue of a mortal facing certain death has swayed a Guide and rather
than gather up that hero`s soul the Spirit Guide instead assists him in
cheating death. A favored tale of the Rjurik skalds is that of a Walkar
who in defiance of the supernatural order took on human form for love of a
mortal she was sent to gather up. One of the elven creation myths suggest
their ancestry and connection to the elemental aspect of their nature
arises from just such a marriage between an elven princess and an annwnda
who took on elven form for love of her. The death of this supernatural
being is said to have infused some of his spirit into her and all her
kin. Invariably, the moral of such stories is that in the end no one can
escape his doom, and that the cost of such love is often terrible,
requiring great sacrifice and an existence of constant peril as the Powers
seek to recall their agent and end the life of one who can tempt away a
spirit of death.
Upon occasion a Spirit Guide is sent by a deity as a messenger to a
mortal to warn him of an imminent and untimely death, and on those
occasions when the mortal ignores or otherwise fails to heed the warning,
to gather up his soul. Though such stories occur in nearly all the
Cerilian cultures, these tales of tragic fate and unavoidable destiny are
particularly popular in Rjurik culture.
[The stats for the Spirit Guide below aren`t quite complete. I still need
to figure out skills and special abilities. I have not yet written up the
stats for lesser and greater Lost Souls.]
Spirit Guide
Medium-sized Outsider
Hit Dice: 12d10+48 (102hp)
Initiative: +8 (+4 Dex, +4 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 40 ft, fly 60 ft
AC: 22 (+4 dex, +4 armor, +4 natural armor) touch 14, flat-footed 18
Base Attack/Grapple: +12/+17
Attack: Sword +16 melee (1d8+5)
Full Attack: Sword +16/+11/+6 melee (1d8+5)
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Saves: Fort +13, Ref +8, Will +9
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 18, Con 18, Int 16, Wis 20, Cha 20
Skills: Listen +?, Spot +?
Feats: Alertness, Blind-fight, Improved Initiative, Track
Environment: Any land (Shadow World)
Organization: Solitary or squad (3-5)
Challenge Rating: 14
Treasure: No coin, double goods and standard items.
Alignment: Varies
Advancement: By character class (fighter is the preferred class for Spirit
Guides.)
Level Adjustment: +2
A Spirit Guide appears to be an extraordinarily beautiful member of
whatever race it has been sent to gather up. Using their Alter Self
ability, a spirit guide will appear to wear ornate clothing and armor
appropriate to that race or culture. In fact, they wear the equivalent of
a chain shirt.
Combat
A Spirit Guide can use any martial or simple weapon in combat. They
generally prefer longswords or scimitars, however, and eschew missile weapons.
kgauck
03-07-2004, 10:30 PM
The whole problem here lies in the understanding that by, "the domain rules,
the levels of temple relative to the province level should give us a
proportion of a province`s dominant faith and spiritual loyalty."
Change this to an understanding that, "the level of temple relative to the
province level should give us a proportion of the political power and
ability to extract a surplus."
Every province of sufficient size (lets ignore 0 and 1 provinces because
they might actually conform to the former understanding) is going to have
some representation of clergy of every faith, and some part-time worship.
After all, in a polytheistic model, part-time worship would be the norm.
Here are some ideas that you can use to make this tangible as characters
visit a province:
* Some faiths are wrapped up into other temples. I generally rule that gods
who are married and parent-child are often represented in one another`s
temples or in some places, just give reflexive political support to the
leading temple in the family. Suppose you come into Aerenwe. The Eastern
Temple of Nesirie is the dominant temple. Its leaders are the most
influential, the most connected, and have the unquestioned support of the
temples of Haelyn and Cuiraécen. If the temples of Haelyn and Cuiraécen
totally back up the ETN in matters of politics and defer to the leadership
of ETN in political matters -- support the crown, oppose guilder X, expand
influence here, take issue with IHH, &c. then we can understand them at the
realm level as "part" of ETN, even though at the character level we can see
a difference because they have different buildings, priests, and doctrines.
So when Maire Cwllmie sits down to make realm decisions, and the PC`s are
present, I`d include a small number of priests of Haelyn and Cuiraécen. In
small provinces and little towns and villages, the priests of Haelyn and
Cuiraécen might actually be inside the temples of Nesirie, in side buildings
or rooms.
* Temples which lack holding levels might well be large and opulant, but
simply lack political influence and generate only enough money to cover
expences, hence no RP or GB are generated. Then again, they may be small or
sparce. Let`s turn our attention to Endier. Suppose Guilder Kalien
contests the Celestial Jewel of Sarimie to nothing (not even a zero holding
remains). The buildings are still there and some of priests are still there
(some would leave to take positions in the CJS elsewhere, others would
become polite by uncooperative to Temais Coumain) so from the street you
might not notice that anything has changed. The priests of Sarimie who had
access to Guilder Kalien used to be priests loyal to Temais Coumain and the
CJS. Now its just a different set of priests. They have loyalty to no
specific regent, just Sarimie. Of course Kalien could take actions to
install friendly priests who would be loyal to him, but that`s a different
situation. Let`s further assume that Rhobher Nichaleir and the WIT take
advantage of the situation and rule up their holdings to 6 in Endier. The
temples to Sarimie are still there, but they have no inflience. They may
draw a substantial number of worshipers, after all Endier is a major trading
center (probabaly ships can get this far up the Maesil) and full of
craftsmen and merchants who will be attracted to a merchantile diety.
However, people don`t give as much as they used to because more money is
being given to the WIT, because they have more influence. The temple of
Sarimie has lost tax exemptions and rights to collect income as she lost
influence to keep those benefits. The WIT is not only collecting more from
worshipers, but also uses her influence to gain tax exemptions and to
collect revenues. When Sarimie had 3 holdings, perhaps she levied a small
tax at the dockyards on sea captains over and above the contributions some
of them made to insure Sarimie`s favor for a prosperous or lucky voyage.
The contributions covered expences, but the tax was a surplus. They don`t
get the tax anymore. The WIT is probably collecting extra revenue in the
courts, for example. Consider the nice temple of Rournil in Endier. No one
cares what they say or do (no influence) except a few wizards, rangers,
students of esoteric secrets, and those who have a sensitivity to the Shadow
World. They may or may not have money, but regardless of how wealthy they
are, their income is matched by their expences, so no GB are generated.
Only temples with holdings have enough influence to collect extra revenues,
avoid certain taxes, and thereby generate a surplus for use at the realm
level.
Now let`s go back and see of we can`t get some understanding from the
original statement, "the levels of temple relative to the province level
should give us a proportion of a province`s dominant faith and spiritual
loyalty." Yes, but not exclusively. Compare the worship of Nesirie in our
two examples, Aerenwe and Endier. In Aerenwe everyone pays some obedience
to the ETN, though they may also have greater commitments elsewhere. In
Endier the Temple of Nesirie may outwardly look opulent (or perhaps a step
below the majesty of the temple in Calrie) but people only attend worship or
pay respects when they have dead relatives or an upcoming sea voyage. Other
than sailors, they may have few regular visitors. So going by your
statement, a province like Calrie tells us everyone has some loyalty and
obedience to Nesirie as revealed by the ETN, in Endier not enough of anyone
does to have an impact *at the realm level*. So let`s suppose that Nesirie
is going to send great storms to clean the seas. Priestesses of Nesirie in
Calrie and Endier tell sailors to stay in port the next few days storms will
come. In Calrie the ships will likely stay in port and wait out the storms.
In Endier sailors may go from the temple of Nesirie to that of Sarimie and
put a few extra coins in Sarimie`s offertory and pray for good luck on their
voyage in order to avoid the storms, so you see how an action by priestesses
of Nesirie on one place might demonstrate direct power and in another place
might actually contribute to the might of another temple.
Even in Rjurik, where Erik is the only temple with holdings (excepting the
Siren, &c) one should have no problem imagining that the druids welcome the
occasional priest of Avani or Laerme, who are probabaly actually a part of
the ES or OG. Temples of Haelyn, Sera, Ruornil are welcomed as long as they
don`t attempt to usurp the power of the druids and confine themselves to
their narrow functions. So only nobles and lawyers take note of Haelyn, or
commoners with special problems of fear, honor, or law. Only craftsment and
merchants take note of Sera, or commoners with special problems of luck or
wealth.
Where the Book of Priestcraft identifies dieties as allies, assume welcome
of other priests and faiths. At worst, they are regarded as rival faiths of
the same god. Where the BoP makes no mention of allies or enemies, expect
tolerance. Where there is an emnity, its possible that worshiping gods of
enemies of the dominent faith are underground, furtive, or even
non-existent. We are familar with the lack of worship or underground
worship of Belinik in Anuire. Consider the same to be true of Kriesha in
Rjurik. Most Rjurik, at least those of courage and commitment look to Avani
to chase Kriesha away . So a hard winter will tend to create additional
attention to the wife of Erik. There are some who will furtively pay
offering to Kriesha in hopes that she will withhold her punishment.
Obviously most Rjruik would disapprove, so its done quickly and out of fear.
At the realm level, however, a hard winter would tend to send more people to
call on Avani within the ES or OG and so would tend to increase the power of
those temples, not Kriesha`s, even though a few additional coins or blood
sacrifices are given.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-07-2004, 10:30 PM
Osprey said:
> Oh yeah...that`s why I thought it would be a great topic for discussion.
> ;) I look forward to seeing some grand treatises in coming posts.
I have harped on about this in earlier times. I certainly agree that the
Temple Holding system *as it is currently most widely interpretted* does
not suit societies which are significantly polytheistic, in particular
Anuire.
This deficiency can be overcome be re-examining the way we look at the
Temple Holding. I do not see a Temple Holding as being a gauge of the
worship-patterns of a province. Simply because a province (4/1) has a
temple (4) in it does not mean that every person in that province worships
a single god. Instead I see Temple Holdings as centralisation and control
over religious matters in a province. To my mind the division of temples
in BR into the "Temple of [Deity]" is a flawed approach. In almost every
conceivable example (possibly excepting the Vos temples who deliberately
pursue a policy of persecution of any who venerate other gods) a temple is
going to contain priests of a number of gods. The Temple Holding just
reflects the respect and loyalty of priests to a certain priest (the
holdings controller) in much the same way that a Law Holding represents
obedience to a specific noble or alternative authority figure.
This kind of approach allows for a huge expansion of the potentials for
interesting problems in Temples since they are no longer homogenous blocks
of "vanilla".
Take Roesone, for example. In Roesone the religious affairs of the kingdom
are largely controlled by the Impregnable Heart (the "of Haelyn" that
generally follows has been deleted deliberately by me). However a seperate
hierarchy is striving to become established among the faddishly mystical
nobles of Caercas, namely, the Celestial Spell. The Impregnable Heart
faces another problem though, an internal one. There are priests of other
deities in the Impregnable Heart; it has Avanalaens to perform seasonal
rites together with the Aericites and Neseriens and Ruornites to perform
mourning and funeral ceremonies. There is currently a problem since the
Ruornites within the Heart are being tempted by the establishment of a
temple controlled by Ruornil`s faithful, however not all of the Ruornites
wish to make a break with the Heart (they prefer being the top Ruornites
to being just one of the herd, so to speak). There is another, possibly
less obvious, problem though.
The Light and Protection ("Life" sounds goofy if you ask me, and far less
suitable) has been steadily expanding across Anuire from the east. The
head of this faction teaches about an expanded role for Avanalae in
Anuirean religion (In Anuirean religion she is primarily Aeric`s consort
and patron of summer and scholars) and although there has been no open
challenge of Haelyn`s principal role in the Anuirean religion the
Haelynites and traditional priests are concerned. The Light and Protection
is a more worrying phenomenon than the Celestial Spell, since it appears
more universally popular; Avanalaens in the Imperial City have even
submitted to its matriarch. Roesone is specifically mentioned (in PS:
Roesone, IIRC) as having an Avanalaen monastery within its borders.
Currently these clerics acknowledge the authority of the Impregnable
Heart`s patriarch but there is some concern that in the future they will
be tempted to abandon the Heart for the Light and Protection (creating a
temple (0) for the Light and Protection possibly?). If this happens then,
since the monastery is an important spiritual centre for Avanalaens
locally, it is possible that the ranking cleric of Avanalae within the
Impregnable Heart might switch his loyalty to the Light and Protection,
resulting in the loss of some authority for the Heart (Great Captain
event(s) perhaps?). IN this way having more diversely populated temple
holdings makes for expanded opportunities for growth, or problems,
depending on what players and referees do.
Something else that others mentioned, and to which was briefly alluded to
in my example above, is that the gods have different roles and places in
the hierarchies of the different cultural pantheons. Avani is the most
important deity in Khinasi incorporating law, learning, magic, the sun
(and its fertility aspects), and leadership of the pantheon. By comparison
Avanalae, Avani`s Anuirean version, is a vastly less important goddess.
Her primary role is making the sun shine to provide fertility together
with her consort Aeric, and inspiring the occasional scholar. Amongst the
the Rjurik Lana is the wife of the head of the pantheon and is probably
more important than Avanalae is to the Anuireans (the return of long days
is probably an important time of the year in the far north). In Vos
temples the sun goddess is probably reviled as an enemy god since she is
both the bringer of thaw and the rational foe of chaotic fury. As for the
Brechts, I still profess to being confused about how to deal with Brecht
religion, possibly Avani is seen as a guardian of constitutional freedoms
and an impartial "lady of law"? This interpretation greatly depends on how
you view the Brecht civilisation and whether you equate freedom with chaos
or not.
There you go Osprey, I hope that was interesting and sufficiently lengthy.
It is pared down a bit and might be a bit confusing, so everyone feel free
to ask questions if you don`t understand what I am rambling about.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Fearless_Leader
03-07-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 7 2004, 05:16 AM
Must we assume that the Neserians are called in as travelling clergy to do these rites?
Have the other temples learned to do without, and now have their own funerary rites?
Or do the temple levels represent Major Temples only, but it's safe to assume that there are minor shrines and household offerings, along with a small body of attendant priests, in most provinces where the gods or goddesses are venerated at all?
Finally, another question: How does all of this reflect upon the spiritual bractice and beliefs of the typical Anuirean, Brecht, Khinasi, Rjurik, or Vos? Do most of them believe in the existence of all of the gods? Are most of the gods venerated? (Historical examples would say yes, as most commoners always want to be on the safe side when it comes to appeasing the gods or gaining their blessings!)
I imagine that the answers to all your questions is yes. All of the temples have their own funeral rites, though in many occasions, traveling priests of Nesirie are called in to perform their own rites, or sometimes even to supplement the rites of other priests. We may also assume that there are a number of small and independent shrines and unaffiliated priests of various gods throughout Cerilia. Naturally, these independent priests are going to face certain challenges. For example, a priest of Belinik in Anuire will face certain execution, as will a priest of Haelyn found in Vosgaard.
As for the role of polytheism itself, its going to be complicated and open to vast amounts of interpretation. Take Anuire for example - within those lands you will find those who believe that only the Anuirean patron, Haelyn, is worthy of worship - to the exclusion of all others. You will also find those that worship Haelyn but often invoke prayers to other gods depending on the situation, such as when a Haelynite finds himself out at sea or lost deep in the woods. Then you will find those that worship other gods primarily - following any number of other temples such as the Eastern Temple of Nesirie or the Life and Protection of Avanalae. Many of these people will worship their chosen god yet still acknowledge their culture's patron diety as being at the head of the pantheon. Finally, there will be those within these temples who follow their chosen god because they believe that their god/ goddess is the most important - if they don't believe their god is at the head of the pantheon, then they believe that he or she should be.
Birthright-L
03-08-2004, 01:10 AM
Fearless_Leader said:
> As for the role of polytheism itself, its going to be complicated and
> open to vast amounts of interpretation. Take Anuire for example - within
> those lands you will find those who believe that only the Anuirean
> patron, Haelyn, is worthy of worship - to the exclusion of all others.
I do not believe that this is the case in Anuire, at all. I believe that
some priests think that there is no other god *for them*, but I do not
think that they see other gods as unworthy of worship. The priests are, in
any event, not normal. Priests often personally devote to a single god
above, but not excluding, all the rest whereas most other people remain
general polytheistic venerating whoever if appropriate to their lives and
situations, as Kenneth mentioned.
As an aside, I think that in the Imperial Age, before the extreme level of
political factionalisation of religion, there were probably "generic"
priests who did not have a dedicated relationship with one single deity
(and the benefits and problems that provides) but instead followed all the
"acceptable" deities of the Anuirean Pantheon (Haelyn, Neserie, Aeric,
Avanalae, Cuiraecen, Laerme, Ruornil, and Saramie; not Eloele) at once.
For HeroWars/HeroQuest fans out there this can be seen as the difference
between a relationship of Devotion and a relationship of multiple
Initiation within the pantheon.
> Then you will find those that worship other gods primarily - following
> any number of other temples such as the Eastern Temple of Nesirie or the
> Life and Protection of Avanalae. Many of these people will worship their
> chosen god yet still acknowledge their culture`s patron diety as being at
> the head of the pantheon. Finally, there will be those within these
> temples who follow their chosen god because they believe that their god/
> goddess is the most important - if they don`t believe their god is at the
> head of the pantheon, then they believe that he or she should be.
I think there are very few of these temples. I think that the Eastern
Temple only reflects the religio-political dominance of the priests of
Neserie in a temple that is mainly based in the pro-Neserie kingdom of
Aerenwe. The only example of a temple where most of the priests are of one
god and where that temple is primarily concerned with one god is
*possibly* the Celestial Spell, and I think that there is good
justification for there being priests of other gods within the Celestial
Spell as well (Avanalae and Neserie spring to mind, but any deity can be
worked in with little problem). The only reason why the Celestial Spell
exists as a seperate temple is because of the political persecution of
Medoere by Diemed and the personal charisma and status of Suris Enlien as
Ruornil`s Prophet. Without these I expect that it would not exist
seperately and we would simply note that there were larger than normal
numbers of Ruornil`s priests in the South Coast.
Unfortunately, for some, applying the polytheism implied by the setting to
BR means that we have to do a lot more homework for temples than simply
noting the dominance of one faith, a cast of other deities` priests must
be created for each major religious faction.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Fearless_Leader
03-08-2004, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Birthright-L@Mar 7 2004, 05:10 PM
I do not believe that this is the case in Anuire, at all. I believe that some priests think that there is no other god *for them*, but I do not think that they see other gods as unworthy of worship. The priests are, in any event, not normal. Priests often personally devote to a single god above, but not excluding, all the rest whereas most other people remain general polytheistic venerating whoever if appropriate to their lives and situations, as Kenneth mentioned.
While I agree with some of what you've said on this subject, I think you misunderstood what I meant. The fact of the matter is that there will be a group of hardcore fanatics who believe that Haelyn (or some of the other gods for that matter) is the only god worthy of worship. They don't deny the other gods existance for certain, but these individuals will find that the other gods in the pantheon should not be worshipped by any "true blooded Anuirean," arguing, among other things, that from Haelyn's tenents come civilization and that those that do not follow these tenets are little better than barbarians. These people are the kinds of regents that are most likely to expel merchants and priests of other faiths, believing that they subvert the word of the Book of Laws with their ideas of the middle class, merchant dominated societies, and an end to serfdom. These people are most likely to be found in the more reactionary elements of the OIT, a few other temples (the NIT sticks out in my mind), and among certain nobility.
On the generic priest idea, I have to say I don't agree at all. I've always seen the priests and the pantheon constantly competing against one another. In the Imperial Age, this was more likely to take the role of a political machination rather than an outright religious war. I've also seen the old Imperial Temple as perhaps incorporating branches of Nesirie and Cuiraecen's faith. The Militant Order of Cuiraecen could, for example, have been descended from a sub-temple of the Imperial Temple, similar to the relationship between Imperial Temple and Haelyn's Aegis. As for the temples of other gods, I don't think they were in much abundance before the fall of the Empire. Certainly a few existed, but were tightly regulated and perhaps had to pay a tax to the Imperial Temple.
In the end, I don't really agree with your interpretation of the temples - that being that they have many priests within them and the priests of one god are dominant. That model could have been applied to the Imperial Temple - maybe. What I do agree with was the earlier statement on how temples represent the political dominance of one faith or another (I forget who said it). The example of Endier was used where the CJS loses all their holdings, yet the Sarimite priests remain with their temples, their congregations might simply decrease and they lose their political power (the example of collecting an extra tax on the docks was used).
kgauck
03-08-2004, 03:30 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:03 PM
> The only reason why the Celestial Spell exists as a seperate
> temple is because of the political persecution of Medoere by
> Diemed and the personal charisma and status of Suris Enlien
> as Ruornil`s Prophet.
I would be tempted to add some impetus. Perhaps immediately before
Diesmaar, Rournil and his council met at some location in Medoere where
Rournil shared his secret plan of attack. After Diesmaar, the place,
possibly a grove, was taken to be sacred to Ruornil. Soon a school was
erected nearby and the school was given protection of the site. Today the
place is a kind of university of esoteric teaching and research into the
secrets of the universe, and the care and protection of secret knowledge.
As such there are, as you say, "larger than normal numbers of Ruornil`s
priests in the South Coast." I just went so far as to explain why that
might be.
Indeed I would not be surprised if there were sacred spots to other gods in
that neighborhood as well. We know about Haelyn`s location in Diemed. Some
may be off the cost, like Nesirie`s, so there is some flexibility here.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-08-2004, 05:50 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> I would be tempted to add some impetus. Perhaps immediately before
> Diesmaar, Rournil and his council met at some location in Medoere where
> Rournil shared his secret plan of attack. After Diesmaar, the place,
> possibly a grove, was taken to be sacred to Ruornil. Soon a school was
> erected nearby and the school was given protection of the site. Today the
> place is a kind of university of esoteric teaching and research into the
> secrets of the universe, and the care and protection of secret knowledge.
> As such there are, as you say, "larger than normal numbers of Ruornil`s
> priests in the South Coast." I just went so far as to explain why that
> might be.
Exactly, but what transforms this potential from a neat piece of
background colour into a seperate temple hierarchy was the Prophet, at
least [I]n [M]y [C]erilia.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-08-2004, 06:10 AM
Fearless_Leader said:
> While I agree with some of what you`ve said on this subject, I think you
> misunderstood what I meant. The fact of the matter is that there will be
> a group of hardcore fanatics who believe that Haelyn (or some of the
> other gods for that matter) is the only god worthy of worship. They
> don`t deny the other gods existance for certain, but these individuals
> will find that the other gods in the pantheon should not be worshipped by
> any "true blooded Anuirean," arguing, among other things, that
> from Haelyn`s tenents come civilization and that those that do not follow
> these tenets are little better than barbarians. These people are the
> kinds of regents that are most likely to expel merchants and priests of
> other faiths, believing that they subvert the word of the Book of Laws
> with their ideas of the middle class, merchant dominated societies, and
> an end to serfdom. These people are most likely to be found in the more
> reactionary elements of the OIT, a few other temples (the NIT sticks out
> in my mind), and among certain nobility.
This to my mind is only interesting as an example of chauvinism. Useful as
an example of people who are irrational and abnormal.
I believe that I will leave it to Kenneth to discuss the Northern Imperial
Temple, since the Taelshore is his pet project.
> On the generic priest idea, I have to say I don`t agree at all. I`ve
> always seen the priests and the pantheon constantly competing against one
> another. In the Imperial Age, this was more likely to take the role of a
> political machination rather than an outright religious war. I`ve also
> seen the old Imperial Temple as perhaps incorporating branches of Nesirie
> and Cuiraecen`s faith. The Militant Order of Cuiraecen could, for
> example, have been descended from a sub-temple of the Imperial Temple,
> similar to the relationship between Imperial Temple and Haelyn`s Aegis.
> As for the temples of other gods, I don`t think they were in much
> abundance before the fall of the Empire. Certainly a few existed, but
> were tightly regulated and perhaps had to pay a tax to the Imperial
> Temple.
I don`t agree. I see machinations occuring along political lines and not
simply between worshippers of different gods. The rise in political power
of non-Haelynite priests in Anuire is a symptom of the Fall of the Empire
as much as the lack of unity amongst the nobles is. I am not attempting to
paint some idealised picture of the Imperial Age (although I suspect a lot
of Anuireans do...) - I fully accept that rivalry was present, but I think
it was more likely to be between the prelates than between the priests of
diffult gods` cults.
> In the end, I don`t really agree with your interpretation of the temples
> - that being that they have many priests within them and the priests of
> one god are dominant. That model could have been applied to the Imperial
> Temple - maybe. What I do agree with was the earlier statement on how
> temples represent the political dominance of one faith or another (I
> forget who said it). The example of Endier was used where the CJS loses
> all their holdings, yet the Sarimite priests remain with their temples,
> their congregations might simply decrease and they lose their political
> power (the example of collecting an extra tax on the docks was used).
I prefer to see your Endier example as showing how another faction becomes
favoured over the faction headed by Temias Coumain. Priests keep preaching
and the populace keeps praying, but the priests no longer answer to
Temias; it is the Prelate of the Western Imperial Temple who decides what
is to be spoken from the pulpits (so to speak...). I don`t think that the
people of Endier all of a sudden decide that Sarimie has no meaning for
them and stop worshipping Her.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Osprey
03-08-2004, 06:34 AM
Woo hoo! Boy did I get my wish! :D
Great contributions from everyone! This is some of the consistently best stuff I've seen on BR.net in a while, IMHO. Geeman, you wrote a really neat exploration about death, how the Shadow World and Physical World interact, and the development of spirit guides (though I should mention, the stats for spirit guides at the end actually detracted from the overall text for me, which up to that point was completely mechanics-free. Perhaps posting mechanical things seperate from large bodies of text would be a good idea?). All in all, nice job, man!
Kenneth and John Machin and Fearless Leader...great stuff, folks! Much of it is quite persuasive as interpretations of temple holdings and polytheism in BR. I feel greatly enriched from the readings. Thanks for sharing! :)
One thing that really resonated with me, perhaps best articulated by John Machin, was the idea that temple holding levels represent allegiance to and influence of individual regents (and this idea was already formulating as I read Kenneth's post). I still think they will reflect the dominant spiritual alleginace of the people where they hold sway, not merely political and economic power, but I completely agree with the idea that these allegiances need not be exclusive in most cases. As I mentioned originally, historical reality suggests that the majority of people in a polytheistic society venerate every accepted god of the pantheon to varying individual degrees, or a majority of them. The "better safe than sorry" approach to religion seems to be a dominant approach for human beings throughout history, especially for the common folk who perhaps most felt themselves at the mercy of higher powers (be they political, natural, or supernatural).
How polytheism is handled by individual churches remains up for interpretation and as has been implied by these last posts, is likely to vary a great deal from one church to the next depending on each church's particular regent and supporting leadership as well as the theology and dogma they support.
Personally, I like the idea that many Anuirean churches of Haelyn might include smaller shrines to Neserie and Cuiraecen (though I don't think this is necesarily dependent on size so much as doctrine and attitudes of the dominant temple). But I'm equally comfortable with the existence of seperate structures and clergy (temples, shrines , or whatever) within a town or province, existant but not politically significant. I would have to say, though, that a temple's influence, being corellated to its income, certainly suggests that in general a temple that isn't "on the map" with actual holding levels will probably get far fewer donations, tithes, and general reverence than the dominant temples. Temple levels do in many ways represent a province's spiritual loyalties, but whether or not these loyalties are exclusive is really a different issue. That is an issue of theology, and so far I've really enjoyed the different ideas and examples shared on this thread as possibilities as to how different people, churches, and regents might view the same pantheon through various lenses and with different interpretations. Again, great stuff! Keep it comin, baby! B)
Osprey
kgauck
03-08-2004, 01:40 PM
What I have done with the Northern Imperial Temple is to see the church as
being accomodating to Aeric, and therefore to a lessor extent to Avanalae
and Laerme, but rejectionist regarding Sarimie and Eloéle, although not
Ruornil.
I see this as comming from both Fitzalan`s theology of work (coincidence
that Fitzalan rymes with John Calvin and has the same number of syllables
... maybe) which rejects the luck and greed of Sarimie combined with the
respect for nature, for exampled in the motto "reach without grasping". Not
only do these make sence entirely within a Haelynite interpretation, but the
rise of Aeric often implies the fall of Serimie and vise versa because of
their differing views of the uses of natural resources.
Regarding the Rjurik and an afterworld, someone mentioned that the Rjurik
have no afterlife, which I do vaguely recall from the texts, but have
abandon. What after all is that spectral scion in the Rjurik adventure in
the RH then? Plus, I have taken the druid down the path of shamanism and
that is made the richer by an afterlife.
See also my conversation with Michael Romes from May 2003
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1075&st=60
This is an interesting thread about all kinds of things religious and
cosmological in BR. The conversation about afterlife is on page 4.
Those using the e-mail archives can find it on and around Sunday, May 25,
2003 2:08 PM under the subject Death and the Spirit World [2#1075]
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Osprey
03-08-2004, 02:45 PM
I know that one of the few "certain facts" about the Celtic Druids of Europe was their belief in the transmigration of the soul (this coming from at least 2 different literary references, one of which was Julius Caesar writing about Gaul, and the other? can't remember). That implies that they believed in an immortal soul, but also believed it reincarnated through cycles of life and death. There's also definite references to the Otherworld or spirit world.
I think this would be an excellent theplogical basis for the druids of Erik - the soul has its own natural cycle, and why wouldn't it resemble nature's cycles? A person lives, then dies, their soul moves on to the Shadow World (Otherworld) for a time (whether or not Aeric's realm is actually there seems debatable, but that might just be a point of view question), and then that soul is reborn at a time when it is ready for a new life.
Now I don't believe that official BR canon gets into reincarnation much, probably because it's not very medievalist, but Erik's faith is a distinctly older, more pagan-ish kind of faith, and I think it's important to give it those kinds of themes and views.
Eh, that's my 2 cents on it.
geeman
03-08-2004, 03:40 PM
At 07:34 AM 3/8/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
>Geeman, you wrote a really neat exploration about death, how the Shadow
>World and Physical World interact, and the development of spirit guides
>(though I should mention, the stats for spirit guides at the end actually
>detracted from the overall text for me, which up to that point was
>completely mechanics-free. Perhaps posting mechanical things seperate
>from large bodies of text would be a good idea?). All in all, nice job,
>man!
Heh. We`ll see. I usually break things up in whatever way seems to make
sense. Since the write up for the Spirit Guide was missing a couple of
things it didn`t really strike me as something that should get its own
post, you know? If it were finished then it probably would have. Is there
anything about the the description that particularly took you out of the
spirit of the text, or is simply the transition from esoterica to game
stats that was jarring? I ask because if it`s the former maybe there`s
something about the description that can be changed (or included) to make
it fit better.
Gary
geeman
03-08-2004, 04:00 PM
At 03:45 PM 3/8/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
> I know that one of the few "certain facts" about the Celtic
> Druids of Europe was their belief in the transmigration of the soul (this
> coming from at least 2 different literary references, one of which was
> Julius Caesar writing about Gaul, and the other? can`t remember). That
> implies that they believed in an immortal soul, but also believed it
> reincarnated through cycles of life and death. There`s also definite
> references to the Otherworld or spirit world.
>
> I think this would be an excellent theplogical basis for the druids of
> Erik - the soul has its own natural cycle, and why wouldn`t it resemble
> nature`s cycles? A person lives, then dies, their soul moves on to the
> Shadow World (Otherworld) for a time (whether or not Aeric`s realm is
> actually there seems debatable, but that might just be a point of view
> question), and then that soul is reborn at a time when it is ready for a
> new life.
I kind of like a "happy hunting grounds" or "hall of heros" (similar to the
Norse theology, but not quite as fatalistic) kind of interpretation of what
happens to Rjurik souls who are followers of Erik. Certain Rjurik
theologians might be influenced by thought on reincarnation because that`s
more of an elven outlook IMO, and since Rjurik are the human culture most
like the elves I think they may borrow a bit here and there, but in general
I find the disposition and nature of mortal vs. immortal souls/spirits to
be so disparate as to imply a basic difference in their final destination.
However, it should probably be noted that these aren`t necessarily mutually
exclusive issues. The souls of Rjurik like other mortals might be
generally inclined towards passing on to other planes, but a few cases they
might return. In fact, the spirits of all mortals can return using D&D
magic since raising someone from the dead isn`t particularly
difficult. The druidic interest in reincarnation might be somewhat more
related to "the return of the soul" rather than the more Tolkienesque
description of elven souls remaining essentially "in the world" until the
world ends. That a Rjurik (or other) mortal passes beyond--then comes
back--can still allow for an ultimate distinction between the two
theological standards. Essentially the difference is only the location
that the soul goes to after death.
Gary
geeman
03-08-2004, 05:40 PM
At 12:03 PM 3/8/2004 +1100, John Machin wrote:
>As an aside, I think that in the Imperial Age, before the extreme level of
>political factionalisation of religion, there were probably "generic"
>priests who did not have a dedicated relationship with one single deity
>(and the benefits and problems that provides) but instead followed all the
>"acceptable" deities of the Anuirean Pantheon (Haelyn, Neserie, Aeric,
>Avanalae, Cuiraecen, Laerme, Ruornil, and Saramie; not Eloele) at once.
In a 3e conversion in which the priests of BR are portrayed as clerics the
nature of priesthood winds up being much more generic than it was in the
original BR materials. Domains grant access to bonus spells, but don`t bar
clerics from any divine spells the way spheres did. It`s not hard to
interpret, therefore, that in a 3e conversion priesthood represents more of
an emphasis on a particular deity with a general veneration of the whole
pantheon from which the majority of a cleric`s power is
derived. Personally, I`d prefer a more particular version of priesthood
more along the lines of the original, 2e specialty priests, and that the
priests should be as different from each other as clerics are from druids.
Gary
Osprey
03-08-2004, 08:39 PM
Is there anything about the the description that particularly took you out of the spirit of the text, or is simply the transition from esoterica to game
stats that was jarring? I ask because if it`s the former maybe there`s
something about the description that can be changed (or included) to make
it fit better.
Gary
The latter was the case for me - a long stint of "esoterica" puts me in a mindset completely divorced from game mechanics of any sort. I look at things through quite a different lens when considering 'flavor text' than I do when looking at stats and mechanics. One of the big differences (IMO) is that pure text allows a reader to consider their own creative reactions and interpretations. As soon as mechanics are introduced and stats ascribed to those ideas, that creativity is narrowed to a very specific interpretation and way of viewing the material. Hence I prefer mechanics to be in an entirely different 'section' of most RPG texts when possible, especially when the texts are lengthier and more in-depth.
But all of this is just my own point of view, and a friendly suggestion as one writer/editor to another. You may do with it as you will. ;)
Osprey
Osprey
03-08-2004, 09:19 PM
I kind of like a "happy hunting grounds" or "hall of heros" (similar to the
Norse theology, but not quite as fatalistic) kind of interpretation of what
happens to Rjurik souls who are followers of Erik. Certain Rjurik
theologians might be influenced by thought on reincarnation because that`s
more of an elven outlook IMO, and since Rjurik are the human culture most
like the elves I think they may borrow a bit here and there, but in general
I find the disposition and nature of mortal vs. immortal souls/spirits to
be so disparate as to imply a basic difference in their final destination.
However, it should probably be noted that these aren`t necessarily mutually
exclusive issues. The souls of Rjurik like other mortals might be
generally inclined towards passing on to other planes, but a few cases they
might return. In fact, the spirits of all mortals can return using D&D
magic since raising someone from the dead isn`t particularly
difficult. The druidic interest in reincarnation might be somewhat more
related to "the return of the soul" rather than the more Tolkienesque
description of elven souls remaining essentially "in the world" until the
world ends. That a Rjurik (or other) mortal passes beyond--then comes
back--can still allow for an ultimate distinction between the two
theological standards. Essentially the difference is only the location
that the soul goes to after death.
Gary
In general, I agree with your ideas. In my own ideas on Rjurik theology, I would definitely see reincarnation as a return of the soul, whereas I wouldn't expect elven spirits to ever leave Aebrynis at all, but rather remain either formless or transformed as some element of nature (be it trees, the earth, or even infused in more primal, elemental forms like wind or water) for an indefinite period of time. But given elves' immortality, I honestly doubt they'd be reincarnated in any way that would retain residual memories or karmic essence of the spirit in its last elven incarnation. I prefer to keep the Sidhelien more elemental and thus see their births and deaths more directly related to the mebhaighal than to distinct spirits of any kind. But that's just my personal interpretation.
Back to the Rjurik...within a theological framework of immortal souls reincarnating, the basic idea is that each life is a chance for the immortal soul to learn some essential lesson and perhaps correct some grevious errors from past lives. Working off your earlier ideas of the passage of the soul through the Shadow World, I would imagine that the Rjurik believe that these trials exist as a way for the soul to realize the spiritual significance of its most recent life, how it connects to the lives before, and finally what the soul must accomplish in its next life. Once these realizations are achieved, the soul is ready for its next incarnation, though it's possible that it might rest in some part of Erik's realm for a time before returning to Aebrynis for rebirth.
Now, as for a Hall of Heroes (the Rjurik Valhalla), I would make such a place reserved for real heroes...those souls who have ascended beyond the need for rebirth in another life and are rewarded with eternal service to Erik in the Hall of Heroes. It would be from this Hall that the Rjurik spirit guides would be chosen, as well as any other spiritual servants of Erik assigned to other tasks for their deity.
So reincarnation isn't a spiritual punishment, but a necessary part of the natural cycle of birth, death, and rebirth of the immortal soul, with each stage a continuing journey, and the Hall of Heroes is the triumphant end of those journeys for the worthy few.
One of the reasons I like this arrangement is its blended agreement with Norse and Celtic cultures. Since there seems to be no equivalent to the Norse realm of Hel where the majority of souls end up after death, the Celtic option of reincarnation seems quite attractive as an alternative. Yet the idea that only the truly worthy ascend to paradise agrees very well with the Norse attitudes and cultures, where life is hardship, struggle, and work, and it takes truly exceptional individuals to achieve greatness and overcome these hardships through perseverance, courage, integrity, and sheer agression. Truly this is a culture born from a harsh world and harsh people - it's no surprise the Norse and the Celts were warrior cultures who idealized battle as the ultimate test of these qualities.
As for resurrection, well...we know that regardless of other D&D settings, in Cerilia it is highly discouraged (if not forbidden outright), and I think priests/druids of Erik would be some of the foremost opponents of this sort of unnatural magic, equating it to necromancy and thus tabboo. Regardless of how long a person's been dead, it seems to me that calling a soul back to this life is a screaming insult to the natural and spiritual order of things. The exception, of course, would be if Erik himself ordained such an action - be it through a powerful priest or a divine servant acting in his name. But this sort of action I think should be relegated to the rarity of a legendary miracle, the sort of thing that happens in only a few of the greatest legends and stories from all of Rjurik history. In general, priests of Erik meddling with the natural order is bad, bad, bad, probably one of the greatest transgressions such a person could commit against their god and everything he stands for.
Heh...so there's my treatise on Rjurik theology. What do you think?
Osprey
In a message dated 3/8/04 1:49:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:
<< But I`m equally comfortable with the existence of seperate structures and
clergy (temples, shrines , or whatever) within a town or province, existant
but not politically significant. I would have to say, though, that a temple`s
influence, being corellated to its income, certainly suggests that in general a
temple that isn`t "on the map" with actual holding levels will
probably get far fewer donations, tithes, and general reverence than the dominant
temples. Temple levels do in many ways represent a province`s spiritual
loyalties, but whether or not these loyalties are exclusive is really a different
issue. >>
I`d say this is where I fall on the issue-- there may well be other
temples an preists in provinces dominated by one or two temples, but they have no
political pull and very little resources or cash. Most importantly, perhaps,
the local priests are not blooded. No realm spells, no regency, nada. They
can perform important rites and are respected by the populace (mostly), but they
only have the respect that their patron earns.
OR, there may be the home or local shrines, not staffed by any fixed
clergy, but maybe watched over by a few priests working a circuit. I think most
coastal areas might have a Nesiriean priest(ess) working in this manner; and I
think it would be the majority role for Laerme`s, too.
Lee.
Birthright-L
03-09-2004, 02:00 AM
Gary said:
> Personally, I`d prefer a more particular version of priesthood
> more along the lines of the original, 2e specialty priests, and that the
> priests should be as different from each other as clerics are from druids.
I agree. I don`t mind the domain system since it allows for different
sorts of priests who all worship the same god (i.e. Magistrate-like
Haelynites with Law and Nobility; and military Haelynites with Planning
and War, etc) but I would like to see personal magic (conventional D&D
spells) become more specialised by god. By contrast I think that, given
the structure of temples that I favour, realm magic is best if it is
slightly generic, with the capacity for some limited specialisation (ala
divine domains).
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Fearless_Leader
03-09-2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Birthright-L@Mar 7 2004, 05:10 PM
I prefer to see your Endier example as showing how another faction becomes favoured over the faction headed by Temias Coumain. Priests keep preaching and the populace keeps praying, but the priests no longer answer to Temias; it is the Prelate of the Western Imperial Temple who decides that
is to be spoken from the pulpits (so to speak...). I don`t think that the people of Endier all of a sudden decide that Sarimie has no meaning for them and stop worshipping Her.
Well I wasn't really claiming this was the case in the first place. I was citing someone else's example which you seem to have misinterpreted.
What I mean to say (and what the original example seems to have said) is that once the CJS loses all their holdings within Endier, the priests of Sarimie don't just go away and their temples dissappear. They lose their influence, their ability to tax certain aspects of the economy, and any ability to influence the governmental policy of Endier. As a merchant realm, few people in Endier are going to simply stop offering the occasional prayer to Sarimie, hoping for her favor during a business deal or when gambling or some such.
Even when the WIT takes over all six holdings, priests of Sarimie remain, but their ability to bring in additional income is lost. I imagine that for the first couple years, large numbers of priests of Sarimie will remain, though they are no longer receiving the support of larger organization such as the CJS. As such, their temples can be considered either operating at a loss or being revenue neutral - bringing in just enough income (both material and in the form of charity/ volunteer services). They may also find that whatever property they owned is no longer protected by that realm's property laws. After several years, the number of priests of Sarimie may decrease - but that decline will eventually level off - as priests either die off or leave for areas more friendly to Sarimie. The people of Endier will not suddenly turn their backs on Sarimie, as you believe I have said (and in fact never said). Meanwhile, the WIT gains all the advantages of being the dominant faith save for being declared the official religion.
I looked back through the topic and found the quote I was referring to, posted by kgauk:
"Temples which lack holding levels might well be large and opulant, but
simply lack political influence and generate only enough money to cover
expences, hence no RP or GB are generated. Then again, they may be small or
sparce. Let`s turn our attention to Endier. Suppose Guilder Kalien
contests the Celestial Jewel of Sarimie to nothing (not even a zero holding
remains). The buildings are still there and some of priests are still there
(some would leave to take positions in the CJS elsewhere, others would
become polite by uncooperative to Temais Coumain) so from the street you
might not notice that anything has changed. The priests of Sarimie who had
access to Guilder Kalien used to be priests loyal to Temais Coumain and the
CJS. Now its just a different set of priests. They have loyalty to no
specific regent, just Sarimie. Of course Kalien could take actions to
install friendly priests who would be loyal to him, but that`s a different
situation. Let`s further assume that Rhobher Nichaleir and the WIT take
advantage of the situation and rule up their holdings to 6 in Endier. The
temples to Sarimie are still there, but they have no inflience. They may
draw a substantial number of worshipers, after all Endier is a major trading
center (probabaly ships can get this far up the Maesil) and full of
craftsmen and merchants who will be attracted to a merchantile diety.
However, people don`t give as much as they used to because more money is
being given to the WIT, because they have more influence. The temple of
Sarimie has lost tax exemptions and rights to collect income as she lost
influence to keep those benefits. The WIT is not only collecting more from
worshipers, but also uses her influence to gain tax exemptions and to
collect revenues. When Sarimie had 3 holdings, perhaps she levied a small
tax at the dockyards on sea captains over and above the contributions some
of them made to insure Sarimie`s favor for a prosperous or lucky voyage.
The contributions covered expences, but the tax was a surplus. They don`t
get the tax anymore. The WIT is probably collecting extra revenue in the
courts, for example. Consider the nice temple of Rournil in Endier. No one
cares what they say or do (no influence) except a few wizards, rangers,
students of esoteric secrets, and those who have a sensitivity to the Shadow
World. They may or may not have money, but regardless of how wealthy they
are, their income is matched by their expences, so no GB are generated.
Only temples with holdings have enough influence to collect extra revenues,
avoid certain taxes, and thereby generate a surplus for use at the realm
level."
This was the point I was conveying. The aspect of what you're saying that I disagree with is that a temple will contain priests of a number of other gods and that one subset of these priests is simply dominant. I hold the view that temple holdings represent political influence (as I think you do as well) and the ability to work that temple's agenda upon the populace, rather than the number of worshippers. However, I hold a different interpretation: I don't believe that when the WIT takes over all the temple holdings, it is Rhobher Nichalier now deciding what Sarimites preach as members of the WIT or that temples or priests have switched loyalty to the WIT. Your view more accurately describes the behavior of law holdings. Many members of the original Endieran Haelynite congregation will no doubt continue to offer prayers to Sarimie, as I believe that most people will offer prayers to several gods - but there are no priests of Sera within the WIT and Rhobher is not dictating Sarimite philosphy (as much as be might like to). Also there will still be practicing worshippers of Sarimie who have never set foot in a Haelynite temple, as the temples and shrines of Sarimie still exist, they simply lost influence at the realm level.
As well, as the WIT expands, I believe this represents the state and populous losing faith with the CJS and the WIT expanding its tentacles into more aspects of everyday life.
The key here, I believe, is the distinction between the realm level and a lower level of less importance... lets call it the sub-realm level. This I think can also be expanded into a discussion on guilds. Within a given realm, there will be thousands of merchants unaffiliated with any major guild (or may only belong to a guild of trivial importance to the higher level of politics... such as the local cooper's guild or local glass blowers guild). The guild would instead represent political influence and in terms of actual physical items, warehousing districts, protection services, large lumber mills/ mines/ etc... though it should be noted that some of these smaller artisans will nonetheless belong to one of the major guilds).
Extrapolating that out to temples, we will see many shrines, temples, and priests of other gods within Endier, perhaps even commanding the worship of the majority of the province's people, but it is the WIT with the political influence, the funds, the backing of a major political entity, and so forth.
Fearless_Leader
03-09-2004, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by geeman@Mar 8 2004, 09:40 AM
In a 3e conversion in which the priests of BR are portrayed as clerics the nature of priesthood winds up being much more generic than it was in the original BR materials. Domains grant access to bonus spells, but don`t bar clerics from any divine spells the way spheres did. It`s not hard to interpret, therefore, that in a 3e conversion priesthood represents more of an emphasis on a particular deity with a general veneration of the whole pantheon from which the majority of a cleric`s power is derived. Personally, I`d prefer a more particular version of priesthood more along the lines of the original, 2e specialty priests, and that the priests should be as different from each other as clerics are from druids.
Indeed. The interpretation that I follow is the specialty priest from 2E and I believe that 3E rules should represent that (changing rules to represent the setting rather than changing the setting to be harmonized with the rules).
Birthright-L
03-09-2004, 06:20 AM
Fearless_Leader said:
> Well I wasn`t really claiming this was the case in the first place. I
> was citing someone else`s example which you seem to have misinterpreted.
> What I mean to say (and what the original example seems to have said) is
> that once the CJS loses all their holdings within Endier, the priests of
> Sarimie don`t just go away and their temples dissappear. They lose their
> influence, their ability to tax certain aspects of the economy, and any
> ability to influence the governmental policy of Endier. As a merchant
> realm, few people in Endier are going to simply stop offering the
> occasional prayer to Sarimie, hoping for her favor during a business deal
> or when gambling or some such.
An extension of this is that not only do the former Celestial Jewel
priests remain, they are also incorporated into the growing temple. I
think this is an important thing to note. The Sarimiens don`t retire to a
monastery, they keep being important and influential, it is just that the
person "at the top" is no longer Coumain, but is Nichaleir.
> This was the point I was conveying. The aspect of what you`re saying
> that I disagree with is that a temple will contain priests of a number of
> other gods and that one subset of these priests is simply dominant. I
> hold the view that temple holdings represent political influence (as I
> think you do as well) and the ability to work that temple`s agenda upon
> the populace, rather than the number of worshippers. However, I hold a
> different interpretation: I don`t believe that when the WIT takes over
> all the temple holdings, it is Rhobher Nichalier now deciding what
> Sarimites preach as members of the WIT or that temples or priests have
> switched loyalty to the WIT. Your view more accurately describes the
> behavior of law holdings. Many members of the original Endieran
> Haelynite congregation will no doubt continue to offer prayers to
> Sarimie, as I believe that most people will offer prayers to several gods
> - but there are no priests of Sera within the WIT and Rhobher is not
> dictating Sarimite philosphy (as much as be might like to). Also there
> will still be practicing worshippers of Sarimie who have never set foot
> in a Haelynite temple, as the temples and shrines of Sarimie still exist,
> they simply lost influence at the realm level.
To this, again, I can only say: I disagree.
The "philosophy" can and does change, there a numerous "takes" on the
"message" of each of the gods; I am sure Nichaleir will encourage the
emphasis on the "personal effort brings the luck of the goddess" approach
instead of other aspects of Sarimie`s philosophy. Religious beliefs are by
no means static, as we can see with the development of the different
temples of Haelyn, I do not think that the philosophies of the other gods
are less diverse, only that they are less overtly demonstrated on a domain
level (i.e. they don`t show up as seperate realms in Anuire like Haelyn`s
do). One can see the diversity of Avani`s philosophies by looking at the
Ariyan Temple (and the LPA, its doctrinal offshoot), the Zikalan Temple,
the Fiery Dawn, and the Raging Heart.
The similarity of Temple Holdings to Law Holdings in my approach is not
accidental; it is in fact deliberate. Nearly all of the holding types are
inherently, and possibly primarily, political. Law Holdings, in my
approach are political and military holdings, Temple Holdings are
political and theistically mystical holdings, Guild Holdings are political
and economic holdings. Only Source Holdings lack are substantial political
component, and this is only because most people cannot perceive them
(although a province-ruler might be able to "sense" that the mebhaighl is
controlled).
I totally disagree with the idea that there are worshippers of Sarimie in
Anuire who have never been in a Haelynite temple. The idea, to me, is
totally wrong-footed.
> As well, as the WIT expands, I believe this represents the state and
> populous losing faith with the CJS and the WIT expanding its tentacles
> into more aspects of everyday life.
I dopn`t see the populace as having faith in the CJS or the WIT, I see
them as having faith in the pantheon. The temple holding is control over
the priests in the province and the political aspects of religion (the
right to appoint officials, conduct important ceremonies). The
population`s respect for a temple-controlling regent derives from this,
not from faith.
> The key here, I believe, is the distinction between the realm level and a
> lower level of less importance... lets call it the sub-realm level. This
> I think can also be expanded into a discussion on guilds. Within a given
> realm, there will be thousands of merchants unaffiliated with any major
> guild (or may only belong to a guild of trivial importance to the higher
> level of politics... such as the local cooper`s guild or local glass
> blowers guild). The guild would instead represent political influence
> and in terms of actual physical items, warehousing districts, protection
> services, large lumber mills/ mines/ etc... though it should be noted
> that some of these smaller artisans will nonetheless belong to one of the
> major guilds).
> Extrapolating that out to temples, we will see many shrines, temples, and
> priests of other gods within Endier, perhaps even commanding the worship
> of the majority of the province`s people, but it is the WIT with the
> political influence, the funds, the backing of a major political entity,
> and so forth.
It is quite astounding. We seem to have *exactly* the same ideas about
some aspects of this matter and, at the same time, *totally different*
ideas about other aspects. I see guilds, rather like you do, as
controllers of local sub-realm level industry groups, crafters
associations, and independent merchants.
It is only in the break-down of the faiths of the priests themselves that
we seem to differ. I favour multi-faith temples and you favoour
single-faith temples.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Prospero
03-09-2004, 07:58 AM
I absolutely agree with Chris.
The idea of priests of Sarimie belonging to a Haelynite Temple makes absolutely no sense to me. They have completely different belief structures. Those who worship Haelyn as prime believe most in law and noble warfare, while those who worship Sarimie believe in the influence of luck and importance of commerce. Now, someone can respect both gods, but when it comes to priests, they can only worship one.
Why would a priest of Sarimie belong to a church which pays no heed to the influence of luck, and which stifles unrestricted trade with laws and the nobility? How would a priest of Haelyn fit into a clergy which respects not law, but profit?
You are, of course, free to hold whatever beliefs you like. But I completely disagree with your idea of multitheistic temples.
kgauck
03-09-2004, 08:00 AM
Let me ask Fearless_Leader, do you reject all multi-faith temples as John
has desribed, or just the Sarimians of Endier working together with the WIT?
In this particular instance I find myself in more agreement with
Fearless_Leader, because I just can`t cotton to Sarimians in Anuire getting
along with Haelynites. In other contexts such as Rhormarch or Khourane,
perhaps it might be done. When I think of multi-faith temples, I tend to
see associations based either on the list of allies presented in the BoP, or
my own ideological associations, such as Holn`s Companionship (a doctrine
which understands Eric and Haelyn as allies against mutual enimies like
Sarimie, Belinik, and Kriesha).
Since Erik has Avani and Ruornil listed as allies, I generally assume that
where Erik has holdings and Avani and Ruornil do not, then local priests of
those dieties are found in Erik`s temples with the druids in the leadership
role and the others taking the subordinate role. I also throw in Laerme
because I see no reason not to, there is no conflict with Erik and she is
his daughter. I would inderstand Erik`s skalds and Laerme`s troubadours
having some differences, but not enough to create schism. Where Holn`s
Companionship is present, the priests of Haelyn and Nesirie are often found
in Erik`s organization. I just as easily imagine that a Brecht druidical
order could find a harmony with Sera, though probabaly not Eloéle.
In part this is because I don`t want one big happy pantheon. I want some
conflict to drive plot lines and adventure. While I can certainly use
Belinik and Kriesha as the bad priests, its nice to have non-evil priets to
be in conflict with for stories with less stark oppositions and more shades
of gray. PC`s could build bridges to the non-evil priesthoods. Belinik and
Kriesha are bad through and through.
In the western and northern parts of Anuire, this holds true. Perhaps in
the South Coast and the Eastern Marches Avani becomes the great rival to
Haelyn, and Erik becomes less relevant, and Rournil and Sera become
potential allies for Haelyn. Don`t know, haven`t worked it out, never been
there.
So I may have a bit of an intermediate position between John and
Fearless_Leader depending on whether FL rejects all multi-faith temples, or
accepts them in some circumstances but not in all of them.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
kgauck
03-09-2004, 08:20 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:06 AM
> I dopn`t see the populace as having faith in the CJS or the WIT, I
> see them as having faith in the pantheon. The temple holding is
> control over the priests in the province and the political aspects of
> religion (the right to appoint officials, conduct important ceremonies).
Agreed, but I think that if we speak of loyalty, then we can speak of a
populace as having a respect for and a loyalty to Temais Coumain and/or
Rhobher Nichaleir. The attitudes of the people of Endier are going to be
pretty stable regarding Sarimie and Haelyn, though the fortunes of Temais
and Rhobher could theoretically be a roller coaster in which they are tossed
between adulation and scorn.
Perhaps, as in my example, Kalien turns against the CJS and the WIT rules up
to 6 holdings. Later Kalien and Temais come to an amiacble understanding
and when the WIT is tied down supporting Avan in a war against Boeruine, CJS
moves back into Endier and re-claims its 3 holdings.
During this time I would see two things happening in the temples of Sarimie.
On the one hand, some priests would prefer Temais to Endier and would leave
to seek positions where the CJS has holdings. Other would prefer Endier to
Temais and would stay to tend the flock. When the CJS had no holdings in
Endier, no one in the temples of Sarimie would spend any time speaking
adoringly of Temais from the pulpit and so the people would forget about him
or become indifferent to him. When he reclaimed his hodlings there would be
a continual low-level agitate going on to maintain support for the
leadership of the CJS.
One of the reasons my example of Endier postulated a shipyard tax for the
CJS and legal fees and fines for WIT is that I don`t see an overlap between
the two organizations. Rhobher Nichaleir would never get (or pursue) the
shipyard incomes, because his interests and influence lies elsewhere. Now,
maybe if Rhobher had a lieutenent who was a priestess of Nesirie and could
manage such affairs, it could be done, but Rhobher by himself would go a
different direction.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
kgauck
03-09-2004, 09:20 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prospero" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 1:58 AM
> Why would a priest of Sarimie belong to a church which pays no heed
> to the influence of luck, and which stifles unrestricted trade with laws
and
> the nobility? How would a priest of Haelyn fit into a clergy which
respects
> not law, but profit?
Oh, its possible, and it might finally be time for me to devise a doctrine,
so here goes.
Such a temple doctrine would put great emphasis on the contract. Such
binding agreements are neccesary to take commerce out of the realm of the
one-shot transaction and facilitate on-going merchantile relationships.
However not only must the contract, that glorious example of all that is
good in the world, be well written and complete, it must be legally
enforceable. Not only would such a temple have a much better understanding
of contract law than either temples of Haelyn alone or Sera alone, they
would have a much better commercial law. When is a deal a fair deal, when
is an agreement not a contract, how should disputes be settled, what
criteria should be applied, in what order? This doctrine would revel in
self-regulation by guilds and merchants, writing rules and commercial law to
make guild business more reliable and hence more profitable.
Under Sera, to many market encounters are radical examples of caveat emptor
in which merchants are using Bluff every time they open their mouths. When
a deal goes bad, its written off to bad luck, and merchants head back into
the market none the wiser.
When Sera meets Haelyn, as I propose might happen on the South Coast (even
as far as Endier, I suppose) we now have legal recourse for fraudulent sales
and violations of promices about goods. Did I say that flagon was solid
gold? I meant it was gilt bronze.
I`ll see you in court, because I paid for solid gold.
Celebrate the virtues of commercial law and the contract. It gives
regulation and order to commerce (some Haelynites cheer) and creates more
profit and wealth because there is less risk (some Sarimians cheer).
This will appeal to Haelyn`s followers who don`t mind commerce and would
prefer to see it more orderly. Those who find all commerce to be
distastefull will reject this doctrine.
This will appeal to those Sarimians who emphisise wealth over luck and will
accept greater order and less luck in order to increase their wealth. Those
who remain gamblers at heart will reject this doctrine.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Osprey
03-09-2004, 03:11 PM
I find myself agreeing with Kenneth on most points here. For one, in the overall scheme of things, I think inter-faith temples might exist in some places where there is a close alliance and respect for those deities not represented by the dominant temple/regent. In a way, it's a shame there's no mechanic to represent such a "sub-realm" level dynamic, as it adds a really valuable element of sophistication and realism to an otherwise childishly simple picture (here I'm referring to the standard domain level temple holding view, as set up in RoE etc.). As a DM, I might allow that well-accepted 'lesser' sects, such as Neserians in a Haelyn-dominated province, would have an easier time establishing some real political clout (gaining actual holding levels under a regent), at least in the beginning. By the same token, though, I'd expect that such an action would be least likely from that sect as it would upset the friendship and working relationship between the 2 sects, and might cause a lot of bad blood without some careful diplomacy first smoothing the way.
I definitely agree that doctrine is flexible and can definitely be manipulated a great deal to fit a desired end. Any real-world scholar of religious history will probably back this up 110%!
Here is a real-world historical example that I believe to be a fairly accurate depiction of this principle in its typical form:
Consider the Catholic Church as it expanded with the Roman Empire, and later continued the same patterns of conversion almost up to the present day. As missionaries were sent into pagan lands, they preached of the dominance of the One True God, while slowly weaving the local pagan deities into the church's ever-growing collection of saints. Each saint was the patron of something - healing, a craft, animals, fertility, etc. Many of these saints were in fact direct conversions of pagan deities, with the same spheres of influence as the original deities, but now conveniently subordinate to the One True God. This allowed the converted populations to keep worshipping the same gods they had always worshipped, but now with a new understanding of a single dominant god. As time passes and new generations are born and preached to, the native pagan deities are ascribed diminishing status, until at some point they are described as saints, humans who rose to holy favor and status through good works, divine favor, or some miraculous event. Complete histories are created, often weaving in elements of the original pagan mythology, that give these figures legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If there are even a few seeds of truth to a mostly-fabricated story, it lends incredible power in convincing the populace of its legitimacy.
Throw into this mix the conversion of political leaders and their subsequent influence in converting their subjects, and the process is greatly speeded up (Catholicism becomes the offical state religion), by fair means or foul...
Now for those who are still awake ;) , the parallels and possibilities for the BR world are tremendous. Granted the monotheistic example above is a bit extreme for polytheistic Cerilia, but the principles of an absorbent doctrine remain fairly constant. While in the real world this process would occur over multiple generations, in BR blooded regents can spend RP to hasten the process and massively influence the people. Because of this, I believe that while the majority of the populace will retain its basic belief in the pantheon as a whole, their actual faith, loyalties, and understanding of theology (i.e., the way they actually view/interpret the pantheon and their roles) will vary a great deal depending on who is preaching and how persuasive they are. A temple regent who really focuses their efforts on a province, using their personal skills (Lead, P/Oratory, Diplomacy, K/Religion), talented preachers and aids, their divine power (RP), and political influence (temple levels + support of the law/provincial regent, in a best-case scenario), could sway the beliefs of the populace in a remarkably short amount of time - a month or a season, even. I think this takes into account the accelerated rate of change that blooded regents are capable of enacting, especially when unopposed by other blooded regents.
So I don't think the beliefs of the populace are necessarily as stable as might be believed, because blooded regents have so much power to influence them. Whether or not those regents actually try to do so depends on the regents themselves, and here is where the great diversity of doctrines should be evident in Cerilia. Any study of Cerilian regents and their doctrines should show just how fractured and diverse theology has become, despite the universal acknowledgement of a single pantheon's existence. But the existence of the same gods (and I'm only talking about the standard pantheon, not the Cold Rider or other cults) seems to be about the only thing everyone can agree on.
I imagine the most zealous and extreme temple regents might very well be exclusive in their theology, preaching that their deity is really the only one worth worshipping. They might spend many a sermon blasting the reverence of the other deities while extolling the virtues of their own, coming up with ways that their patron can serve all of the spiritual needs of the people. I'm hesitant to use examples here, as I am not positive about all of the details of the different priest regents in the official material, but I have the distinct impression that zealots do exist, and more than one priest believes that the people don't really need the rest of the pantheon at all. In a sense, these would be the ones pushing for a more monothesitic model. On the other extreme you'd have the liberal pantheists and mystics preaching for unification of the pantheon, that every deity has an important role to play in the world, even the evil gods like Kreisha and Belinik! At the least they serve as foils, temptors, or adversaries who test the faithful and remind them of the price of depravity and the real threat of falling into evil (sin).
The majority of temples and their regents fall somewhere betwen these two poles, of course, and Kenneth gave some very excellent examples of a few of these, as well as a doctrine that might combine the aspects of Haelyn and Sera in a plausible theology.
But never underestimate the attractiveness of the extremes...there will always be zealots and extremists goading the masses into exclusive worship (plenty of RW examples for this!), and there will always be those who believe that everything has its place (the "universalists," for lack of a better term), and I think these make for excellent elements for the BR world, not to mention excellent sources of headaches for PC regents...heh heh heh... ;)
The bottom line is that the temples and their doctrines reflect the overall political state of Cerilia: fractured, diverse, sometimes allied, sometimes at odds, and overall quite a jumbled, chaotic mess. In other words, nigh-endless story and adventure possiblities in a rich setting. And this is for me perhaps the greatest appeal of the Birthright setting.
Osprey
Prospero
03-09-2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by kgauck@Mar 9 2004, 09:20 AM
Oh, its possible, and it might finally be time for me to devise a doctrine, so here goes.
I disagree with your example. I think everything you mention could be doctrinal concerns and differences between Sarimite and Haelynite temples. To clarify: not just between the different gods' temple, but between different temples within the worship of the same god,also. Perhaps some Sarimites concern themselves more with "the fair deal" than "the maximum profit", much like how worshippers of Cuiraecen are split.
I also disagree with your views on allied gods. I don't think that the gods being allies means there are priests of the allied faiths within a temple. I think the allied gods means that priests of the allied faiths will be welcomed a little more openly, perhaps trusted a little more, than the enemy gods. They might be called in to assist the temple with something, or even called in to give an extra sermon one day.
Temples being multitheistic is such a huge thing, I think that it would have been mentioned somewhere in the rules if it existed. Now, if you want to change this and add it in in your own games, that's your call, and good luck. But I disagree, and I would personally want to stick with the rules and descriptions as laid out, how I interpret them.
:)
kgauck
03-09-2004, 04:50 PM
But what are we to do with these extreamists? Do such people come together
under a like-minded templar and form a sect? Are they just nusiance priests
who are found in every temple but cause friction among the cooperating
faiths? What is the nature of the problem they will present to PC rulers?
We might also consider the scope of their extreamism. Are they so absolute
in their devotion to one god that they are hostile to other faiths and they
followers? What impact would this have in growing a faith? Perhaps
Haelyn`s Absolutist Crusaders could easily establish a level one holding in
several provinces, but that level 2 and level 3 might be hard to come by.
Especially if the competing faith is Haelyn`s Happy Paternalism (everyone
welcome!).
Extreamists might also come in other varieties. Suppose that there is a
cleavage in Sarimie`s temples between those who profess skill, luck, and
wealth, so that I could find extreamists for the aspect of luck who reject
skill and wealth in favor of a fatalistsic outlook with the motto "its all a
crap shoot". He might be tolerated by most priests of Sera, but not by the
extreamists of wealth, who are the apologists of greed. they regard the
doctrine of the other as a heresy, leading devotees of Sera into useless
contemplations of luck when they should be obsessing over money. These
types could make life lots of "fun" for a PC temple ruler of Sera.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Sthenelos
03-09-2004, 05:24 PM
We could also take examples from pre-christian polytheism; Rome had temples to a plethora of divinities, but those of the roman religion came under the authority of the office of the Pontifex Maximus (the Pope still holds it to this day). The temple opposition in Rome might rather have been Religio Romana/Mythraism than one for each separate divinity if it were put in BR gameterms. I know too little of the Kemetic religion or of the Hellenes, to establish a rule, but the religious establishment in Athens could probably translate at one time roughly as Parthenon (with Athena as a dominant Olympian)/Garden(Atheistic Epicurians)/other philosophies probably named by their headquarters in the city.
Or we could go so far as assume that the pantheon as described is Anuireo-centric, and most of the divinities actually represent differing pantheons, each as their probable head.
On a side note, in a case where my previous proposition is considered irrelevant, I'd say that unless they have been heavily influnced by abrahamic religious thought, there will be shrines to all the gods in many towns and all provincial capitals, certainly up to the small temple (not holding, but actual building) in a principality's capital city.
Prospero
03-09-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by kgauck@Mar 9 2004, 04:50 PM
But what are we to do with these extreamists? Do such people come together under a like-minded templar and form a sect?
What extremists are you referring to?
Allow me to spell out my views a little more clearly. These following two paragraphs refer to Anuireans in the Empire, not outside the Empire (where priorities are going to be different).
Laypeople likely pay homage to multiple gods; they may even attend multiple temples, to worship them. At the very least, they respect them all as divine. I imagine your typical Anuirean peasant would venerate Haelyn as the patron of the Empire and Celestial King, although he would almost certainly respect the other gods - perhaps making an offering or tithing on their holy day, perhaps occasionally attending a service by one of those gods' priests.
In areas where non-Haelynite faiths are dominant, the Haelynite churches are present, just politically minimized. They hold a position of distant respect and veneration, but other temples have managed to seize most of the political influence and power. In this case, I could see the previous example being reversed - the people attending other temples most frequently, while only attending a Haelynite shrine on Haelyn's holy days.
With priests, a priest has to serve only one god. Now, some may do this out of extremism (Haelyn is the best! All other gods exist only to serve his will!), some out of regionalism (Haelyn is the patron of our Empire. I serve him as my family has always served him.), some out of a milder personal belief (Yes, I acknowledge Haelyn as the Lawmaker, but I feel that Avanalae's role as a bringer of reason is more important - so I serve her.)
Some priests may pay homage to all gods, or to a select few. However, they became a priest to serve their god of choice, and so they owe their primary allegiance to that god. All the priests in that temple are going to be of that faith. Now, outside priests may occasionally be brought in (A Sarimite could be paid a stipend to monitor contracts, a Cuiraecenite could be brought in to train a new group of guards, etc.), but they would be no better than associates of the temple, not full-on members. While Priests of Cuiraecen and Nesirie might be welcomed in a Haelynite temple, and encouraged to stay for a while and possibly to preach a little, they would not belong to the temple, any more than the Laermite who is given a bed for a night and politely asked to move on the next morning.
Ummm . . . that's it for now . . . :)
kgauck
03-09-2004, 10:10 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prospero" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:23 PM
> What extremists are you referring to?
I was following Osprey`s post.
On a different note, I don`t think there are "services" per se in temples.
Nothing at all like the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim approach. Certainly no
preaching. Sthenelos has mentioned the ancient temples of history, and I
take a view much more towards that model of religion in which there is a
calander of ritual that takes place, and other outside those celebrations,
people will go to temples because they have a specific problem. They seek
an omen, or anticipate a sea voyage, or want to solemnify a business deal.
That is just my view on the activities of temples.
When we talk of multi-faith temples let us not automatically think that
within one building there exist many faiths co-exiting practicing their
various rituals within sight of one another. On the contrary, I would hold
this to be the case only in special cases, normally small temples in which
affiliated gods, normally only divine family members, get a shrine on the
premises because of the issue of cost. I have every confidence that the
residents of Shadowgreen in Aerenwe want to revere Haelyn from time to time.
But given the small numbers of people in the province, its probabaly more
like a shrine near the temple of Neserie. Beyond that situation, and you
can still concieve of the Haelyn shrine as seperate from the Neserian
temple, I prefer the notion of seperate temple buildings and seperate
priesthoods whose leadership collaborate under the head of a blooded temple
ruler of one faith. So that in Aerenwe, for the most part one would see
Haelyn in his own temples, with his own priesthood, celebrating his own
rituals in their own space. However, politically, these Haelynites fall in
line with the ETN. Its at this political level of policy and
relationships - what do we think of Queen Liliene, of the Impregnable Heart,
of Storm`s Height, of Duke Jaison, of Baroness Marlae, of el-Hadid, of
Mourde Alondir, of Siele Ghoried, or this policy or that polciy where we
properly speak of temples acting in unison. Not at the character level of
street observation and particiaption. John Machin may hold to such a view,
and I will leave him to argue its virtues, but my own view is that unity of
allied temples is only a coordinated alliance of several temples, not one
master temples of combined faiths.
If you go to Stjordvik you will see a temple of Haelyn. Inside are priests
whose theology closely resembles that of the NIT. However, its politics are
a pretty stalwart support of King Varri and the Oaken Grove. Over at the
Oaken Grove there will be priests who subscribe to Holn`s Companionship and
think that those fellows over in Haelyn`s temples are pretty good guys and
we can do business with them in fighting the enemies of Stjordvik. Others
in the Oaken Grove could care less about the Haelynites. The Emerald Spire,
likewise is indifferent to Haelyn`s temple.
My concern is that all of the temples are of the pantheon are present in
most places, but how to they interact, because I know that on the realm
level, only the ones with holdings are influential at the realm level, even
though they all might be influential at the level of individual worshipers.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
geeman
03-10-2004, 12:30 AM
At 04:54 PM 3/9/2004 +0100, Prospero wrote:
>Temples being multitheistic is such a huge thing, I think that it would
>have been mentioned somewhere in the rules if it existed. Now, if you
>want to change this and add it in in your own games, that`s your call, and
>good luck. But I disagree, and I would personally want to stick with the
>rules and descriptions as laid out, how I interpret them.
There are several temples that are described as being multitheistic, but
that aside I think it`s important to note that when it comes to the
polytheistic nature of Cerilia and how that interacts with the temple
structure it`s important to note that... well, it doesn`t necessarily. The
temple structure is independent of the cultural aspects of the regents,
staff and participants in the standard BR domain rules, and any interaction
is purely role-playing on the part of the person playing the regent who
controls the holdings. In the same way that guild holdings are described
as taking part in one particular type of business or another, temple
holdings are merely described as being dedicated to one particular god or
another. Guild holdings, for instance, might be dedicated to gold mining,
Varsk ranching, beer brewing, or arranging daffodils into decorative
centerpieces. Whatever one wants. It can be changed at the whim of the
player or DM. Similarly, if the regent in charge of the Western Imperial
Temple of Haelyn dies and his heir takes over the new heir might decide
that the temple is now dedicated to Bobo the dog-faced boy. It doesn`t
factor into the domain level at all. The fact that the temple has the name
"Haelyn" in the title, of course, tells us what the temple is _supposed_ to
be dedicated to, but on the whole this stuff is not determined or even
influenced by the domain level mechanics.
The only domain level effect that I can think of that really specifies to
what a holding is dedicated is the rules for creating Varsk ranches based
on guild holdings to allow for regents to muster units of them. By
extension if one uses a system of specialty holdings then one is pretty
likely to run into more particular uses of holdings.
PC level mechanics, of course, are influenced by such things. But to
reiterate the domain level affects, there`s no reason to assume that in a
temple holding dedicated to Haelyn all the characters who administrate,
proselytize or participate in that temple holding are themselves dedicated
to that one god. Haelyn`s temples would very likely have things like a
shrine to his wife Neserie if for no other reason than to venerate the
god`s relationship. In fact, the omission of such a thing would probably
be seen as a little odd. Similarly, some mentioning of his son/herald
would probably be in order. Within a whole temple structure with a couple
dozen levels of holdings are possibly in the neighborhood of a few hundred
celebrants with levels in a priestly class. Not all of them need
necessarily be dedicated to the god for whom the temple is dedicated.
In the absence of an actual list of the entire staff of a holding, their
character levels and classes, I think it`s probably reasonable to assume
that there are a few clerics who have different, associated deities within
a particular temple structure, particularly if one takes into consideration
that the staff of holdings as described in the BoP aren`t even necessarily
clerics. Low level fighters and thieves also are listed among the acolytes
and clergy that staff holdings (p65.) Since not all such characters need
even be priests it seems logical that those who are not necessarily
strictly vetted.
Gary
Birthright-L
03-10-2004, 11:20 PM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Since Erik has Avani and Ruornil listed as allies...
I`m not sure if there is much of a "baby" to toss out with the "bathwater"
when one considers the religious "stat-blocks" in BoP.
Since I presume a, at least nominally, cooperative pantheon-wide "Imperial
Temple", I also have to assume at that some point there was sufficient
common ground between the priests of the different gods for this to get
off the ground. I think that Rhoubher Nichaleir might see some useful
things in Sarimie`s philosophy, even if he doesn`t see them in Temias
Coumain`s version of it.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-10-2004, 11:20 PM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Agreed, but I think that if we speak of loyalty, then we can speak of a
> populace as having a respect for and a loyalty to Temais Coumain and/or
> Rhobher Nichaleir. The attitudes of the people of Endier are going to be
> pretty stable regarding Sarimie and Haelyn, though the fortunes of Temais
> and Rhobher could theoretically be a roller coaster in which they are
> tossed between adulation and scorn.
Quite right, although I see the loyalty of the populace as less important
than both the loyalty of the priests and the "loyalty" of the ruler.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 01:20 AM
Prospero said:
> Why would a priest of Sarimie belong to a church which pays no heed to
> the influence of luck, and which stifles unrestricted trade with laws and
> the nobility? How would a priest of Haelyn fit into a clergy which
> respects not law, but profit?
Who says that Haelyn`s priests would do this? I don`t see any emphasis on
"stifling" in what little information we have on generic Haelynic
theology. Possibly the priests of the Orthodox and Northern temples might
see the rise of a merchant class as not-so-good (I suppose that depends
how "Protestant" you see the NIT as) but this is not a fundamental of
Haelyn`s worship. There are also elements of Sarimien theology that say
that luck comes to whom it is due; i.e you `make your own fortune`. I do
not see Just Reward as being contrary to Haelyn`s teachings.
To go somewhat specific I will also point out that at times Nichaleir is
spoken of as a highly political individual, as opposed to a strictly
religious one (although this could be OIT propaganda sneaking into the
`Ruins of Empire` book); creating an inclusive rather than an exclusive
church is far more sensible from a political point of view if your society
is a pantheonistic one.
I think that religious (and political, for that matter) fanaticism is
hopelessly overstated by most BR players.
> You are, of course, free to hold whatever beliefs you like.
> But I completely disagree with your idea of multitheistic temples.
Thanks for your permission; I graciously offer you the same.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Osprey
03-11-2004, 01:40 AM
creating an inclusive rather than an exclusive
church is far more sensible from a political point of view if your society
is a pantheonistic one.
I beg to differ...inclusion might be the safer route, but there is a great deal of potential political power in extremism. One need only look IRL to the persuasive power of the Crusades, Fundamentalist sects of most religious organizations, the Inquisistion...need I go on? Granted, you are saying that this is true in a pantheistic society, and I would counter with the argument that exclusivity in such a system may really be a push toward monotheism, and again I point to history which is ripe with the political power possible by such drives.
Speaking of which...another possible story hook is the introduction of a monotheistic/extremist cult from outside Cerilia, trying to push or sneak its way in...maybe from Aduria, or from one of the other continents?
Osprey
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 02:40 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Oh, its possible, and it might finally be time for me to devise a
> doctrine, so here goes.
> <snip!>
> This will appeal to Haelyn`s followers who don`t mind commerce and would
> prefer to see it more orderly. Those who find all commerce to be
> distastefull will reject this doctrine.
>
> This will appeal to those Sarimians who emphisise wealth over luck and
> will accept greater order and less luck in order to increase their
> wealth. Those who remain gamblers at heart will reject this doctrine.
I think this could explain the role of Haelyn in Brecht society (assuming
either (or both!) "statist" and "lassez faire" elements in Brecht
society). I tend to prefer Avani as the "law" in Brecht society, but a
theoretical "Bismarckian" Brecht leader might prefer Haelyn over Avani;
similarly those with a genuine commitment to the spirit as well as the
letter of the law would probably prefer Haelyn over Avani (LG vs LN).
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-11-2004, 02:40 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:42 PM
> I think that Rhoubher Nichaleir might see some useful things
> in Sarimie`s philosophy, even if he doesn`t see them in Temias
> Coumain`s version of it.
We can certainly look at every domain as a rival of every other domain, so
that Rhoubher Nichaleir might be just as liable to be hostile to Temais
Coumain as he might Anita Maricoere or Thuriene Donalls. Or just as liable
to ally, for that matter. But, I am inclined to see a temple realm of
Haelyn as a coalition of temples lead by Haelyn and so imbued with a
Haelynite ideology which members of the coalition find acceptable or
desirable.
Within this group we might find:
priests of Haelyn who like Nesirie
priests of Haelyn who dislike Nesirie
priests of Haelyn who like Sera
priests of Haelyn who dislike Sera
priests of Haelyn who like Avani
priests of Haelyn who dislike Avani
...
priestesses of Nesirie who like Avani
priestesses of Nesirie who dislike Avani
.... (and so on through every combination)
But the proportions of these won`t be random, or evenly distributed, but
rather will be distributed according to compatable doctrines, alliances
mentioned in the BoP, and political neccesity. As I chart these out in a
graphic organizer of alliances (from the BoP), from known political
alliances (from RoE and other source books and my own role as NPC`s), and
from compatible doctrines (a bit from the brief mentions on BoP greatly
extended by me), I see groupings of temple realms that are likely to ally,
could ally, and will have problems allying. Admittedly sometime this is
because of things I do to temple ideology or political alliances to foster
conflict in the game. Creating a history of the CJS campaigning against
Haelyn`s followers in order to convert them to Sarimie, is one example. It
creates a framework of conflict which I can use predict future conflicts.
Since I like lots of conflict, including conflict bubbling up under the
surface of cooperation, I turn away from a great happy pantheism which may
or may not have been common during the Imperial age. It just doesn`t
develope story opportunities.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 03:00 AM
Osprey said:
> I find myself agreeing with Kenneth on most points here. For one, in
> the overall scheme of things, I think inter-faith temples might exist in
> some places where there is a close alliance and respect for those
> deities not represented by the dominant temple/regent. In a way, it`s a
> shame there`s no mechanic to represent such a "sub-realm"
> level dynamic, as it adds a really valuable element of sophistication
> and realism to an otherwise childishly simple picture (here I`m
> referring to the standard domain level temple holding view, as set up in
> RoE etc.). As a DM, I might allow that well-accepted `lesser` sects,
> such as Neserians in a Haelyn-dominated province, would have an easier
> time establishing some real political clout (gaining actual holding
> levels under a regent), at least in the beginning. By the same token,
> though, I`d expect that such an action would be least likely from that
> sect as it would upset the friendship and working relationship between
> the 2 sects, and might cause a lot of bad blood without some careful
> diplomacy first smoothing the way.
I assume that the "Imperial Age" Imperial Temple was such a
cooperation-friendly environment and that temples in "modern" Anuire are
to some extent the remnants of this system. I like to carry the motif of
collapse into factionalism over into all aspects of Anuirean society.
An aside: a lot of the talk so far on this subject has focused on Haelyn,
and thus on Anuire. Anuire is only one of several theistic human societies
on Cerilia. We should also give some thought to other societies, since the
domain system should be able to represent them as effectively as Anuire;
by way of example, I think that multi-faith temples, under the authority
of Avani`s priests, would tend to be the rule, rather than the exception,
in Khinasi.
> But never underestimate the attractiveness of the extremes...there will
> always be zealots and extremists goading the masses into exclusive
> worship (plenty of RW examples for this!), and there will always be
> those who believe that everything has its place (the
> "universalists," for lack of a better term), and I think these
> make for excellent elements for the BR world, not to mention excellent
> sources of headaches for PC regents...heh heh heh... ;)
As I mentioned in another post, it is not always sensible to
over-emphasize fanaticism, even in the real world. People who you would
assume have every reason to violently despise each other often act quite
differently. Fairly recent scholarship on the role of the "gazis" in
Anatolia and Rumelia throughout the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries calls
into question the extent of the fervour and the orthodoxy of these
would-be "Islamic crusaders" vis-a-vis their agreements and alliances with
converted and non-converted Byzantines.
[For those that are interested, Cemal Kafadar`s "Between Two Worlds: The
Construction of the Ottoman State" is proving to be an interesting read on
this sort of thing.]
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-11-2004, 03:00 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:40 PM
> I beg to differ...inclusion might be the safer route, but there is a
> great deal of potential political power in extremism. One need
> only look IRL to the persuasive power of the Crusades,
> Fundamentalist sects of most religious organizations, the
> Inquisistion...need I go on?
I don`t think any of these are neccesarily extream. Any extreamism will be
based on a criteria of some kind, and I would think that the best criteria
would be the religious views of the broader population where the temple is
based. If the people of Avanil, Alamie, Tournen, and Taeghas are broad
polytheists the way John Machin and I think they are then a rabid Haelynism
which rejects Sera and Avanil and is suspicous of Nesirie and Cuiraécen
could be described as extreamist, but I will add that they could never get
the broad support of the people, even though they could grab all the
holdings, it would be a brittle realm like Osoerde, ripe for overthrow.
Such a realm might be very powerful at the level of one holding, with the
devotion of priests and worshipers who are extream themselves, as they gain
all the holdings in a province they would have resistance within the realm
from those who want to spend at least part of the time supporting other
gods.
On the other hand, if we imagine that the people of Avanil, Alamie, Tournen,
and Taeghas are themselves absolutist Haelynites as described above, then a
temple realm which mirrored that would be mainstream, not extream at all.
> Granted, you are saying that this is true in a pantheistic society,
> and I would counter with the argument that exclusivity in such a
> system may really be a push toward monotheism, and again I
> point to history which is ripe with the political power possible by
> such drives.
I think the embrace of extreamism has short term benfits and long term
harms. Realms which are inclusive will be more durable and strong in the
long run, because a realm that embraces an extreamism will begin fighting
with itself internally. Spain destroyed itself by pursuing its
Counter-reformation agenda and deprived itself of considerable talent and
wealth by persecuting Jews and Moors. Ultimatly it was based on the power
calculus that monarchs like Elizabeth I (to pick a period crown) looked for
inclusive comprimise solutions to religious strife. Cromwell`s achievment
was temporary and had to be, or it would have had to moderate itself and
embrace the high church and dissenter wings of the English church.
> Speaking of which...another possible story hook is the introduction
> of a monotheistic/extremist cult from outside Cerilia, trying to push
> or sneak its way in...maybe from Aduria, or from one of the other
> continents?
The VoM and TCV kind of fill that role, but one could go and invent a new
religious organization, but drawing on powers other than those innumerated
in the BoP alters the cosmology.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 03:00 AM
Prospero said:
> Temples being multitheistic is such a huge thing, I think that it would
> have been mentioned somewhere in the rules if it existed. Now, if you
> want to change this and add it in in your own games, that`s your call,
> and good luck. But I disagree, and I would personally want to stick with
> the rules and descriptions as laid out, how I interpret them.
With respect to it being mentioned in the rules: Osprey and I have both
commented on the lack of systems to represent `multitheistic` temples and
the vast increase in required book-keeping and NPC-generation. I think the
absence of them from the rules has more to do with increasing the general
appeal of the setting than from well-thought-out ideas about how
pantheonic polytheistic societies might work.
(This should not be taken as an unfair criticism of the original
designers, it simply reflects the fact that not everyone likes this sort
of thing and that RPGs actually need to sell.)
"It`s not in the basic rules" is possibly the worst justification for a
refusal to expand the BR setting that I can think of; "I don`t like it" is
infinitely preferrable, in my opinion.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 03:00 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> But what are we to do with these extreamists? Do such people come
> together under a like-minded templar and form a sect? Are they just
> nusiance priests who are found in every temple but cause friction among
> the cooperating faiths? What is the nature of the problem they will
> present to PC rulers?
"Anyone order a Great Captain, to go?!"
Dubious humour aside, perhaps there needs to be more, and more finely
graded, options than the random event table when it comes to successionist
urges.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-11-2004, 03:00 AM
Sthenelos said:
> Or we could go so far as assume that the pantheon as described is
> Anuireo-centric, and most of the divinities actually represent differing
> pantheons, each as their probable head.
This is precisely what I mean when I talk about the changing roles of the
deities as we move from Anuire, to Rjurik, to Khinasi, etc.
> On a side note, in a case where my previous proposition is considered
> irrelevant, I`d say that unless they have been heavily influnced by
> abrahamic religious thought, there will be shrines to all the gods in
> many towns and all provincial capitals, certainly up to the small temple
> (not holding, but actual building) in a principality`s capital city.
I personally think that Haelyn`s worship in Anuire is seen as a little too
Medieval Roman Catholic Church by some people. This ties in with the
overstatement of fanaticism as well. Haelyn is certainly the most
important god in Anuire (he is their patron god after all) but he is not
the -only- important god. I see a highly "domesticated" priesthood of
Aeric cooperating with that of Avanalae to bless crops in Anuire. Given
the importance of agriculture in these sorts of (pseudo-)medieval
(pseudo-)feudal societies these deities would be very important to the
populace, even if their priests did not have the political importance (at
a domain level) as the priests of Haelyn.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-11-2004, 06:40 AM
Actually, I think a multi-theistic approach is all over the documentation,
its just no where near the domain rules, for reasons John Machin has
articulated above. On p. 64 of the BoP, the rules define a faith as all of
the temple holdings under a single priest regent. The nature of that faith
gets no other discussion because the domain system was intended to be
abstract. As I have argued for years, this is a virtue because it allows
DM`s to play the game they want to play, not the game that someone else
thinks they should be playing.
In the same way the rules do not discuss a polytheistic domain, they don`t
describe any interfaith fighting in any terms except one regent and his
organization against the organization of another regent, which is something
that has come up in all the discussion of the one-god temples.
Clearly and unambiguously most Cerilians are multi-theistic, after all they
worship multiple gods. Its pretty clear that they are polytheistic too,
since its pretty clear that most acknowledge the existence of the other
gods, and we get specific information about cooperation between the
followers of one god and other and the rivalries. What precisely does the
BoP mean when it describes Nesirie and Avani as allies if not that followers
of the one will be generally well disposed to followers of the other. Since
playing the gods themselves is not part of the game as conventionally
understood, the personal tastes of the gods is only relevant as it effects
PC`s. And if the followers of Nesirie and Avani are well disposed toward
one another than 1) they acknowledge the other god and 2) there is some
cooperation at some level. What the nature of that cooperation is, is the
matter at hand.
Three possibilities
1) Distinct temple realms might cooperate, such as the ETN and the LPA
2) Within a province, in which only one temple has holdings, those holdings
represent both worshipers of Nesirie and Avani, though in seperate
organizations, one politically powerful and one politically impotent.
3) Both followers mingle in a single organization, often in single buildings
Where you want to identify that cooperation is up to you. I don`t think you
can deny its there, unless like Ryan you want to argue that at least some of
the gods aren`t there. Changes to what is, are of course, as natural and
approprate as they are in any DM`s campaign.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
kgauck
03-11-2004, 06:40 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:34 PM
> An aside: a lot of the talk so far on this subject has focused on
> Haelyn, and thus on Anuire. Anuire is only one of several theistic
> human societies on Cerilia. We should also give some thought to
> other societies, since the domain system should be able to
> represent them as effectively as Anuire
Partly my fault, I have exclusively chosen hypothetical examples from
Anuire. I do so for two reasons in this case. 1) If anyone is to have BR
materials they probably have the original boxed set and therefore the Ruins
of Empire, so its the standard I hope everyone can refer to. 2) Anuire
seems to have as much or more religous diversity of holdings than any other
nation, and so if I cannot make a case for polytheism in Anuire, I can`t
make it anywhere.
I have given game based examples from my own campaign in Rjurik situations,
and that might be refered to a bit for those with special interest there. I
know that you, John, have more interest and experience farther east and can
speak with greater authority about Sera and Avani.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
kgauck
03-11-2004, 07:00 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:44 PM
> "Anyone order a Great Captain, to go?!"
Yes, the random events table is only a start, but I rather like it that way.
I can devise various grades of challenge myself, mostly based on what is
going on in the role-play of the campiagn. For example, I recently
confronted the Oaken Grove with a trade matter. They have no trade. But I
had no problem devising some activity by Storm Holtson that would compel the
OG to do something about. I put the stakes at the level of random events RP
were involved, and a total mis-handling of the affair would have resulted in
one or two holdings switching allegence to the Emerald Spire and the PC
involved would have lost a point of blood strength.
Any ennumeration of the random events table would be best as a list of ideas
and adventure seeds rather than anything else.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Osprey
03-11-2004, 10:51 AM
I think the embrace of extreamism has short term benfits and long term
harms. Realms which are inclusive will be more durable and strong in the
long run, because a realm that embraces an extreamism will begin fighting
with itself internally. Spain destroyed itself by pursuing its
Counter-reformation agenda and deprived itself of considerable talent and
wealth by persecuting Jews and Moors. Ultimatly it was based on the power
calculus that monarchs like Elizabeth I (to pick a period crown) looked for
inclusive comprimise solutions to religious strife. Cromwell`s achievment
was temporary and had to be, or it would have had to moderate itself and
embrace the high church and dissenter wings of the English church.
Yet these examples show just a few of the many instances where zealous extremism has proven popular, and it continues to prove so againa and again again...no matter how 'silly' or unwise we might deem such a thing, especially in a political sense, we simply cannot ignore the fact that its continual recurrence means humans will always be drawn to it when the climate is ripe for it and a charismatic leader(s) steps forward to forge it into a cohesive religious and political movement.
In most human societies, there are nearly always extremist cults (independent groups) and sects (organized factions of an established religious organization). These, I think, must be accepted as inevitable within any religious society and organized religion, respectively. I think it's worth detailing the basic types and characteristics of such bodies, as they provide excellent stroy/adventure material in any RPG, and definitely act as sources of 'random' events, plot devices, and general sources of trouble, esp. for BR temple regents.
In BR, cults most likely follow the unaccepted deities of the established pantheon (Kreisha, Belinik, and Eloele being the common 'outcasts' in most civilized realms of Cerilia; VoM is a good example), or they may represent followers of the accepted gods whose doctrines/theology are so extreme that the established temples cannot condone such views or the actions of these fanatics. Finally, there are the truly extreme cults following dark gods outside the basic pantheon (like the Cold Rider or one of the humanoid deities, demon lords, etc.), foreign or alien deities (new Adurian gods, powerful spirits of the SW worshipped as gods, etc.), or just really bizarre cults following radical philosophies or theologies.
Most of the time, these cults are relatively harmless, as they appeal only to a very small group of people and have negligable social or political influence. However, with a very charismatic leader founding or coming to power within them, they sometimes transform very rapidly as new followers are pulled in, more elements of society are influenced by them (including people in positions of power), and so on as the ball starts rolling. Again, Vos of Mieres is a great example: what started as just another freakish cult has gained real political influence in at least one province, and this group has a blooded regent driving them! (or so I assume)
Even the small cults who don't show up on the domain map can be a source of trouble for any regent, especially if they have even one or two influential members who can pull a few strings for them, or if they have the resources or personell to act on their agenda. Cults of Eloele, for instance, could cause continuous trouble even without a blooded leader trying to make them into a political power, but just goading its members to "Steal, steal, steal for your goddess! The more you steal, the more favor you acquire in Her eyes." (and the more status you gain within the cult as you donate a portion of your gains to it)
Osprey
Osprey
03-11-2004, 12:21 PM
SECTS:
Not wanting to make the last post too incredibly long, I thought I'd outline my thoughts on sects in another post.
Sects, being factions within an exsting temple organization, should also be a common aspect of most temples, especially the more tolerant ones. I've thought of a few basic types of sects for the BR setting, outlined below:
Monastic: Those who seek worship of their patron deity seperate from the political and social climate of the mainstream temples form monastic sects. Monastic sectarians might include hermits alone or in small groups (by choice or because there are few who share their views, and often because there is no finacial support from the mother temple). The larger and better-supported groups often create seperate structures where they can practice their faith in relative isolation from the outside world. Popular monastic sects, or Orders, have multiple monasteries in different provinces, and are often actively supported by the parent temple. In general, supported monasteries would be most common in provinces where the parent temple is larger and heavily political. Independant monasteries would be more common in lower level provinces and remote areas, where they can best be left undisturbed to pursue their spiritual goals. The possible types of monastic sects are diverse, but here are a few that might be more common:
Militant Monasteries: The path of the holy warrior is one that requires intense dedication and focus. Militant monasteries make excellent places for the training and refinement of paladins and warriors of Haelyn, Cuiraecen, Neserie, and Avani, and perhaps Blackguards serving Belinik or the Cold Rider as well. War priests would also train here, as well as providing spiritual guidance for the warriors and a link to the main temple organization. Militant monasteries would typically be sturdy structures with some degree of fortification present.
Mystical Monasteries: Monasteries are ideal settings for the pursuit of mysticism, where devotees seek spiritual communion with their deity and the divine. While mystical sects are possible within any of the temples, devotees of Ruornil are by far the most common members of such organizations, and the mystical monastery might in fact be the most commonly known form of 'temple' to Ruornil in Cerilia, as far as man-made structures and organizations are concerned (I expect sacred sites in nature, where the mebhaighal is potent, are actually the most common places for worhip and meditation for devotees of Ruornil, but it would be anathema for any numbers to dwell there). Mystical monasteries dedicated to Avani would also be fairly common, while those dedicated to any other deity would be much rarer. Many of these places might be dedicated to mysticism in general, and not devoted to a single deity at all, but rather interested in mystical communion with the divine in general, accepting devotees of different deities or even mystics who don't devote themselves to any one of the gods in particular.
Other types: While the 2 types above would be the most common, monasteries might exist for all sorts of other reasons (the various Catholic monastic orders come to mind here as examples); dedicated learning and scholarship (esp. theological studies), specialized pursuit of one aspect of a deity (especially the less social aspects), or as place for followers of a sectarian theology that just doesn't mesh well with the parent temple but isn't deemed heretical by the parent temple (just put them all in that monastery where they won't influence anyone else).
Monastic sects are by far the most visible sort, but other sects may exist within the regular membership of the temple hierarchy. Generally, these groups form around different views and interpretations of the dominant theology. Kenneth has touched on many possiblities for such groups, particularly concerning views on the various other deities of the pantheon. But many other differences exist as well, with almost infinite variety. These sects may stress one particular aspect of their deity, have differing views on how the faithful should best serve their god, have strong beliefs about how the temple's resources should be allocated, etc., etc., etc.
While every member of a temple might have his or her differences with the temple regent and the official canon, the important distinction for sects is that they are more organized groups making a distinct faction. Often these form around a persuasive clergyman who converts an inner circle, who then spreads the deviant ideas further through the organization and among the layfolk. As sects grow, they may or may not (depending on just how radical their views are) present a serious threat to the established order. Sometimes, especially under a less tolerant regent, they may be branded heretics, and face persecution for their views. In temples where the regent is known for their intolerance, these sects often maintain secrecy as their main defense, and may only become known to the regent when they've already grown to a dangerous level of influence (another example of the Heresy/Great Captain event, a random event with incredibly broad applications).
Less radical differences might mean they simply are allowed to proliferate as the regent considers them relatively harmless or even beneficial as specialists within the greater organization. In these cases, regents may even give them official recognition, naming them as an official sect within the main temple body. As these sects grow, they may keep harmonious relations with the main temple, or they may at some point split off from the parent temple, especially if a blooded regent leads this break (such as with the Impregnable Heart breaking off from the OIT).
So there are some expansions of some basic forms for cults and sects...at the least, I hope these provide some basis for adding color and detail to a temple organization and its components. Creative and enterprising PC temple regents might want to really flesh out their own temple organizations, and I would encourage every DM to spur their PC's to do so. Just as with characters, the more details and distinct characteristics that can be added to the basic domain structure, the more that domain really comes to life and has meaning as a living, believable organization. And the more players develop their PC's and their realms, the more the DM can in turn create story material that is directly relevant to the PC regents and their realms. Good luck!
Osprey
Birthright-L
03-12-2004, 09:00 AM
Osprey said:
> Granted, you are saying that this is true in a pantheistic society, and
> I would counter with the argument that exclusivity in such a system may
> really be a push toward monotheism, and again I point to history which
> is ripe with the political power possible by such drives.
I don`t find this particularly compelling. I don`t see a push towards
monotheism exists at all in society in Cerilia; to be perfectly honest. I
consider the primary clash to be based around the differences in roles in
different societies (see my discussions on the LPA earlier in this
thread).
I am also curious about these examples from history to which you allude;
perhaps you could illustrate some?
> Speaking of which...another possible story hook is the introduction of a
> monotheistic/extremist cult from outside Cerilia, trying to push or sneak
> its way in...maybe from Aduria, or from one of the other continents?
I see the Flight of the Five Tribes as being the result of an
imperialistic enemy who were the instruments of Azrai`s desire for a true
monotheistic world. Monotheism is, to my conception of the Cerilian mind,
anathema.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Osprey
03-12-2004, 06:02 PM
I am also curious about these examples from history to which you allude;
perhaps you could illustrate some?
Do you think it merely coincedence that in almost every place in the world, monotheism came to dominate and eventually excluse polytheism? Be it Judaism in the Middle East, then Christianity, and eventually Islam, each had a long but ultimately successful battle against the prevailing polytheistic beliefs in their regions. Naturally, these haven't dominated everywhere, but they certainly are by far the world's largest and still fastest-growing faiths (Christianity winning the former title, and Islam winning the latter designation).
Why, again and again, have these religions swept aside and/or absorbed the poltheistic faiths they meet? Certainly it is related to political and military support, conditions at different times, and so on...and yet, I hardly think it's just "chance" or "luck of the draw" that has led them to be dominant.
I think there is an inherent human attraction to monotheism. As to the why's, well, I didn't want to turn this forum into a massive RW theological debate, but the simplest answer I can think of is that monotheism represents one almighty god, the pinnacle of divine power concentrated in a single being, and thus it becomes a case of "my one god can beat any of your gods, and I can prove it." Missionary stories, faith histories back to the Old Testament, crusades and jihads all reflect this basic statement of faith and divine superiority, so it must represent a basic but very powerful appeal, a kind of simple logic that is hard to refute if the point can be proven.
And so, anytime someone in any world (BR included) could come up with such an idea and actually give it some kind of real power and backing, I would think it must be considered a very serious threat (by the DM at least) to the existing pantheon and their followers. Within the existing mythology, I think the "push toward monotheism" would begin with a drive to prove that the priest's particular patron deity is the dominant one within the pantheon. If they can "prove" this, then imagine a fanatical/ambitious priest who is never satisfied with that, but keeps pushing the theology further and further as more and more power, influence, and spheres of control are ascribed to the patron deity while the other gods are painted as weaker and less significant...if there is nothing to stop such a drive, it is concievable that eventually the patron deity may grow (in the priest's and followers' views) to become "the only god you'll ever need," while the other deities get relegated to first subserviant and eventually non-deific status - favored divine servants/angels/saints - whatever you want to call them. Keep in mind that the depiction of history is always malleable, to the point where (with some time and a lot of RP) people can be convinced almost anything is "the Truth."
Now don't get me wrong - I find this reality disturbing and downright frightening IRL, but acknowledging it and introducing into a roleplaying world can make for some fantastic, gritty, and very believable stories and socially dangerous threats for the heroes and PC's.
Osprey
ConjurerDragon
03-12-2004, 06:30 PM
Osprey schrieb:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2331
>
> Osprey wrote:
>
I am also curious about these examples from history to which you allude;
> perhaps you could illustrate some?
>
>
> Do you think it merely coincedence that in almost every place in the world, monotheism came to dominate and eventually excluse polytheism?
>
No, military success. The Inkas/Maya/Aztecs would perhaps still today
worship a pantheon if there would have been no Cortez/Pizarro.
But to ask for something to clear things: You assume that christianity
with it´s saints derived partly from pagan pantheons, holydays that
still name ancient godesses (Ostera) is monotheistic? Theoretically
perhaps but practically every saint is a lesser god and considering the
three-unity which even some christians denied (Arianer in german, don´t
know the english equivalent, the eastgoths were such as far as I remember)
> Be it Judaism in the Middle East, then Christianity, and eventually Islam, each had a long but ultimately successful battle against the prevailing polytheistic beliefs in their regions. Naturally, these haven`t dominated everywhere, but they certainly are by far the world`s largest and still fastest-growing faiths (Christianity winning the former title, and Islam winning the latter designation).
>
Buddhism/Shintoism/Hinduism/Taoism and whatever -ism can certainly match
the number of people when you consider that most african or american
"christians" have still some connection to their ancient pantheon - and
if it is only voodoo ;-)
> Why, again and again, have these religions swept aside and/or absorbed the poltheistic faiths they meet? Certainly it is related to political and military support, conditions at different times, and so on...and yet, I hardly think it`s just "chance" or "luck of the draw" that has led them to be dominant.
>
Wasn´t the Mithras monotheistic and vanished? Zarathustra had something
similar didn´t he?
> I think there is an inherent human attraction to monotheism. As to the why`s, well, I didn`t want to turn this forum into a massive RW theological debate, but the simplest answer I can think of is that monotheism represents one almighty god, the pinnacle of divine power concentrated in a single being, and thus it becomes a case of "my one god can beat any of your gods, and I can prove it." Missionary stories, faith histories back to the Old Testament, crusades and jihads all reflect this basic statement of faith and divine superiority, so it must represent a basic but very powerful appeal, a kind of simple logic that is hard to refute if the point can be proven.
>
The point can´t be proven. I never understood that a christian who
felled a "holy oak" in historical ancient germany was considered to have
proven that the christian god is stronger than Odin/Thor when so many
christian missionaries were killed and churches burned down which would
prove the opposite. Better propaganda of a unified church that is based
in a more advanced civilization perhaps.
bye
Michael
Osprey
03-12-2004, 07:02 PM
But to ask for something to clear things: You assume that christianity
with it´s saints derived partly from pagan pantheons, holydays that
still name ancient godesses (Ostera) is monotheistic? Theoretically
perhaps but practically every saint is a lesser god and considering the
three-unity which even some christians denied (Arianer in german, don´t
know the english equivalent, the eastgoths were such as far as I remember)
Not theoretically, but theologically, which is a statement of what is believed to be spiritual truth. The difference is that only one figure is named God, while the rest are named saints, giving them distinctly unequal and lesser status positions that do NOT equal godhood - the saints recieve their powers from God, they do not ever stand as competitive equals, and the powers they exhibit reflect a single narrow aspect of God's all-encompassing power. Divine beings such as saints and angels really can't be equated to gods, certainly not to the omnipotence ascribed to a monothesitic god.
Also, though the Christian holidays and saints are more often than not rooted in paganism, they are rarely recognized as such by most Christians. It is the resurgence of paganism in the Western world that has brought this fact back into the popular spotlight. But the holidays are now distinctly Christian, with Christian myths/stories supporting them (thinly disguised though they may be) - whether we like this, or agree if this is right, it is simply how it has come to be. History is
[re]written by the winners.
As for the Trinity, well...I agree that this is easily the most polytheistic aspect of the Christian doctrine, and I promise it's also one of the hottest topics of theological debate throughout the Christian church's history - especially during (and ever since) the Protestant Reformation. To some it is heretical, others sacred and inalterable truth. But in most cases, even the trinity is understood to be 3 aspects of the same One True God, and thus Christianity remains essentially monotheistic at its theological core.
The point can´t be proven. I never understood that a christian who
felled a "holy oak" in historical ancient germany was considered to have
proven that the christian god is stronger than Odin/Thor when so many
christian missionaries were killed and churches burned down which would
prove the opposite. Better propaganda of a unified church that is based
in a more advanced civilization perhaps.
bye
Michael
I didn't say it was sound logic by our own standards - it only mattered whether or not it convinced the people of the time (whether we understand it or not). A for missionaries and churches being burned down, well - ultimately the Christians didn't lose did they, so even by that logic their religion ultimately prevailed, and it was only a few generations later that almost all the formerly Norse/Germanic pagans were either converted, dead, or exiled.
Naturally, conversion is most effective when supported by real political and physical power, and definitely divine power (whether you believe in such things IRL or not, it would definitely matter in the BR world) - and the most successful approach has always been conversion of the king/leaders, who can then apply their political and social power on their subjects. Large scale conversion ensues.
Osprey
kgauck
03-12-2004, 11:20 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:02 PM
> Do you think it merely coincedence that in almost every place in the
world, monotheism came to dominate and eventually excluse polytheism?
Its not coincedence, but the cause may have something to do not with the
structure of the monotheistic or polythesitic faith, but with the nature of
things. Let`s consider three cases. #1 There are multiple gods, #2 There
is one god, and #3 There are no gods. What will be the struggle between
immediate polytheistic beliefs and remote monotheistic beliefs (remote in
the sense that I can explain the lack of direct evidence by falling back on
a creator-only god, for example) under each of these cases?
If there are multiple gods and they do things like grant spells, grant
miracles, speak directly to mortals, mate with humans and produce offspring,
&c, then I find it hard to explain why a monotheism would predominate. This
is the case for BR (as written), so I see no reason to accept the RW model
for Cerilia.
If there is one god, I would expect the lack of tangible support for
polytheism to wane as the monotheists either co-opt their superstitions or
as people just become less superstitous in general.
If there are no gods, than any religion which is universalist and can
explain itself without recourse to evidence will prevail, and I think there
are good reasons to argue that monotheists can do this better than
polytheists can. Compare Cicero`s On the Nature of the Gods and something
like John Locke`s On the Reasonableness of Christianity for a domestration
that monotheism better withstands a lack of evidence.
Since I view Cerilia as a place where multiple gods provide different
evidence for a multiple of gods, I see no reason to expect that monotheism
would be anything other than a crackpot theory.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Osprey
03-12-2004, 11:52 PM
If there are multiple gods and they do things like grant spells, grant
miracles, speak directly to mortals, mate with humans and produce offspring,
&c, then I find it hard to explain why a monotheism would predominate. This
is the case for BR (as written), so I see no reason to accept the RW model
for Cerilia.
I don't really expect monothesim to predominate either, I was merely suggesting why it might prove a very real threat to the existing pantheistic structure. As an internal movement (where one patron deity within the pantheon slowly grows to become super-dominant while the others are reduced in power) or an external one (from outside Cerilia), the reason I remain convinced of this threat is that many humans seem to be attracted to the belief that their god is stronger than any other god, and monotheism is following this basic desire to its ultimate conclusion - that their god is in fact omnipotent with no real competition.
That's the basis for human motivation - the resultant actions will be to set about "proving" this dominance and convincing others of this "truth." And when it comes to persuasion, I give blooded regents the power to do so in a way that RL people cannot, which in some ways makes this kind of threat far more dangerous because it can build up momentum so much faster. The greatest version of this would be a theocrat, who controlled the land, law, and temples of a realm - their ability to sway the populace and convince them of nearly anything (with enough skill and regency poured into this effort) might far exceed anything ever seen in Earth's history.
It would only take one deluded "crackpot" with enough power and regency, in the right situation, to make this scenario, however unlikely it might be in Cerilia, into a very, very scary threat - because if they succeeded, the chance that they might spread like a plague might threaten to undermine the stability of the Cerilian pantheon, especially if one lends any credence to the theory that the beliefs of the people could somehow affect the gods themselves.
Osprey
kgauck
03-13-2004, 01:00 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:52 PM
> The reason I remain convinced of this threat is that many humans
> seem to be attracted to the belief that their god is stronger
> than any other god, and monotheism is following this basic desire
> to its ultimate conclusion - that their god is in fact omnipotent with
> no real competition.
Which is their god though? When other gods have visible tangible power I
propose someone like this is just going to produce the Odysseus effect.
Odysseus, as you may recall was a clear favorite of several gods, but when
he offended Posideon, he couldn`t go home, despite the fact that other gods
were out there pulling for him. In such a world as that, it behooves every
sensible character to give due respect to all the gods, lest you offend one
and get punished.
Its not enough to have a patron, you need to avoid giving offense too, so
polytheism still wins in my estimation. Monotheism is for cranks and the
cursed.
> That`s the basis for human motivation
I also don`t think that humans have any tendency toward monotheism. I think
that societies have social needs that are filled by religions and that
certain kinds of societies tend to embrace certain attitudes towards
religion. I think traditional monotheism was seriously undermined by the
scientific revolution, which produced a kind of reinterpretation of
monotheism in which the deity becomes remote and only has any effect at the
very beginning and very end of things, every thing in the middle is
explained scientifically. While this has resulted in an anti-modern
fundamentalism, I think its more of a last gasp of traditional theism than
anything else. Looking over the long run, all theisms might give way to a
Star Trek scenario where no one is religous except the non-human species.
That means the elves are right, which should surprise no one, after all,
they are immortal.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 06:20 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Since I like lots of conflict, including conflict bubbling up under the
> surface of cooperation, I turn away from a great happy pantheism which
> may or may not have been common during the Imperial age. It just doesn`t
> develope story opportunities.
If the motif of disunity beneath a veneer of unity is so appealing it
perplexes me why you find the idea of a cooperative temple so hard to
accept. I did not cast it as a "great happy pantheism", and, in fact,
specifically mentioned that it was unlikely to have been without internal
political conflict. The idealisation of the "Imperial Age" occurs in
reactionaries of "modern" Anuire, not in me.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-13-2004, 07:00 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:01 AM
> If the motif of disunity beneath a veneer of unity is so appealing it
> perplexes me why you find the idea of a cooperative temple so
> hard to accept.
I don`t find it hard to accept, I use it fequently in my bag of tricks. I
just don`t assume its the standard. I use it mostly for inter-family
cooperations, sometimes for allied cooperation, but I use seperate temples
lead in concert a bit more often. Then I also use seperate temples openly
hostile as well, so I want all three.
Disunity beneath the veneer
Disunity among allies
and outright hosility
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 07:40 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Yes, the random events table is only a start, but I rather like it that
> way.
I prefer it to be the "considered results of a players actions table"
myself. I resort to rolling only when I am at a total loss for ideas(which
is, thankfully, mostly rare).
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 08:00 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> I know that you, John, have more interest and experience farther east and
> can speak with greater authority about Sera and Avani.
Authority? Time to buy some new hats, I think! ;)
(Credits to John H.)
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
Michael Romes said:
> Wasn´t the Mithras monotheistic and vanished? Zarathustra had something
> similar didn´t he?
Zoroastrianism was pretty much driven out by the advance of Islam (another
example of the role of the military in the spread of monotheism); although
there are Parsi still on the coast of India, I believe.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
Osprey said:
> Yet these examples show just a few of the many instances where zealous
> extremism has proven popular, and it continues to prove so againa and
> again again...no matter how `silly` or unwise we might deem such a thing,
> especially in a political sense, we simply cannot ignore the fact that
> its continual recurrence means humans will always be drawn to it when the
> climate is ripe for it and a charismatic leader(s) steps forward to forge
> it into a cohesive religious and political movement.
I believe that I was referring to the beliefs of the WIT and its leader
Nichaleir, who is described as a political animal fairly consistently (as
consistently as it gets for BR).
In response though: I think we also cannot under-rate the importantance of
prudent political choices and I *still* think you, and probably others,
greatly overstate the capacity in the conciousness of Cerilians for
extremist monotheism.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
I spaketh
> Yes, the random events table is only a start, but I rather like it
> that way.
trithemius did utter
> I prefer it to be the "considered results of a players actions
> table" myself. I resort to rolling only when I am at a total loss
> for ideas(which is, thankfully, mostly rare).
I doth reply
Well, I do engage in plenty of consequences myself, but were I to provide
the table with so engaging a moniker, I would call it the "problems right
out of left field chart". I am charmed by the way this little table can
produce such unexpected and unpredictable situations whose flavor comports
so pleasantly along with all the player induced consequences I set upon the
table for my players to sup upon.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
kgauck
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 1:11 AM
> Authority? Time to buy some new hats, I think! ;)
In your present location I recomend one with a wide brim, lest Avani mark
you as her own.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 08:20 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> Since I view Cerilia as a place where multiple gods provide different
> evidence for a multiple of gods, I see no reason to expect that
> monotheism would be anything other than a crackpot theory.
Unless you are an ultra-imperialist from Aduria under that thrall of a
theocidal deity? Perhaps in this case, monotheism was more of a dream of
Azrai than a theological standpoint.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 08:40 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> I just don`t assume its the standard.
I treat it as standard for the "history" of Anuire. Having something
vaguely unified in the first place makes the "collapse" motif more
powerful, at least to me.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 09:00 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> I doth reply
> Well, I do engage in plenty of consequences myself, but were I to provide
> the table with so engaging a moniker, I would call it the "problems right
> out of left field chart". I am charmed by the way this little table can
> produce such unexpected and unpredictable situations whose flavor
> comports so pleasantly along with all the player induced consequences I
> set upon the table for my players to sup upon.
Forsooth!
[What`s next - pirates? ;)]
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-13-2004, 09:00 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> In your present location I recomend one with a wide brim, lest Avani mark
> you as her own.
Indeed. Becoming a troglodyte and cowering beneath the earth has never
seemed so appealing to me before.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
kgauck
03-13-2004, 09:20 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@KALLISTI.NET.NZ>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:32 AM
> I treat it as standard for the "history" of Anuire. Having
> something vaguely unified in the first place makes the
> "collapse" motif more powerful, at least to me.
Certainly the pubs imply (and occasionaly state outright) such things. I`ll
have to gaze up at the astral sphere and contemplate the collapse motif for
a time and see what it does for me. I am normally a subscriber of the
devolution approach to the history of the Empire and Anuire. I have tended
to look at collapse as an interpretation of some NPC`s rather than using it
myself.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
geeman
03-13-2004, 03:40 PM
Example of real world monotheism are, I think, a bit too pat for use in
BR. Aside from the fact that they represent a rather small actual number
of movements (and most have very similar origins) it`s doubtful whether
they represent anything that could be described as a legitimate sampling
upon which to base a trend. There are a few things that might indicate
that there is a tendency for religions to eventually "evolve" into more
monotheistic systems, but it`s a bit much to delve into anthropological
studies or the writings of later Greeks and Romans for the purpose of
describing BR temples since there are a few fundamental differences between
the real world and the campaign setting that would be extremely significant
influences upon the possibility of a monotheistic temple.
First of all, we have bloodlines in BR based on the derivations of various
gods. Monotheism is a bit harder to justify if one can point at an actual
person who embodies an aspect of a god. It`s a bit more difficult for
people to put faith into a statement that "there is no other god but God"
if some scion in the congregation is going to raise his hand and testify as
to his bloodline with a derivation to another deity. Since bloodlines
manifest actual godly powers it gets more difficult to justify that person
being deluded, misguided or otherwise incorrect.
Furthermore, if one were to suggest that one god had primacy over any of
the others it would alienate or be seen as derisive of the other 6/7th of
the scions who have different bloodlines. Since scions represent the
actual political power of the setting it`s less likely that by alienating
the majority of them one could gain some sort of political advantage of the
kind necessary to have a temple structure itself. One might posit a pogrom
in which scions of different bloodlines were eliminated from the local
population AND information is carefully controlled (a shade more effort
than even what happens in the island state of Ghamoura) but since the
political structure itself must recognize the existence of various gods by
definition going with a monotheistic religion in defiance of the existing
power structure would be a difficult proposition.
We should also take into consideration the existence of awnsheghlien and
the derivation of Azrai--who was, after all, significantly more powerful
than the other gods.... If one were to go with a monotheistic religion
after recognizing this it`s not hard to see who might actually end up being
the mono of the theism. Was Deismaar really the godly version of this
thread with polytheism winning out? It`s not that hard to interpret that
way....
Another thing that one should probably recognize is the existence of
Cerilian elves and how that simple existence would affect thoughts on
monotheism. I would argue that the themes of the BR setting in regards to
elven immortality, their restriction from priestly magic, automatic access
to arcane magic, relationship to the Sie, etc. are related to this issue in
that they can be seen as part and parcel of the outlook of Cerilians. If
one lives with the example of immortal, spiritist beings able to wield
arcane magics and occupying a dichotomous role with a race on an alternate
(but almost palpably nearby) reality then the concept of a single god seems
somewhat less compelling. There are, after all, hugely inexplicable
immortal beings numbering in the thousands running around. Granted, those
beings tend to be isolationist and don`t mix with humans much, but I`d
argue the same is true of many animistic polytheism in which spirit
creatures abound. To a lesser extent halflings have a similar role in the
setting as they serve as an indicator of the presence of the Shadow World
and points beyond. The cosmology of the setting is wrapped up in things
that make for levels of complexity in which the members of the Cerilian
pantheon fit in as puzzle pieces, not as the person working the puzzle (if
that isn`t too much as a metaphor for God.)
Gary
Osprey
03-13-2004, 10:34 PM
[sigh] While I am tempted to throw up my hands and say, "Fine. You're right. Monotheistic urges are ludicrous in the BR setting," I'm still convinced that the idea of one dominant or all-powerful god could tempt any mortal human in any setting. And I have a hunch that one of the big reasons such an idea is distasteful to the posters arguing against it is that the idea is so distasteful in real life, and they don't want it polluting the BR setting. But that's just a hunch, which may or may not have any basis in reality.
Anyways...bear in mind that I am reading all of these 'against monotheism' posts with an open mind, especially as I'm no great fan of monotheism IRL, would hate to see it come to dominate religion in BR, and consider any well-written post worthy of serious consideration from a sympathetic as well as critical viewpoint. And I would hope other readers and posters here would approach others' posts and ideas with a similar attitude.
The basic human attraction I see to monotheism is in some ways analagous to power-gamers in role-playing games. The players who join games so they can fantasize about how cool and powerful their characters can be, and get completely obsessed with the drive to accumulate more and more and more power for their characters, and continue to abuse that power in proportion, at least whenever they can get away with it.
A fanatic, monotheistic priest is much the same sort of character, IMO. They get obsessed with the same ideas, almost as if addicted to a powerful drug, except instead of the power-gamer's character, it's the zealot's patron deity. They devote their time, energy, RP (if a regent), and their overall life to advancing not only the agenda of their deity, but the very conception of that deity, doing their utmost to convince everyone they can that their deity is bigger, stronger, more powerful, etc. than any other god. Now they may do this through several approaches, but the most effective ones would be twofold:
1. Use every available opportunity to demonstrate the power of their god. This would work especially well with a high-level cleric who can produce dramatic divine effects/miracles, especially if these miracles are more impressive than anything competing clerics can come up with. And this kind of god-inflation might in fact be more likely to develop with higher level clerics as they get carried away by their own powers and the idea of how mighty their god is.
2. Use every available opportunity to downplay the powers and importance of rival deities. This really is companion to the first tactic, but might include sabotage of enemy temples and rituals/services (esp. if the saboteur can avoid blame), persuasive sermons and rhetoric that cleverly twist existing notions of theology to minimize the 'known' roles of other gods while exagerrating the role of the patron deity, publically embarrasing rival temples and the peoples' faith in them...and these are just the ideas off the top of my head. No doubt a clever and ambitious DM or player could come up with a slew of other tactics, too.
But what is required to accept any of this being possible is that existing beliefs and theology are not immutable. First of all, we must assume that most people do not have the Official History of the Gods of Cerilia in their homes, but tend to take the dominant priests' word for it, along with what their parents and local wise-folk tell them. So already we would know that there are about 1 million different shades of theological "truth" existing in Cerilia, which any clever theologian should be able to use to plant seeds of doubt as to whether or not this is really truth at all.
Second, I keep using the word clever for a reason - it implies a twisting of the truth as it is commonly known, rather than outright head-to-head competition with the status quo. A successful temple regent pushing for one god supremacy would start with what is accepted, and slowly twist and distort it from there. A really smart one would first come to power as a temple regent under a more accepted aegis, and then convince both his own priests and the people within his domain as to the truths he is espousing. Once those temples can be put to work for him, they would have an incredible amount of influence as a spiritual authority. Because of the power of blood and regency, I think that such twisting and persuasion would happen much faster in the BR world (despite outside competition) than IRL, where such a thing might take many human generations to be accepted by the populace.
In the long run, of course, such a movement is almost doomed to failure as more and more scions and competing priest regents unite against such an offense to the established culture and religious structure. The point, from the beginning, was that PC's dealing with such an event would make for an interesting story idea rather than just saying that such a movement is doomed anyways, so why bother? As it is almost cliche now, crackpots make great villains, and somehow the charismatic ones never fail to gain popular support in defiance of all common logic.
Finally, bear in mind that an internal movement (one of the Cerilian gods being painted as dominant) was depicted as a move towards monotheism, not some priest regent just up and saying "Haelyn is the one and only true god! All other gods are false!" That's silly, and bears no resemblance even to RW examples let alone anything from the BR world. True monotheism would be highly unlikely, I admit, but someone pushing in that direction isn't hard for me to imagine at all. I think it's theoretically possible that this could become monotheistic if taken to its extreme conclusion, but chances are that gathered resistance would prevent this from happening...but again, nothing wrong with throwing PC's into that fray and being instrumental in such resistance, is there?
Any true monotheistic movement would almost certainly be based around an outside deity - possibly Azrai or the Cold Rider, yes, but there's nothing wrong with inventing an unknown deity from Thaele, or that eastern land across the Sea of Dragons...naturally, they would be ignored, ridiculed, and met with hostility by many...yet religions do spread, and not always with military conquest.
Kenneth, you mentioned that the forms religions take is relative to social needs/desires of a given culture (or something to that effect), and I would agree. But why assume that the existing pantheon or more especially, the currently dominant temples, would be doing a good job of fulfilling those needs? Might there not be weak points to exploit?
Gary, most of what was said above responds to your post, but a few points of emphasis:
Bloodlines are shards of the old gods, not incarnations of the current deities. While evidence of the old gods' powers, it's more of a stretch to argue that they symbolize the new gods' power or influence. And I could argue that the existence of scions is blatant proof that the new gods are decidedly weaker than their predecessors, as the new gods inherited only a fraction of their power.
As for competition from the other 6/7ths, well - see above. As I said, the smart priest would convert an existing structure rather than start preaching primacy from day one. Get power first, then wield it to try and change the status quo.
The Cold Rider cults might be seen as proof that polytheism may not have won such a permanent victory after all...
As for elves, well, I doubt very many humans know much of anything factual about the Sidhelien. I consider alot of the published material on them to be the province of sages, scholars, and bards, not common knowledge like "EVERYBODY knows that the Sidhelien and the Seelie are just two halves of the same original being!" Though it might be common knowledge that the Sidhe are immortal, the reasons for this could be painted in all sorts of light (as could almost any other "fact" about them, since so little could actually be proven in human lands).
Osprey
kgauck
03-13-2004, 11:40 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:30 AM
> But what are we to do with these extreamists?
In responce to Osprey, I could reverse things (why we don`t like
monothesists) and return to my formulation of March 9th, What would we do
with monotheists.
Attempting to find a constructive way to use monotheists, we recently have
seen Gary`s mention of Azrai`s worshipers. We have heard tell of some
radical sects which might be problems for PC`s. As I suggested earlier,
probably not a threat to take over, for reasons which John has articulated
so fruitfully, but also probabaly hard to totally stamp out because their
small following would be dedicated in ways that polytheists wouldn`t be.
They might be especially beligerent, encouraging wars and other conflicts,
not only against the disliked gods, but against fellow worshipers who were
eccumenical or gave due attention to other gods.
Certainly there is a use for such ideas in BR, even if its fringy. Perhaps
that is the road to go down. I think it would be more productive than
attempting to resolve just how attractive monotheism would be. If we have
uses for it compatible with BR, we need not agree on how often such a
problem presents itself.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
geeman
03-14-2004, 05:30 PM
At 11:34 PM 3/13/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
>I have a hunch that one of the big reasons such an idea is distasteful to
>the posters arguing against it is that the idea is so distasteful in real
>life, and they don`t want it polluting the BR setting. But that`s just a
>hunch, which may or may not have any basis in reality.
Well, I can`t speak for anyone else, but since you mentioned your hunch,
mono- or poly- aren`t really things I dedicate much thought to. I`m
personally content with "is" but rather baffled by the extent to which "is"
gets turned into an "-ism." The powers that be simply are, and attempts to
define their existence or define the human role in relation to that
existence quickly turns into mumbo jumbo that has little to do with
anything other than its own self-propagating viral thought patterns. Some
graying old -ist will write down the extensive delusions of the -ism and
subsequent generations of -ists zealously confuse the "is" with the words
of the "-ism" until all connection to reality is lost and the fundamental
simplicity of things gets turned into an elaborate fiction that is mistaken
for non-fiction. Pretty quickly -ists find more of their respective
deity/ies in these texts than in the world around them, which always
strikes me as peculiar because, as Gene Wolfe said, "flowers are better
theology than folios." However, mono- or poly- is pretty much incidental
to the -ism. I`ll admit that I have enough trouble wrapping my brain
around the full implications of an Is, let alone an Are, so I`d generally
prefer mono- to poly- any day of the week (and twice on Sundays...) but
that`s about as far as my dogma on One vs. Many goes.
In the context of a RPG, however, a little -ism never hurt anybody since
the rival -ists who inevitably start chopping one another up are all
imaginary, and when it gets right down to it killing imaginary things is
one of the main reasons I engage in the vicarious activity of gaming, so
the inclusion of a few -isms is generally a good thing since it moves
things along to the killing which is the catharsis I`m looking for. In BR,
however, I think the -isms that inspire the -ists are more likely to by
poly- rather than mono- for the reasons noted before.
>Bloodlines are shards of the old gods, not incarnations of the current
>deities. While evidence of the old gods` powers, it`s more of a stretch
>to argue that they symbolize the new gods` power or influence. And I
>could argue that the existence of scions is blatant proof that the new
>gods are decidedly weaker than their predecessors, as the new gods
>inherited only a fraction of their power.
Sure, but my point is that those fractions indicate the fundamental
existence of multiple gods and their proximity makes an effort at
monotheism much less likely.
> The Cold Rider cults might be seen as proof that polytheism may not have
> won such a permanent victory after all...
How so? In that he is a connection to Azrai as a nominal "One" god?)
>As for elves, well, I doubt very many humans know much of anything factual
>about the Sidhelien. I consider alot of the published material on them to
>be the province of sages, scholars, and bards, not common knowledge like
>"EVERYBODY knows that the Sidhelien and the Seelie are just two
>halves of the same original being!" Though it might be common
>knowledge that the Sidhe are immortal, the reasons for this could be
>painted in all sorts of light (as could almost any other "fact"
>about them, since so little could actually be proven in human lands).
The common Cerilian human probably doesn`t have an extensive knowledge of
the Sidhe, but they probably all know the stories about changelings, have
heard of or know about people charmed or even killed by elves, etc. and
know that the Sidhe are ever young. The proximity of that race points
towards a vast spiritual domain that is in many ways different from a
monotheistic one in which all beings are ultimately the result of a First
Cause.
A monotheism for BR would in my opinion have to be based on something other
than the extant pantheon. Rather it would have to be based on some broader
being or consciousness--a Tolkienesque Eru or something like the Gaia
Hypothesis that is a vast, over-reaching being that guides the fundamental
creation/motivation of the campaign setting rather than the existing gods
who embody only a few aspects of it.
Gary
kgauck
03-14-2004, 06:50 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:03 AM
> I`m personally content with "is" but rather baffled by the extent
> to which "is" gets turned into an "-ism."
This long first paragraph is a nice discussion of the problem of ontological
commitment.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
ConjurerDragon
03-14-2004, 08:30 PM
Gary schrieb:
> ...
>
>> The Cold Rider cults might be seen as proof that polytheism may not
>> have
>> won such a permanent victory after all...
>
> How so? In that he is a connection to Azrai as a nominal "One" god?)
Perhaps the first poster meant that in the meaning that the other beings
not only had to sacrifice 6 of their sort to achieve victory over Azrai,
but also that even that dear, costly victory was not really that
victorious in that Azrai partially survived. There are several hints, as
for Azrais breath to have survived, the Cold Rider to be a part of Azrai
and so on. So if there would be someone arguing for a monotheistic
religion and a "One" God then who could it be else than the one god who
already stood up to 6 others and survived while the others were replace
by "ascended" mortals?
bye
Michael
Osprey
03-15-2004, 05:02 AM
> The Cold Rider cults might be seen as proof that polytheism may not have
> won such a permanent victory after all...
How so? In that he is a connection to Azrai as a nominal "One" god?)
Actually, Gary, I believe this was a direct response to your earlier post that Deismaar could be seen as a triumph of polytheism over monotheism (the tribal gods vs. Azrai). And as Micheal (Conjurer Dragon) painted it out, the Cold Rider is believed by some (and likely believed by his cults/followers) to be a surviving shard of Azrai that might grow to become a complete reincarnation given time and a growing following of faithful priests and worshippers.
geeman
03-15-2004, 07:40 AM
At 06:02 AM 3/15/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
>
> The Cold Rider cults might be seen as proof that polytheism
> may not have
> > won such a permanent victory after all...
>
> How so? In that he is a connection to Azrai as a nominal "One"
> god?)
>
>
> Actually, Gary, I believe this was a direct response to your earlier
> post that Deismaar could be seen as a triumph of polytheism over
> monotheism (the tribal gods vs. Azrai). And as Micheal (Conjurer Dragon)
> painted it out, the Cold Rider is believed by some (and likely believed
> by his cults/followers) to be a surviving shard of Azrai that might grow
> to become a complete reincarnation given time and a growing following of
> faithful priests and worshippers.
Ah, OK. I gotcha. When it comes to Azrai IIRC there was a list in a
Planescape product (the Dead Gods?) that listed the possible "corpses" of
the deities floating out in the Astral plane that listed all the former
members of the Cerilian pantheon... but not Azrai. Which means he`s either
not dead, or his post-immortality body is somehow located somewhere else
(or it`s an accidental omission, which might be the most likely
explanation, really.)
Personally, I like the idea that Azrai is still "alive" but in a sort of
lobotomized state as some aspect of the SW. The Cold Rider is probably the
most obvious repository of Azrai`s soul--which is a pretty good reason NOT
to make that the case if one were to adventure it out....
Gary
graham anderson
03-15-2004, 02:49 PM
It mentions in blood enemies under the apocalypse that azrai may not be dead but just banished from cerilia.
I think it also mentions somewhere that if the apocalypse the coldrider and azrai skeleton are joined azrai will be reborn but can't remember where.
There is also a legend that basaia could be reborn by uniting the seilshegh gems. If this is possible then reynir or masela could also be reborn. This was actually one of the main plot lines in one of my games as a powerful wizard manipulated the player characters into finding the seilshegh of reynir so he could restore him as part of a prophecy of the rebirth of azrai. The resurrection of an old god being the first part of the prophecy.
ConjurerDragon
03-15-2004, 05:40 PM
Gary schrieb:
...
> Ah, OK. I gotcha. When it comes to Azrai IIRC there was a list in a
> Planescape product (the Dead Gods?) that listed the possible "corpses" of
> the deities floating out in the Astral plane that listed all the former
> members of the Cerilian pantheon... but not Azrai. Which means he`s
> either
> not dead, or his post-immortality body is somehow located somewhere else
> (or it`s an accidental omission, which might be the most likely
> explanation, really.)
If that is a book that contains information about the birthright world,
could someone who knows provide the name/number and
the makers of the BRCS add it in the list of 2E Birthright articles such
as the Dragon Articles?
bye
Michael
Ming I
03-15-2004, 06:06 PM
This question is not completely off-topic but it doesn't add anything constructive to this thread:
Why aren't the other dwarven and goblin gods mentioned in the d20 BCS?
Only Moradin and Kartathok are mentioned but I was certain that there was a sentence or two stating that those two were the heads of their respective pantheons.
Am I misremembering?
graham anderson
03-15-2004, 06:23 PM
A little is mentioned about the dwarven gods in the barak azhik ps book.
There is also a little mentioned about the goblin gods i think in the tribes of the heartless waste.
I don't know about the d20 bcs though
Osprey
03-15-2004, 06:25 PM
Why aren't the other dwarven and goblin gods mentioned in the d20 BCS?
Only Moradin and Kartathok are mentioned but I was certain that there was a sentence or two stating that those two were the heads of their respective pantheons.
I don't know about quotes from original material, but in general it seems to be a BR theme that in the elder days (before Deismaar) there was a precedent of 1 patron god of a given tribe (Anduiras for the Andu, Masela for the Masetians, etc.). So it makes a certain amount of thematic sense that the humanoids and dwarves would each have a single patron god. Now if a DM wants to introduce other gods into their pantheons, that's spiffy, but they should probably have a decent background story to justify their existence.
And here's a few general questions on the subject: What exactly IS the background of the non-human gods? Have the goblins always worshipped Kartathok, and the dwarves always worshipped Moradin? Were these deities involved in Deismaar in any way, or were the goblins and dwarves present at Deismar somehow disobeying their gods' injunctions not to get involved (not everybody listens to the priests, no matter how much they scream and threaten and cajole!). Just curious if there are any official, published histories on this, and whether anyone else has given the subject any serious thought?
Green Knight
03-15-2004, 06:40 PM
You remember correctly. Rulebook p. 80
B
-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Ming I
Sent: 15. mars 2004 19:07
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: Polytheism in BR [2#2331]
This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2331
Ming I wrote:
This question is not completely off-topic but it doesn`t add anything
constructive to this thread:
Why aren`t the other dwarven and goblin gods mentioned in the d20 BCS?
Only Moradin and Kartathok are mentioned but I was certain that there
was a sentence or two stating that those two were the heads of their
respective pantheons.
Am I misremembering?
************************************************** **********************
****
Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
geeman
03-15-2004, 06:40 PM
At 06:23 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>> When it comes to Azrai IIRC there was a list in a Planescape product
>> (the Dead Gods?) that listed the possible "corpses" of the deities
>> floating out in the Astral plane that listed all the former members of
>> the Cerilian pantheon... but not Azrai.
>
>If that is a book that contains information about the birthright world,
>could someone who knows provide the name/number and the makers of the BRCS
>add it in the list of 2E Birthright articles such
>as the Dragon Articles?
I just looked this one up and it`s actually in Monte Cook`s Planescape
accessory, A Guide to the Astral Plane. In the Forgotten Husks: Dead Gods
chapter under the heading "The Fallen We Have Known" (p38) is the text:
"The Athar`s list includes powers such as Amaunator, Anduiras, Aoskar,
Bane, Basaia, [sic] Bhaal, Brenna, Dark God, Enki, Ibrandul, Kiputytto,
Leira, Masela, Moander, Myrkul, Phissanol, Reynir, Vorynn, and many more."
That is, unfortunately, pretty much the extent of the BR information in
that text... unless one wants to include the concepts of Planescape`s Dead
Gods, and the planar "graveyard" of those gods, that is. I don`t know if
it merits an entry in the BRCS update section of reference materials.
Gary
ConjurerDragon
03-15-2004, 08:40 PM
Gary schrieb:
> At 06:23 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> ...
> I just looked this one up and it`s actually in Monte Cook`s Planescape
> accessory, A Guide to the Astral Plane. In the Forgotten Husks: Dead
> Gods
> chapter under the heading "The Fallen We Have Known" (p38) is the text:
> "The Athar`s list includes powers such as Amaunator, Anduiras, Aoskar,
> Bane, Basaia, [sic] Bhaal, Brenna, Dark God, Enki, Ibrandul, Kiputytto,
> Leira, Masela, Moander, Myrkul, Phissanol, Reynir, Vorynn, and many
> more."
Leira? The Khinasi name for Laerme? Dead? How so and when?
bye
Michael
Green Knight
03-15-2004, 09:00 PM
There is a Leira in FR as well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of Michael Romes
Sent: 15. mars 2004 21:28
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: Polytheism in BR [2#2331]
Gary schrieb:
> At 06:23 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> ...
> I just looked this one up and it`s actually in Monte Cook`s Planescape
> accessory, A Guide to the Astral Plane. In the Forgotten Husks: Dead
> Gods
> chapter under the heading "The Fallen We Have Known" (p38) is the
text:
> "The Athar`s list includes powers such as Amaunator, Anduiras, Aoskar,
> Bane, Basaia, [sic] Bhaal, Brenna, Dark God, Enki, Ibrandul,
Kiputytto,
> Leira, Masela, Moander, Myrkul, Phissanol, Reynir, Vorynn, and many
> more."
Leira? The Khinasi name for Laerme? Dead? How so and when?
bye
Michael
************************************************** **********************
****
Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
geeman
03-15-2004, 09:40 PM
At 09:28 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, Michael wrote:
>>"The Athar`s list includes powers such as Amaunator, Anduiras, Aoskar,
>>Bane, Basaia, [sic] Bhaal, Brenna, Dark God, Enki, Ibrandul, Kiputytto,
>>Leira, Masela, Moander, Myrkul, Phissanol, Reynir, Vorynn, and many
>>more."
>
>Leira? The Khinasi name for Laerme? Dead? How so and when?
I`m afraid that pretty much exhausts the information on who those gods are
in that text, so I can`t say if they mistakenly included Laerme of BR or
the god that Bjeorn points out from FR. I`m inclined to say they must have
meant the latter since _our_ Leira isn`t dead, but I don`t know if that
particular god has died in the FR setting or not. Anybody up on FR
pantheon history who can chime in?
Gary
the Falcon
03-15-2004, 09:47 PM
I used to play FR (heaven forbid ;)) and IIRC Leira died during the Time of Troubles when all gods were forced in mortal form upon the face of Toril.
(Bjeorn? Oh wait, you must mean Bjørn. :D)
kgauck
03-15-2004, 10:00 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ming I" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:06 PM
> Why aren`t the other dwarven and goblin gods mentioned in the
> d20 BCS?
I think its a question of scale. The various dwarven gods all recognize the
leadership of Moradin and so from a realm perspective, his are the only
temples that matter.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
geeman
03-15-2004, 10:00 PM
At 07:25 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
>What exactly IS the background of the non-human gods? Have the goblins
>always worshipped Kartathok, and the dwarves always worshipped Moradin?
We don`t know much about the goblin religion (though it`s a very
interesting question) other than the brief entry in the RB, but we do have
some additional information on dwarf theology in the PSoBA text which
indicates that it is the belief of dwarves that Moradin created the
original dwarves, so when it comes to that god I`d say the dwarves have
always worshipped him.
As for goblins, I`d find them more chaotic and in a constant struggle for
power, so in general I`d think their pantheon would be similar. That is,
the gods are constantly jockeying for position and the authority of
Kartathok is constantly in jeapardy. However, it is also part of that
sensibility to worship strength, and as the head of that pantheon I think
the goblin god probably has so much power that his actual rule may not be
ever really lost--or if it is lost periodically (as part of their mythology
in which other goblins gods take control for a period of time) he always
manages to gain in back--and punish the usurpers.
>Were these deities involved in Deismaar in any way, or were the goblins
>and dwarves present at Deismar somehow disobeying their gods` injunctions
>not to get involved (not everybody listens to the priests, no matter how
>much they scream and threaten and cajole!). Just curious if there are
>any official, published histories on this, and whether anyone else has
>givent he subject any serious thought?
Officially the only stuff I`ve ever heard about the participants at
Deismaar are those gods who have derivations. I don`t think participating
in that battle would necessarily have been an act of disobedience for any
of the races who have their own gods and pantheons, or that those gods
would necessarily have been opposed to their worshippers participating in
the first place. The absence of Moradin does seem a little suspect now
that you mention it.... Kartathok we can justify not participating out of
jealousy (either Azrai`s jealous of Kartathok or vice versa) but why
wouldn`t Moradin be there if his worshippers were?
One possibility that I`ve floated in the past is that the human pantheon
and the pantheon of other races really are one and the same. In the same
way that humans put different names on the existing gods, so do the
dwarves, goblins, orogs, etc. Moradin is by that description
Andurias/Haelyn. It does coincide with Haelyn`s aspect as Lawgiver, though
that is about his only real connection to dwarven attitudes. His
connection to the air, for instance, is rather undwarf-like, but it might
simply be something ignored by dwarves when worshipping him. In general,
Haelyn has a somewhat limited portfolio in comparison to the other
gods. Courage, justice, chivalry, rulership, noble war, Lawmaker, are
pretty much related concepts, and one or two aren`t very well illustrated
in the actual description of the god, so expanding his range by making him
related to dwarves might make some sense.
Gary
graham anderson
03-15-2004, 10:15 PM
There are supposed to be 9 dwarven gods i think and i don't see why the dwarven gods couldn't be involved at daesmar they simply didn't sacrifice themselves.
Tribes of the heartless waste mentions 3 other goblin gods by name and implies a lot more. I seam to remember it also hinting at the fact that the only gods in existinse before daesmar were dwarven gods. The other humanoid gods being created as the new human gods were.
ConjurerDragon
03-15-2004, 10:20 PM
Gary schrieb:
> At 07:25 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
> ...
> Officially the only stuff I`ve ever heard about the participants at
> Deismaar are those gods who have derivations. I don`t think
> participating
> in that battle would necessarily have been an act of disobedience for any
> of the races who have their own gods and pantheons, or that those gods
> would necessarily have been opposed to their worshippers participating in
> the first place. The absence of Moradin does seem a little suspect now
> that you mention it.... Kartathok we can justify not participating
> out of
> jealousy (either Azrai`s jealous of Kartathok or vice versa) but why
> wouldn`t Moradin be there if his worshippers were?
Were they? I assumed that there were no dwarves at Deismaar - Azrai
tried to draw them to his side and they were not tempted by his words
but remained neutral...
bye
Michael
Green Knight
03-15-2004, 10:40 PM
Don`t be mean to FR! It was my very first AD&D setting.
Here`s a scary thought for a BR/FR crossover. A lot of gods
died/semi-died during the Time of Troubles. Bloodlines anyone?
Agh, please, spare me....
-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On Behalf Of the Falcon
Sent: 15. mars 2004 22:47
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: Polytheism in BR [2#2331]
This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2331
the Falcon wrote:
I used to play FR (heaven forbid ;)) and IIRC Leira died during the
Time of Troubles when all gods were forced in mortal form upon the face
of Toril.
************************************************** **********************
****
Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
graham anderson
03-15-2004, 10:50 PM
The dwarves fought against azrai at daesmar.
geeman
03-16-2004, 12:20 AM
At 11:50 PM 3/15/2004 +0100, graham anderson wrote:
> The dwarves fought against azrai at daesmar.
Quite right. From the AoC, "Even the dwarves came into the war, for
thought they did not care about the human presence on the continent, they
most certainly cared about the power the humanoids stood to gain" p7. It
doesn`t mention dwarves specifically at the battle, but it seems pretty
likely that they were there given that they fought in the war in the first
place and many were imbued with a bloodline.
Gary
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 05:40 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> I am normally a subscriber of the devolution approach to the history of
> the Empire and Anuire. I have tended to look at collapse as an i
> interpretation of some NPC`s rather than using it myself.
While I admit I enjoy neatly organising things, I find the collapse
approach to have an air of piquant melancholy about it.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:00 AM
Gary said:
> Was Deismaar really the godly version of this thread with polytheism
> winning out? It`s not that hard to interpret that way....
I certainly see Deismaar as the clash between a aggressive empire that
sought to supress the worship of non-sanctioned faiths and various tribes
who sought to retain their patrons and pantheon *and* as the climax of
Azrai`s attempt to overwhelm his peers utterly. Perhaps Azrai was the one
who went explodo; perhaps he thought he could take it?
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:20 AM
Osprey said:
> [sigh] While I am tempted to throw up my hands and say, "Fine.
> You`re right. Monotheistic urges are ludicrous in the BR setting,"
> I`m still convinced that the idea of one dominant or all-powerful god
> could tempt any mortal human in any setting. And I have a hunch that
> one of the big reasons such an idea is distasteful to the posters
> arguing against it is that the idea is so distasteful in real life, and
> they don`t want it polluting the BR setting. But that`s just a hunch,
> which may or may not have any basis in reality.
I`ve got no real objections to monotheism in real life; I`m a monotheist
myself, I suppose.
I object to it because it goes against my sense of the setting. I greatly
prefer my own interpretations, which, though counter to some of the rules
of the game, are more in accord with the character of the setting. At
least, if you ask me. YCMV.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:20 AM
Kenneth Gauck said:
> In responce to Osprey, I could reverse things (why we don`t like
> monothesists) and return to my formulation of March 9th, What would we do
> with monotheists.
To clarify a bit:
I certainly don`t think that extremist priests do not exist!
I believe that such people, to many -including priests of the same god-,
are irrational and probably to a certain degree insane; but they do exist.
I simply do not believe that they have the capacity to capture entire
provinces in a culture where polytheism is so imbedded. Therefore, I
abjure them to the realm of random (or planned) domain events. They are
hindrances, not mass movements in the making, much like (IMO) Cerilian
post-Deismaar democracy.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
geeman
03-16-2004, 06:40 AM
At 04:33 PM 3/16/2004 +1100, John Machin wrote:
>Perhaps Azrai was the one who went explodo; perhaps he thought he could
>take it?
Well, now that`s very interesting.... Bloodlines the result of Azrai`s
hubris and under-estimation (or lack of control?) over the energies he
released rather than self-sacrifice by the gods. Hmm. That`s got to have
some sort of connection to events that could inspire campaign material.
Gary
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:40 AM
Gary said:
> Anybody up on FR pantheon history who can chime in?
She`s dead, Jim. I mean Gary.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:40 AM
Bjorn said:
> Don`t be mean to FR! It was my very first AD&D setting.
:|
> Here`s a scary thought for a BR/FR crossover. A lot of gods
> died/semi-died during the Time of Troubles. Bloodlines anyone?
>:|
> Agh, please, spare me....
No mercy! >:( )
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 06:40 AM
Gary said:
> Quite right. From the AoC, "Even the dwarves came into the war, for
> thought they did not care about the human presence on the continent, they
> most certainly cared about the power the humanoids stood to gain" p7. It
> doesn`t mention dwarves specifically at the battle, but it seems pretty
> likely that they were there given that they fought in the war in the first
> place and many were imbued with a bloodline.
Insofar as Azrai embodied a change in the order of things, I think that
the dwarves would be opposed to him. I use this as my explanation for one
of the reasons the dwarves got involved.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Birthright-L
03-16-2004, 07:00 AM
Gary said:
> Well, now that`s very interesting.... Bloodlines the result of Azrai`s
> hubris and under-estimation (or lack of control?) over the energies he
> released rather than self-sacrifice by the gods. Hmm. That`s got to have
> some sort of connection to events that could inspire campaign material.
I don`t want to disparage the efforts of the allied deities; perhaps they
planned to make a final stand to resist Azrai on the mortal plane.
However, this might have been part of Azrai`s overall plan: he sought to
lure the other deities to the mortal plane to fight him, and the he was
going to obliterate them all only he, as you said, horribly misjudged it
all.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
geeman
03-16-2004, 07:30 PM
At 05:44 PM 3/16/2004 +1100, John Machin wrote:
> > Well, now that`s very interesting.... Bloodlines the result of Azrai`s
> > hubris and under-estimation (or lack of control?) over the energies he
> > released rather than self-sacrifice by the gods. Hmm. That`s got to have
> > some sort of connection to events that could inspire campaign material.
>
>I don`t want to disparage the efforts of the allied deities; perhaps they
>planned to make a final stand to resist Azrai on the mortal plane.
>However, this might have been part of Azrai`s overall plan: he sought to
>lure the other deities to the mortal plane to fight him, and the he was
>going to obliterate them all only he, as you said, horribly misjudged it
>all.
I don`t mind disparaging them if it makes for interesting play. One
option, however, might be to make this the philosophy/hypothesis of a
particular character or organization rather than to make it factual. The
adventure might then be based on proving or disproving it somehow.
Off the top of my head this situation might be the inspiration of an
adventure based on discovering the truth of the hypothesis, and I`m
thinking the most likely hook into the adventure level is that the answer
is to be found on the lowest level of the catacombs beneath the ruins of
the College of Sorcery. Perhaps the reason those still smoking remains
blew up in the first place is the kind of experimentation by human wizards
of the type that Azrai engaged in, but at a much larger (divine)
scale? PCs might have to find out the truth of the matter by exploring
those catacombs and retrieving evidence one way or another.
Gary
RaspK_FOG
03-17-2004, 12:56 AM
The only thing I can safely mention, "so as not to lie by mistake" as we say in Greece, is that in Richard Baker's novel the Falcon and the Wolf, Mhoried has only one large temple, one dedicated to Haelyn. Moreover, Mhoriens refer to Haelyn whenever they are dumbfounded ("By Haelyn's glory!", "By Haelyn's shield!", etc.), while the Vos mercenary Madislav refers to Kriyesha: Madislav drew in a deep breath, letting the frigid air searhis lungs, and then stood in his stirrups to pull open his jerkin. Gaelin winced. Madislav grinned and struck his thickpelted torso with an exaggerated sigh of enjoyment. “When I was being small and my mother had no food, Kriyesha herself nursed me with an icicle!” he boasted.
Birthright-L
03-17-2004, 11:00 PM
RaspK_FOG said:
> The only thing I can safely mention, "so as not to lie by
> mistake" as we say in Greece, is that in the novel "the Falcon
> and the Wolf, Mhoried has only one large temple, one dedicated to
> Haelyn. Moreover, Mhoriens refer to Haelyn whenever they are dumbfounded
I don`t except the actual domain material without a sizeable sack of salt;
I am even less in favour of taking the novels at face value.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Osprey
03-18-2004, 05:49 AM
The only thing I can safely mention, "so as not to lie by mistake" as we say in Greece, is that in Richard Baker's novel the Falcon and the Wolf, Mhoried has only one large temple, one dedicated to Haelyn.
Well, I have a feeling that the original designers did in fact make it that simplistic...which is why I started this thread. But I'll say now, I find the overlapping deities ideas presented in this thread by Kenneth and John Machin and others far more sophisticated and believable for a polytheistic world.
Honestly, the posts in this thread have been some of the most influential and persuasive ideas if anything I've so far encountered on BR.net. They represent real depth of thought and careful consideration of the issue. And dare I say, the Birthright setting could have used a few writers like that to add some depth and maturity to the setting that is sadly lacking in the original material, at least in the religious sphere.
So as for myself, the ideas of multiple temples and/or multi-faith temples is even now being integrated into my own BR campaign, and I'm very glad for the extra dimension gained! Thank you very much, folks, for some awesome material! B)
Osprey
Birthright-L
03-18-2004, 07:10 AM
Osprey said:
> But I`ll say now, I find the overlapping deities ideas presented in this
> thread by Kenneth and John Machin and others as far more sophisticated
> and believable for a polytheistic world.
Excellent!
Now, are there prizes involved? :D
> So as for myself, the ideas of multiple temples and/or multi-faith
> temples is even now being integrated into my own BR campaign, and I`m
> very glad for the extra dimension gained! Thank you very much,
> folks, for some awesome material! B)
Anytime! Please keep reciprocating with your own ideas; I won`t discuss
D&D stuff as much as I used to (mainly because of a prevailing attitude of
D&D "orthodoxy" around here, but also because Ars Magica is great :D) but
anything else is likely to get some kind of reply from me, free-time
permitting.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.