PDA

View Full Version : magical theory



kgauck
05-04-2002, 04:01 PM
In the ancient world, there were two metaphysical camps. The materialists,
who argued that reality is composed of stuff, material stuff, and the
dynamists who argued that reality is composed of forces, which were willful.
The rain wants to rain. The sun wants to shine. Our ideas of soul, spirit,
and animistic thinking emerge from this camp. Today, we are materialists
who have coopted forces by subjecting them to materialist methods, namely by
making them impersonal and subject to mathematics. Newton`s gravity is a
perfect example. The product of the masses divided by the square of the
distance between their center points. This is not a willful occurance.

In adopting a thorough-going materialism, we invented science and abandon
the concept of magic as a plausible force among educated people. People who
cling to magic like to think of it as a science, people who do science
certainly do not think of it as magic.

There is nothing wrong with a scientific basis for spellcasting and the
powers, but it certainly is different from a spellcasting based on some
other theory of mentalism-produces-effects, like psionics, or dynamist based
spellcasting. For a dynamist, all magic is willful. Mighty forces *come*
to your aid. You don`t mechanistically employ them (mechanism is branch of
materialism), because they choose to have an effect. This is one of the
things the dice can be said to represent. Divine spells are granted by
certain kinds of willful spirits, for the dynamist, arcane spells are
granted by other kinds of willful spirits, perhaps less familiar to humans.
The mention of "forces" in 2E priestly magic is a kind of intermediate kind
of spirit, willing and requiring veneration, but having the personality of a
god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Grave
05-05-2002, 05:33 PM
> There is nothing wrong with a scientific basis for
> spellcasting and the powers, but it certainly is different
> from a spellcasting based on some other theory of
> mentalism-produces-effects, like psionics, or dynamist based
> spellcasting. For a dynamist, all magic is willful. Mighty
> forces *come* to your aid. You don`t mechanistically employ
> them (mechanism is branch of materialism), because they
> choose to have an effect. This is one of the things the dice
> can be said to represent. Divine spells are granted by
> certain kinds of willful spirits, for the dynamist, arcane
> spells are granted by other kinds of willful spirits, perhaps
> less familiar to humans. The mention of "forces" in 2E
> priestly magic is a kind of intermediate kind of spirit,
> willing and requiring veneration, but having the personality of a god.

>Kenneth explains this rather well, if I do say so myself.
>One thing to remember though is that knowing that a certain action
(i.e.
>the invocations necessary to cast say, a fireball) will almost always
>result in a massive ball of fire exploding on your enemies (or
>inconveniently placed allies) is not the same scientific knowledge. It
>is not a mechanistic reaction, it is more to do with "asking nicely"
>than "physics via invisible gears".

>Arcane spellcasting is not use of some "special" kind of physics, it is
>knowing the proper ways to persuade inhuman (and probably not even
>sentient in a human sort of way) forces into doing what you want.

Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering into reality a
little. Wether or not you believe in the stuff called magic in real
life, there certainly are some things happening that science can`t
explain. However, we witness that science is constantly finding ways to
explain things that were once impossible to explain.

Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that everythting
is natural. There are no supernatural things, just as there are no
science and magic as two different things. Those two words merely divide
nature into what we do and what we do not understand.

Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of faith. For
example, a large number people believe in Anduiras and he starts
existing as focus of their belief. It is either just focused belief or
belief focused in an individual(in case of belief in living being as a
god). In real world, "mircles" happen because large number of people
believe that it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.

This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should be even
more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are individuals who learn to
produce miracles on their own, with only their own belief? Or maybe
wizardry could be considered just another religion?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
05-05-2002, 05:33 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:30 AM


> Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering into reality a
> little.

I will reveal myself as a died in the wool materialist and say that there is
nothing except reality. Fantasy is only a re-arrangement of ideas about,
visions of, and constructions of reality. There are no really alien ideas.
When George Lucas created all the alien voices in the Cantina bar, he used
regular voices played backwards and broken into different parts because he
realized that an attempt to be alien without a firm hold on real speech
would wind up sounding fake. Fantasy without being a rearrangement of,
reversal of, or otherwise based on reality provides a sense of
artificiality.

> There certainly are some things happening that science can`t
> explain. However, we witness that science is constantly finding
> ways to explain things that were once impossible to explain.
>
> Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that everythting
> is natural. There are no supernatural things, just as there are no
> science and magic as two different things. Those two words merely divide
> nature into what we do and what we do not understand.

An excellent materialist argument for the non existance of magic. Hence you
must already be a convert to the supposition that materialism has no place
in a fantasy game. It certainly a fine premice for non-fantasy RPG`s, on
the other hand.

> Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of faith.

I think gods are super beings transending the existance with which we are
familair.

> For example, a large number people believe in Anduiras and he
> starts existing as focus of their belief. It is either just focused
> belief or belief focused in an individual(in case of belief in living
> being as a god).

I think that Andurias was entirely unaffected by his worshipers (in the
sense of his power) and that he only chose to interact with them because he
created them and saw Azrai attempting to mess with creation as a personal
attack.

> In real world, "mircles" happen because large number of people
> believe that it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
> who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.

Actually miracles don`t happen, they are just thought to happen. In
fantasy, gods have unlimted power and can tell their clerics, "Hey, when you
get to the Red Sea, raise your staff when you are ready to cross, and I`ll
part the waters."

> This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should be even
> more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are individuals who learn to
> produce miracles on their own, with only their own belief? Or maybe
> wizardry could be considered just another religion?

Or maybe the whole belief makes magic paradigm should be abandoned.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-06-2002, 01:05 AM
> I think that Andurias was entirely unaffected by his
> worshipers (in the sense of his power) and that he only chose
> to interact with them because he created them and saw Azrai
> attempting to mess with creation as a personal attack.

I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
"proper god"? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that
belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
bloodlines and RP (to my mind).

I could probably be persuaded the other way though.

> Or maybe the whole belief makes magic paradigm should be abandoned.

For Birthright, yes. For Unknown Armies or Mage: the Ascension, never.
Different games, different motifs, different methods.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-06-2002, 01:05 AM
> Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering
> into reality a little. Wether or not you believe in the stuff
> called magic in real life, there certainly are some things
> happening that science can`t explain. However, we witness
> that science is constantly finding ways to explain things
> that were once impossible to explain.

I feel that my opinions in this regard are probably not relevant.
At least not to a discussion about a fantastic world. There is a reason
I am not a member of lists that discuss this sort of thing all the time,
and that is because I`d rather not do it. I am interested, primarily, in
the game metaphysic. I am quite willing to assume (as they do in Ars
Magica) that models of reality that we have discarded are 100% accurate
in the game-world. Yes there is pholgiston and a lunar sphere, yes it is
demons of sickness that make people ill.

> Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that
> everythting is natural. There are no supernatural things,
> just as there are no science and magic as two different
> things. Those two words merely divide nature into what we do
> and what we do not understand.

Who said things were supernatural? I am pretty sure I didn`t. Inhuman
maybe, but ducks are inhuman too and they are certainly natural.

> Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of
> faith. For example, a large number people believe in Anduiras
> and he starts existing as focus of their belief. It is either
> just focused belief or belief focused in an individual(in
> case of belief in living being as a god). In real world,
> "mircles" happen because large number of people believe that
> it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
> who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.
>
> This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should
> be even more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are
> individuals who learn to produce miracles on their own, with
> only their own belief? Or maybe wizardry could be considered
> just another religion?

In my conception of Birthright gods benefit from worship but they are
not soley composed of it. Haelyn existed before people began to worship
him, he merely became stronger when the human-divine partnership of
worship began. Magic doesn`t come from within, the gift to use it yes,
but not magic itself. The only inherently magical species on Cerilia are
the ancient ones - the sidhelien, the dragons and, in some people`s
campaign`s, the giants. For all other peoples the act of magic is the
act of interacting with an external force, be it one that is
understandable by everyday persons (i.e. gods) or one that lacks any
human guise (i.e. mebhaighl).

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM
<< I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
"proper god"? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that
belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
bloodlines and RP (to my mind).
>>

I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do most of them
try to gather as many of them as possible? Also, it tends to be a rule that
gods of greater stature have more worshipper. Of course, you might say that
it works the other around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
*because* she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t invalidate my
first point: given the behaviour of most priests, and given the assumption
that they try to act in the best interests of their god, isn`t the fact
that they try to convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of benefit of
having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain power from worship.

But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power from worship,
doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or at least, not directly. It
also doesn`t mean that worship can automatically elevate you to godhood. In
my eyes, deities gain power from worship *because* they are deities. You
have to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.

Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in Birthright. You
need to have a bloodline before you can ruler. Merely having subordinates
doesn`t mean you automatically get a bloodline.

That`s how I see it, anyways.

- the Falcon

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM
<< In my conception of Birthright gods benefit from worship but they are
not soley composed of it. Haelyn existed before people began to worship
him, he merely became stronger when the human-divine partnership of
worship began.
>>

That`s exactly how I see it too. It`s just like being blooded doesn`t mean
you automatically collect RP either. Keep in mind though, that even if
you`re blooded, if you don`t collect RP, you can`t spend. If we assume that
rulership reflects or is parallel to divinity in some way, that would also
mean that a god who is not worship, doesn`t have any real power, or at least
not on the same level as a worshipped god, just like a non-ruler scion does
not command power on the same level as a ruling scion.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 19:35, the Falcon wrote:
> << I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
> before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
> gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
> "proper god"? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that
> belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
> bloodlines and RP (to my mind).
> >>
>
> I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do most of them
> try to gather as many of them as possible? Also, it tends to be a rule that
> gods of greater stature have more worshipper. Of course, you might say that
> it works the other around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
> *because* she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t invalidate my
> first point: given the behaviour of most priests, and given the assumption
> that they try to act in the best interests of their god, isn`t the fact
> that they try to convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
> indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of benefit of
> having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain power from worship.
>
> But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power from worship,
> doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or at least, not directly. It
> also doesn`t mean that worship can automatically elevate you to godhood. In
> my eyes, deities gain power from worship *because* they are deities. You
> have to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.
>
> Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in Birthright. You
> need to have a bloodline before you can ruler. Merely having subordinates
> doesn`t mean you automatically get a bloodline.
>
> That`s how I see it, anyways.
>
> - the Falcon

Hmmmm, isn`t it a bit "chicken and egg" ?

How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second generation gods ?
(Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules
etc). Power from worship however, I`ll go along with - the more
followers a god has the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other
gods, or as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but worshiped as
part of a group of gods)

In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly high
bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more worshipers in
the gods` domain, then the god gains in bloodline ? (the `you` is not
specific - I`m discussing this generally)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-22-2002, 03:50 AM
Peter sez:
> How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second
> generation gods ? (Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have
> mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules etc). Power from worship
> however, I`ll go along with - the more followers a god has
> the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other gods, or
> as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
> non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but
> worshiped as part of a group of gods)

It does discuss this briefly in BoP (IIRC).
I am not sure that Cuiraecen and Laerme were "born". It seems that
Cuiraecen has a lot more to do with Haelyn than with Neserie. Ditto
Laerme w/r/t Avanalae. I believe that Cuiraecen probably just "emerged"
from Haelyn as one of Haelyn`s aspects became so important that it
warranted a new deity.

I am also of the opinion that priests are abberrant in their worship
behaviour. They tend to devote themselves to a single god, whereas most
people will propitiate whatever god is appropriate. I realise that this
flies in the face of what most people see the temple system of BR
representing, but it seems unlikely that the vast majority of a populace
actually worship one single deity. That being said, nearly all worship
is pantheonic, i.e. shared around. Jim Bloggs, a farmer of Roesone,
doesn`t worship Haelyn exclusively, he gives homage to all the deities
at their appointed time.

Peter sez:
> In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly
> high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more
> worshipers in the gods` domain, then the god gains in
> bloodline ? (the `you` is not specific - I`m discussing this
> generally)

I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
accidental, it was deliberate IMO.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-22-2002, 03:50 AM
Falcon sez:
> I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do
> most of them try to gather as many of them as possible? Also,
> it tends to be a rule that gods of greater stature have more
> worshipper. Of course, you might say that it works the other
> around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
> *because* she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t
> invalidate my first point: given the behaviour of most
> priests, and given the assumption that they try to act in the
> best interests of their god, isn`t the fact that they try to
> convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
> indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of
> benefit of having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain
> power from worship.

Perhaps the priests believe that, just as human lords seek more
subjects, so do the gods? Often people do things that *they* believe is
the will of their god.

Another alternative perhaps is one that Hero Wars gives us. The gods are
ultimately static. By becoming immortal, all-powerful, and
indestructible (effectively) they also become unchanging.

Falcon sez:
> But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power
> from worship, doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or
> at least, not directly. It also doesn`t mean that worship can
> automatically elevate you to godhood. In my eyes, deities
> gain power from worship *because* they are deities. You have
> to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.

Ergo my comments about the bloodline allowing regents to coalesce
"worship energies".

Falcon sez:
> Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in
> Birthright. You need to have a bloodline before you can
> ruler. Merely having subordinates doesn`t mean you
> automatically get a bloodline.

Well, you can be an unblooded ruler, but a blooded ruler can use their
superior abilities to command loyalty (i.e. RP) to usurp your position
with relative ease.

Falcon sez:
> That`s how I see it, anyways.

I have actually clarified my position, in my mind, now. I believe that
the gods are eternally gods, lack of worship won`t rob them of their
divinity or condemn them to floating about in the Astral. However, I
believe that, to a certain (unspecified) extent, worship can effect the
power of the deities. Extensive worship might make a deity increase in
power, but not to an unlimited extent.

I`m a bit leery of getting too technical here. I don`t think that
deities really benefit from having hard and fast principles or
stat-blocks, ala Deities and Demigods.. Still, I think this sort of
thing can assist in forming a coherent cosmology of the setting.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-22-2002, 05:28 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:26, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second
> > generation gods ? (Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have
> > mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules etc). Power from worship
> > however, I`ll go along with - the more followers a god has
> > the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other gods, or
> > as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
> > non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but
> > worshiped as part of a group of gods)
>
> It does discuss this briefly in BoP (IIRC).
> I am not sure that Cuiraecen and Laerme were "born". It seems that
> Cuiraecen has a lot more to do with Haelyn than with Neserie. Ditto
> Laerme w/r/t Avanalae. I believe that Cuiraecen probably just "emerged"
> from Haelyn as one of Haelyn`s aspects became so important that it
> warranted a new deity.

The creation of new gods remains unsatisfactorily explained. (IMO -
Rhetorical questions follow) What governs the creation of new gods ?
Does this diminish the powers and or responsibilities of the other gods
? Does this imply that gods wither and fade perhaps to non-god or to
death ?
>
> I am also of the opinion that priests are abberrant in their worship
> behaviour. They tend to devote themselves to a single god, whereas most
> people will propitiate whatever god is appropriate. I realise that this
> flies in the face of what most people see the temple system of BR
> representing, but it seems unlikely that the vast majority of a populace
> actually worship one single deity. That being said, nearly all worship
> is pantheonic, i.e. shared around. Jim Bloggs, a farmer of Roesone,
> doesn`t worship Haelyn exclusively, he gives homage to all the deities
> at their appointed time.
Yeah, I agree with you here. It`s the power of the temple (institution)
that is important in a very materialistic way for BR - much like the
Bishoprics and Abbeys of early Christendom vied for status with each
other. (What am I saying early for ? - it still goes on today !)

What does this argument mean to the "worship gives power" theory though
?

>
> Peter sez:
> > In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly
> > high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more
> > worshipers in the gods` domain, then the god gains in
> > bloodline ? (the `you` is not specific - I`m discussing this
> > generally)
>
> I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
> like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
> were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
> people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
> accidental, it was deliberate IMO.
>
Does this then preclude the creation of new gods - by common worship for
example ? Can the power of worship alone "create" a god ?

Cerilia aside, many religions see the origin of their tribe or nation as
founded by a god, or the leaders of their tribe/nation as being
descended from gods. (or even gods themselves) Even Christ was born as a
man (although we start to get really technical here - reborn ?
incarnated ?). So there`s a damn good set of precedents to support
"deities are just like you and me only bigger".

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-22-2002, 05:28 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:26, John Machin wrote:
> Falcon sez:
> > I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do
> > most of them try to gather as many of them as possible? Also,
> > it tends to be a rule that gods of greater stature have more
> > worshipper. Of course, you might say that it works the other
> > around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
> > *because* she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t
> > invalidate my first point: given the behaviour of most
> > priests, and given the assumption that they try to act in the
> > best interests of their god, isn`t the fact that they try to
> > convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
> > indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of
> > benefit of having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain
> > power from worship.
>
> Perhaps the priests believe that, just as human lords seek more
> subjects, so do the gods? Often people do things that *they* believe is
> the will of their god.
>
> Another alternative perhaps is one that Hero Wars gives us. The gods are
> ultimately static. By becoming immortal, all-powerful, and
> indestructible (effectively) they also become unchanging.

Perhaps, but the anecdotal evidence of the emergence of 2nd generation
gods changes the god-landscape with either an enlargement or a
reorganization of duties, powers and responsibilities. This implies
change in the cosmos on a less grand scale than that of the cataclysm of
Diesmaar.

>
> Falcon sez:
> > But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power
> > from worship, doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or
> > at least, not directly. It also doesn`t mean that worship can
> > automatically elevate you to godhood. In my eyes, deities
> > gain power from worship *because* they are deities. You have
> > to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.
>
> Ergo my comments about the bloodline allowing regents to coalesce
> "worship energies".
>
> Falcon sez:
> > Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in
> > Birthright. You need to have a bloodline before you can
> > ruler. Merely having subordinates doesn`t mean you
> > automatically get a bloodline.
>
> Well, you can be an unblooded ruler, but a blooded ruler can use their
> superior abilities to command loyalty (i.e. RP) to usurp your position
> with relative ease.
>
> Falcon sez:
> > That`s how I see it, anyways.
>
> I have actually clarified my position, in my mind, now. I believe that
> the gods are eternally gods, lack of worship won`t rob them of their
> divinity or condemn them to floating about in the Astral. However, I
> believe that, to a certain (unspecified) extent, worship can effect the
> power of the deities. Extensive worship might make a deity increase in
> power, but not to an unlimited extent.
Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less
worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ?
(you can`t use divine being in your definition - :"divine being" ==
"god" is a null statement containing the same information twice)

If a god has the power to do "X" (whatever "X" is), and this power
delineates him as a god (as distinct from a demigod, or mortal for
instance, then that ability power or characteristic is a defining power.

A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

I`m not putting any particular point of view here, just cogitating....

>
> I`m a bit leery of getting too technical here. I don`t think that
> deities really benefit from having hard and fast principles or
> stat-blocks, ala Deities and Demigods.. Still, I think this sort of
> thing can assist in forming a coherent cosmology of the setting.
>
> --
> John Machin
> (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
> -----------------------------------
> "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
> Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Birthright-L
05-22-2002, 06:33 AM
On Wed, 22 May 2002, John Machin wrote:
> > In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly
> > high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more
> > worshipers in the gods` domain, then the god gains in
> > bloodline ? (the `you` is not specific - I`m discussing this
> > generally)
>
> I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
> like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
> were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
> people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
> accidental, it was deliberate IMO.

The new 3e rules seem to bear this out, though- gods can be statted with
hit dice and levels and feats and such, but they also have divine rank, 0
to 20, which measures them compared to each other. Even a divine rank of
1 is a demigod, and pretty much unstoppable compared to mere mortals. But
BR could be thought of as representing play at the divine rank 0 level.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman
05-22-2002, 01:35 PM
At 06:59 AM 5/22/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a
>powerful god.

This is sort of apropos to this discussion....

All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods do
gain some sort of energy (the god-level equivalent of regency) from their
worshippers, but because they can also represent natural phenomena it`s
plausible that they could also collect their god points from the god-level
equivalent of source holdings.

Azrai, being the god of shadow, had a pretty serious opportunity to collect
god points from whatever the source equivalent of sources is, because
shadows permeate existence.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
05-22-2002, 01:35 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:11 AM


> Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less
> worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ?

Not at all. A god can be seen to have a basic degree of power without
worshipers. Worshipers are a little gravy. Something extra that can be
added on. While less worship means that something extra is gone, the basic
and fundamental power of the god is still there.

I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a
powerful god.

> A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
> difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
> they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

Not at all. I can lay out the plans for my new secret god Brwyn, god of
grains, and suddenly have famines and other effects because I think Brwyn is
an angry god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
05-22-2002, 10:15 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:37 AM

> All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods
> do gain some sort of energy [...] from their worshippers, but because they
> can also represent natural phenomena it`s plausible that they could also
> collect their god points from the god-level equivalent of source holdings.

I think this "power from ideal" is the main source of divine power, and some
of the description in the BoP backs this up. Laerme doesn`t seek worshipers
because the fact that everyone feels love is enough. Get gets power from
loving, from creativity, from beauty. Oh, yeah, a few worshipers don`t
hurt.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 21:59, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:11 AM
>
>
> > Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less
> > worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ?
>
> Not at all. A god can be seen to have a basic degree of power without
> worshipers. Worshipers are a little gravy. Something extra that can be
> added on. While less worship means that something extra is gone, the basic
> and fundamental power of the god is still there.
>
> I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a
> powerful god.
Okay - I`ll go along with that (so far) [that a god does not require
worshipers to be a god]. (although if anyone else out there wants to
jump in and make a suggestion or comment we could get more consensus)

Yeah - but what is that "basic degree of power" ? What is the difference
between a being with that "basic degree of power" and a god ? i.e. Is
that a good enough definition of a god ? (should we be able to describe
the "basic degree of power"), or is there more to it ?

Can someone with that "basic degree of power" (leaving it undefined for
the moment) who gains worshipers, gain "a little gravy" ?

>
> > A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
> > difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
> > they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).
>
> Not at all. I can lay out the plans for my new secret god Brwyn, god of
> grains, and suddenly have famines and other effects because I think Brwyn is
> an angry god.
While that may be a justification to the DM - the players will never
know and it will affect them no more than a DM`s fiat. (Unless you tell
them of course in which case she(/he) ceases to be unknown) But yeah, of
course you can - but the effect is identical to no god at all, just
random chance. You might like to argue that the god is trying to get
people to acknowledge it, (for what purpose ? - to gain worshipers ?)
but this is also an attempt to come into the open (cease to be secret).

>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 22:37, Gary wrote:
> At 06:59 AM 5/22/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> >I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a
> >powerful god.
>
> This is sort of apropos to this discussion....
>
> All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods do
> gain some sort of energy (the god-level equivalent of regency) from their
> worshippers, but because they can also represent natural phenomena it`s
> plausible that they could also collect their god points from the god-level
> equivalent of source holdings.
>
> Azrai, being the god of shadow, had a pretty serious opportunity to collect
> god points from whatever the source equivalent of sources is, because
> shadows permeate existence.

Ah, that`s a good thought. So you`re saying that a god can derive power
from the physical or the meta-physical - both the object and the
abstract idea of the object so to speak ... interesting, very
interesting.

As a comment or corollary to that most very early RL
(real-life/real-world cf BR) gods were animals, followed by the next
step of more abstract gods (Sun, Moon etc) representing unknown or
unknowable objects (at least in detail - no one goes and touches the sun
etc).

Gods that embody certain human (or living being) characteristics such as
craft or commerce, for example, can be quite limited without followers
(weaker perhaps) than those that embody an ever-present "thing", e.g.
Azrai and the shadow world.

So the godly "holding", the "source"(s) so to speak exist separately and
are empowered/enhanced by worship. i.e. A potter makes beautiful vase,
this creates beauty empowering the God of Beauty. When people admire the
vase and give thanks to the Goddess for inspiring beauty in the world
they enhance the power of the Goddess further. That kind of thing ?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
Gary sez:
> All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I
> think gods do gain some sort of energy (the god-level
> equivalent of regency) from their worshippers, but because
> they can also represent natural phenomena it`s plausible that
> they could also collect their god points from the god-level
> equivalent of source holdings.

This need not mean that they dependent upon mortals for existence.
Perhaps all human ideals come from the gods? Undoubtably they fashioned
the world and the creatures upon it, are they going to make them utterly
different to themselves?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
Daniel sez:
> The new 3e rules seem to bear this out, though- gods can be
> statted with hit dice and levels and feats and such, but they
> also have divine rank, 0 to 20, which measures them compared
> to each other. Even a divine rank of 1 is a demigod, and
> pretty much unstoppable compared to mere mortals. But BR
> could be thought of as representing play at the divine rank 0 level.

This was what I was thinking, pretty much.
I don`t think I`d ever tell my players they were rank 0 deities, since
it might go to their heads. Rank 0 deities are still pretty nice
(immortality, etc..)

As I have said, I am not sure of the point in giving the gods
stat-blocks. I do notice that there is no CR for them though :)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
> Not at all. I can lay out the plans for my new secret god
> Brwyn, god of grains, and suddenly have famines and other
> effects because I think Brwyn is an angry god.

The child of Lani and Erik perhaps?
Wild nature (Erik) plus Rational agriculture (Lani)?
Plants and Sun?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
Peter sez:
> Perhaps, but the anecdotal evidence of the emergence of 2nd
> generation gods changes the god-landscape with either an
> enlargement or a reorganization of duties, powers and
> responsibilities. This implies change in the cosmos on a less
> grand scale than that of the cataclysm of Diesmaar.

Not at all.
Haelyn became unchanging and therefore could not adapt to new ways in
which men were worshipping him, so he created an aspect of himself. That
aspect grew into Cuiraecen who was ultimately venerated as as god
himself, separate from Haelyn, but under his authority.

Interesting, the "chicken or the egg" dilemma does not apply to deities
for me. Deities are non-temporal and so it makes no difference to them
that time passes. It is we mortals who try and bind them with the same
chains that restrict us, simply because we cannot encompass a world with
no time.

> Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more
> power but less worship or no worship has no effect ? What
> makes a god a god after all ? (you can`t use divine being in
> your definition - :"divine being" == "god" is a null
> statement containing the same information twice)

Here we go then.
Before I start I will say that your point is spurious as I do not think
that I was defining gods at any point.
Anyways...
Being a god means that you have a quantity of "divinity" (power or
whatever you like). Lets say it`s called "x". Now if the god has
worshippers then it has a divinity of "x+1", if it has a lot of
worshippers then it might have "x+1000". However, it can never be robbed
of its basic essential divinity by lack of worship.

If you want to think of this in mechanical terms, using those from
Deities and Demigods, then it is like saying that a god cannot be
reduced to a Divine Rank of lower than 1 (or 5, or whatever you like)
through the actions of others, barring truly strange circumstances, such
as the mass suicide of a pantheon to destroy an enemy deity.

> If a god has the power to do "X" (whatever "X" is), and this
> power delineates him as a god (as distinct from a demigod, or
> mortal for instance, then that ability power or
> characteristic is a defining power.

It`s not a power to do a specific action, it is the inherent quality of
being a god. Don`t ask me what this quality comprises exactly, I don`t
consider giving gods precise stat-blocks to be a beneficial exercise in
most cases. I feel that it is enough to specify that godhood is not
dependent on such an ethereal thing as the worship of mortals.

> A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is
> unknown is difficult to have interact with the BR world. From
> a game perspective they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

Sort of. They continue to "actually" exist and they *could* interact
with Cerilia if they wanted to. But obviously they don`t want to, for
whatever reason. Cosmologically they are present, but to mortals they
don`t exist.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 01:46 AM
Peter sez:
> The creation of new gods remains unsatisfactorily explained.
> (IMO - Rhetorical questions follow) What governs the creation
> of new gods ? Does this diminish the powers and or
> responsibilities of the other gods ? Does this imply that
> gods wither and fade perhaps to non-god or to death ?

I`d agree with this partly. I am of the opinion that gods are able to be
created when the aspects of a given god become so important in and of
themselves. So Cuiraecen emerged from Haelyn`s "Champion" aspect. I
suppose you could say that gods are parthenogenetic or something (I
should ask my fiancee for the right I suppose). I do not think that gods
can wither into death however - they will not split off new deities to
their own detriment.

> Yeah, I agree with you here. It`s the power of the temple
> (institution) that is important in a very materialistic way
> for BR - much like the Bishoprics and Abbeys of early
> Christendom vied for status with each other. (What am I
> saying early for ? - it still goes on today !)
>
> What does this argument mean to the "worship gives power"
> theory though ?

I see priestly magic as invocation of the gods directly. Realm magic
justs means that instead of asking for the god to aid yourself, you ask
them to aid a whole province, or army, or realm. You must be able to
actually represent the people of a given province/army/realm and this is
represented by the temple holdings. In this way political control =
magical authority.

> Does this then preclude the creation of new gods - by common
> worship for example ? Can the power of worship alone "create" a god ?

Yes it does. No, worship cannot create a deity. It can make a deity more
powerful, but deities are not reliant on mortals for their existence.

> Cerilia aside, many religions see the origin of their tribe
> or nation as founded by a god, or the leaders of their
> tribe/nation as being descended from gods. (or even gods
> themselves) Even Christ was born as a man (although we start
> to get really technical here - reborn ? incarnated ?). So
> there`s a damn good set of precedents to support "deities are
> just like you and me only bigger".

Gods can make themselves as men, but they are only pretending.
Gods might even have been men once (ala Haelyn and his crowd) but now
they are something that is totally different. When they adopted the
divine mantle with the death of their patrons they ceased to be mortals
like you and I, and became immortal, unchanging, and indestructible.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-23-2002, 02:09 AM
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 10:52, John Machin wrote:
> Gary sez:
> > All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I
> > think gods do gain some sort of energy (the god-level
> > equivalent of regency) from their worshippers, but because
> > they can also represent natural phenomena it`s plausible that
> > they could also collect their god points from the god-level
> > equivalent of source holdings.
>
> This need not mean that they dependent upon mortals for existence.
I think that was Gary`s point.

> Perhaps all human ideals come from the gods? Undoubtably they fashioned
> the world and the creatures upon it, are they going to make them utterly
> different to themselves?
Careful, tread softly with creation myth. Not all gods "create" the
world. Certainly there`s no creation myth in Cerilia - esp w.r.t. the
current crop of gods - unless you count a "changed" world as equal to a
created world.

The point about the ideals of the worshipers being that of the gods is a
good one though.

>
> --
> John Machin
> (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
> -----------------------------------
> "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
> Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-23-2002, 03:57 AM
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 10:52, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > Perhaps, but the anecdotal evidence of the emergence of 2nd
> > generation gods changes the god-landscape with either an
> > enlargement or a reorganization of duties, powers and
> > responsibilities. This implies change in the cosmos on a less
> > grand scale than that of the cataclysm of Diesmaar.
>
> Not at all.
> Haelyn became unchanging and therefore could not adapt to new ways in
> which men were worshipping him, so he created an aspect of himself. That
> aspect grew into Cuiraecen who was ultimately venerated as as god
> himself, separate from Haelyn, but under his authority.

It`s reasonable argument, but seems a little "loose" to me - the holes
in the argument can always be covered with the "secrets man was not
meant to know" clause. However, I don`t mind having gods that are
changeable, that can die, or procreate new gods, demigods etc. There`s
good precedent in RL theology as well as literature.

>
> Interesting, the "chicken or the egg" dilemma does not apply to deities
> for me. Deities are non-temporal and so it makes no difference to them
> that time passes. It is we mortals who try and bind them with the same
> chains that restrict us, simply because we cannot encompass a world with
> no time.
>
> > Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more
> > power but less worship or no worship has no effect ? What
> > makes a god a god after all ? (you can`t use divine being in
> > your definition - :"divine being" == "god" is a null
> > statement containing the same information twice)
>
> Here we go then.
> Before I start I will say that your point is spurious as I do not think
> that I was defining gods at any point.
> Anyways...
> Being a god means that you have a quantity of "divinity" (power or
> whatever you like). Lets say it`s called "x".
You didn`t say anything here. You can`t use a word like "divinity" to
describe a god - that`s like saying "a godly god", or using "godliness"
to describe what a god is. All gods must be divine because that`s the
meaning of the word.

Now if the god has
> worshippers then it has a divinity of "x+1", if it has a lot of
> worshippers then it might have "x+1000". However, it can never be robbed
> of its basic essential divinity by lack of worship.
>
> If you want to think of this in mechanical terms, using those from
> Deities and Demigods, then it is like saying that a god cannot be
> reduced to a Divine Rank of lower than 1 (or 5, or whatever you like)
> through the actions of others, barring truly strange circumstances, such
> as the mass suicide of a pantheon to destroy an enemy deity.
>
> > If a god has the power to do "X" (whatever "X" is), and this
> > power delineates him as a god (as distinct from a demigod, or
> > mortal for instance, then that ability power or
> > characteristic is a defining power.
>
> It`s not a power to do a specific action, it is the inherent quality of
> being a god. Don`t ask me what this quality comprises exactly,
AHa - well that`s exactly what I WAS asking. Forget stat blocks etc. It
seems that your answer is: (inherent in your statement "a god cannot be
reduced to a divine rank of lower than 1") all the powers and abilities
that a divine rank of 1 will have. So a character/being with the powers
and abilities equivalent to divine rank of 1 is in fact a god - with or
without followers/worshipers.

I don`t
> consider giving gods precise stat-blocks to be a beneficial exercise in
> most cases. I feel that it is enough to specify that godhood is not
> dependent on such an ethereal thing as the worship of mortals.
>
> > A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is
> > unknown is difficult to have interact with the BR world. From
> > a game perspective they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).
>
> Sort of. They continue to "actually" exist and they *could* interact
> with Cerilia if they wanted to. But obviously they don`t want to, for
> whatever reason. Cosmologically they are present, but to mortals they
> don`t exist.
>
> --
> John Machin
> (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
> -----------------------------------
> "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
> Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck
05-23-2002, 03:57 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 6:32 PM


> Yeah - but what is that "basic degree of power" ?

If we make note of the distinctions between demigods, lessor, intermediate,
and greater gods, then having a whole lot of worshipers (esp Haelyn, Erik,
Avani, and Sera) is worth a single bump. The others are probabaly actually
as they are described, though Belinik and Nesirie are borderline cases. I`m
counting not just number and size of temple holdings, but also the status of
patron of a nation.

So Haelyn is an intermediate god no matter what, and with his two pages of
temples and the patronage of Anuire, he`s a greater god, and the most
powerful of the greater gods. Fit for a king.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-23-2002, 06:51 AM
NB: I am combining my responses to Peter Lubke`s posts, to reduce in-box
clutter.

Peter sez:
> I think that was Gary`s point.

I`ll wait for Gary to specify what his points are if I misinterpret
them.

> Careful, tread softly with creation myth. Not all gods
> "create" the world. Certainly there`s no creation myth in
> Cerilia - esp w.r.t. the current crop of gods - unless you
> count a "changed" world as equal to a created world.

I`m not talking about all gods. I am thinking specifically of Aebrynis.
What little we have (in Bloodspawn) seems to indicate that the gods
"crystallised" the world as we know it from the primal chaos. Forming
out of primal chaos seems near enough to creation for me.

Also, I think that the current crop of gods are the inheritors of the
old gods, selected for their proximity to the ideals of their patrons.

> The point about the ideals of the worshipers being that of
> the gods is a good one though.

Thanks, I think that it is more likely that human society would develop
along divine lines, rather than vice versa.

Peter sez (in another post):
> It`s reasonable argument, but seems a little "loose" to me -
> the holes in the argument can always be covered with the
> "secrets man was not meant to know" clause. However, I don`t
> mind having gods that are changeable, that can die, or
> procreate new gods, demigods etc. There`s good precedent in
> RL theology as well as literature.

Thank you.
I consider flexibility to be a virtue. I`m certain that mortals see gods
dying, procreating and so on, whether the gods actually do these things
is debatable. Mortals always put a mortal face on things that they do
not understand. I`d rather that gods were something other than "big
mortals".

> AHa - well that`s exactly what I WAS asking. Forget stat
> blocks etc. It seems that your answer is: (inherent in your
> statement "a god cannot be reduced to a divine rank of lower
> than 1") all the powers and abilities that a divine rank of 1
> will have. So a character/being with the powers and abilities
> equivalent to divine rank of 1 is in fact a god - with or
> without followers/worshipers.

I won`t say character, but yes. Gods are gods, just like sheep are
sheep. I can worship a sheep and it is still a sheep, I can fail to
worship a sheep and it is still a sheep. The only difference is that
gods DO derive benefit from worship. Think of it like someone sending
you a cheque for $50 every month. You won`t cease to exist if it stops
coming but does increase your [spending] power while it does arrive.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman
05-23-2002, 06:51 AM
At 06:19 PM 5/23/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>Peter sez:
> > I think that was Gary`s point.
>
>I`ll wait for Gary to specify what his points are if I misinterpret them.

No, that was the gist of it.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-24-2002, 01:56 AM
Gary sez:
> No, that was the gist of it.

Okay then, sorry about the misunderstanduing, I guess we agree then.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-24-2002, 04:12 AM
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 16:19, John Machin wrote:
> NB: I am combining my responses to Peter Lubke`s posts, to reduce in-box
> clutter.
>
> Peter sez:
> > I think that was Gary`s point.
>
> I`ll wait for Gary to specify what his points are if I misinterpret
> them.
>
> > Careful, tread softly with creation myth. Not all gods
> > "create" the world. Certainly there`s no creation myth in
> > Cerilia - esp w.r.t. the current crop of gods - unless you
> > count a "changed" world as equal to a created world.
>
> I`m not talking about all gods. I am thinking specifically of Aebrynis.
> What little we have (in Bloodspawn) seems to indicate that the gods
> "crystallised" the world as we know it from the primal chaos. Forming
> out of primal chaos seems near enough to creation for me.

I don`t find a compelling reason that the seven original gods were the
creators. Bloodspawn seems very "tacked on" in this respect rather than
being included in original thought on this. The original gods were
father/mother figures for the original tribes - these are not creation
myth gods.

>
> Also, I think that the current crop of gods are the inheritors of the
> old gods, selected for their proximity to the ideals of their patrons.

I agree, but I think that the ideals of the original gods and their
original spheres have gone beyond the original with the inheritors. The
inheritors are a higher form reflecting the advancement of the "tribe"
to higher ideals espoused by the original gods. (not more powerful, just
more civilized/complex/etc responding to a higher order of need)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-25-2002, 12:15 AM
Peter sez:
> I don`t find a compelling reason that the seven original gods
> were the creators. Bloodspawn seems very "tacked on" in this
> respect rather than being included in original thought on
> this. The original gods were father/mother figures for the
> original tribes - these are not creation myth gods.

You don`t see father and mother figures as creators? Goodness!
I will agree with you about the "tacked on" feel of Bloodspawn, I am
personally leery about giving it too much weight, but it IS a supplement
and I have to give it some attention.

> I agree, but I think that the ideals of the original gods and
> their original spheres have gone beyond the original with the
> inheritors. The inheritors are a higher form reflecting the
> advancement of the "tribe" to higher ideals espoused by the
> original gods. (not more powerful, just more
> civilized/complex/etc responding to a higher order of need)

Perhaps the destruction of the old gods was necessary, to provide both a
freedom from the Shadow and to allow the gods and their people to "move
on" culturally.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 03:08 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 10:00, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > I don`t find a compelling reason that the seven original gods
> > were the creators. Bloodspawn seems very "tacked on" in this
> > respect rather than being included in original thought on
> > this. The original gods were father/mother figures for the
> > original tribes - these are not creation myth gods.
>
> You don`t see father and mother figures as creators? Goodness!
tribal creators yes. world creators no.

> I will agree with you about the "tacked on" feel of Bloodspawn, I am
> personally leery about giving it too much weight, but it IS a supplement
> and I have to give it some attention.
>
> > I agree, but I think that the ideals of the original gods and
> > their original spheres have gone beyond the original with the
> > inheritors. The inheritors are a higher form reflecting the
> > advancement of the "tribe" to higher ideals espoused by the
> > original gods. (not more powerful, just more
> > civilized/complex/etc responding to a higher order of need)
>
> Perhaps the destruction of the old gods was necessary, to provide both a
> freedom from the Shadow and to allow the gods and their people to "move
> on" culturally.

Certainly new gods were necessary (or advantageous or whatever).
Perhaps, destruction was necessary (they could have just faded away).

"It`s better to burn out, than fade away,
my, my hey, hey"

>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:46 AM
Peter sez:
> tribal creators yes. world creators no.

I would have thought that they would be closely paralleled in both BR
and the RW.

> Certainly new gods were necessary (or advantageous or
> whatever). Perhaps, destruction was necessary (they could
> have just faded away).

I mean, it wasn`t a choice on the part of the gods, but it was a
universal inevitability or something. I can`t say I`ve given this
particular line of thinking much hard thought.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 03:46 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 10:03, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > tribal creators yes. world creators no.
>
> I would have thought that they would be closely paralleled in both BR
> and the RW.
>
> > Certainly new gods were necessary (or advantageous or
> > whatever). Perhaps, destruction was necessary (they could
> > have just faded away).
>
> I mean, it wasn`t a choice on the part of the gods, but it was a
> universal inevitability or something. I can`t say I`ve given this
> particular line of thinking much hard thought.

Yeah yeah - we`re in agreement on the cosmic significance here .. I
think.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 03:46 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 10:03, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > tribal creators yes. world creators no.
>
> I would have thought that they would be closely paralleled in both BR
> and the RW.
>
No not always, there is quite a diversity among cultures.

Creation myths fall into 5 general classifications:
(1) From chaos or nothingness (ex nihilo)
(2) From a cosmic egg or primal maternal mound
(3) From world parents who are separated
(4) From a process of earth-diving
(5) From several stages of emergence from other worlds

Sometimes more than one is used. (just to really confuse matters)
Obviously, a god that is a tribal creator/head is not prevented from any
of the above but neither is he/she mandated either. For two tribes that
closely interact and have a system of inter-tribal marriages (such as is
in common in the amazonian jungles), a world creation myth of (3) is
very suitable.

In BR, I would put it to you that (1), (2), or (4) are most suitable.
For (2), it would be that the original gods sprang from some common
maternal mound then went their separate ways to form tribes/families of
their own possibly by taking mates of non-divine origin.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:00 PM
> No not always, there is quite a diversity among cultures.

But there are examples of the tribe-maker being the world-maker as well,
right? That was what I was saying. My point is not that all cultures are
"x", but that pre-Cerilian human cultures on Aerbrynis are "x". I am not
such a puissant scholar of mythology to attempt anything startling.

> In BR, I would put it to you that (1), (2), or (4) are most
> suitable. For (2), it would be that the original gods sprang
> from some common maternal mound then went their separate ways
> to form tribes/families of their own possibly by taking mates
> of non-divine origin.

I would say that for BR, the process was the gods giving order to the
primal chaos, as is suggested in Bloodspawn. I feel that this bears a
remarkable similarity to a number of RW myths.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:00 PM
Peter sez:
> Yeah yeah - we`re in agreement on the cosmic significance
> here .. I think.

Possibly.
I tend to think that we see things in totally different ways though.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 01:34 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 21:15, John Machin wrote:
> > No not always, there is quite a diversity among cultures.
>
> But there are examples of the tribe-maker being the world-maker as well,
> right? That was what I was saying. My point is not that all cultures are
> "x", but that pre-Cerilian human cultures on Aerbrynis are "x". I am not
> such a puissant scholar of mythology to attempt anything startling.

Yes. Many case where the creator of mankind is also the creator of the
world - rarely though are they the father-god figure (more often they
are manifestations of the physical world).
>
> > In BR, I would put it to you that (1), (2), or (4) are most
> > suitable. For (2), it would be that the original gods sprang
> > from some common maternal mound then went their separate ways
> > to form tribes/families of their own possibly by taking mates
> > of non-divine origin.
>
> I would say that for BR, the process was the gods giving order to the
> primal chaos, as is suggested in Bloodspawn. I feel that this bears a
> remarkable similarity to a number of RW myths.
Yes. Okay.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.