magical theory

[Trithemius]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

----- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.