AD&D was the first taste of this concept of requiring them I read. I never read a Greek/Egyptian/real world mythology book that said gods required worshippers.
Gods in AD&D requiring worshippers makes them look like chairperson of some huge corporation, rather than not having any needs- with thier customers being thier worshippers, and they just like a mega company can die if they consistently lose "money" There's that faction in Sigil that says for this reason they aren't really deities, just super powerful mortals.
Aren't there also deities in the inner planes called elemental lords, which don't require worshippers at all? I think I read that there are four of them, one for each "pure" element, but on Athas spells are not granted by them directly, but rather the elemental planes. I don't think it would be appropriate for there to be only four and them to have names. I think they should be faceless and nameless, and apathetic like the elements themselves.
Here's a pic of what I think an elemental lord of fire would look like.
http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=2728
One of the chief themes of Planescape is that belief is power. The more people believe in a thing, the more power it has. The power of the gods, and of the Outer Planes as a whole, is the power of belief. Gods are made out of the beliefs of their worshipers, and their power is commensurate with that.
However, the Inner Planes have nothing to do with mortal belief, and their rulers - the four elemental lords Kossuth, Istishia, Grumbar, and Akadi - don't require it. They get their power directly from their planes.
I also think there were earlier beings that preceded the gods - titans, primal concepts, elder evils - that didn't require, and weren't able to make use of, mortal belief. The gods overthrew them with the additional power their mortal followers granted them.
Mythology naturally won't acknowledge the dependence of the gods on mortal belief, because part of the purpose of myth is to praise the gods and make them seem all-powerful and responsible for everything. And because people believe the myths, their belief makes the gods more powerful. However, most gods are not as powerful as their worshipers claim.
I think it's mortal arrogance to think that gods would be dependent on their worshippers.
Nah, it's arrogant mortals who think that the gods they happen to worship were the ones who created them - in their arrogance they believe the gods of their tribe or culture are more powerful than any of the others, as an extension of their arrogant beliefs in their cultural superiority. In their need for security and comfort they delude themselves into thinking the gods can solve all their problems. More humble ones realize their gods might not be as all-powerful as they wish they were.
Most gods didn't create anything - they're spiritual parasites who drink the nourishing beliefs of their mortal patsies, growing fat off of prayers and sacrifice and passing themselves off as something they aren't. They didn't create mortals; mortals created them through their need to simplify and explain the universe. Gods are the pretty lies we tell ourselves.
But technically, a god can create a race and still be created by belief - they're just made from the beliefs of older races. Corellon Larethian, for example, may have been worshipped by the leShay before he created the elves. Moradin may have been created by the ancient plane-traveling race called the Crafters, who died out over 10,000 years ago.
I read the idea first in Fritz Lieber's Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser stories. It was also used in Terry Pratchett's Small Gods and Neil Gaiman's American Gods, among other places.
Yeah, Discworld was where I recall seeing it first. Even there, Pratchett distinguishes between gods and "anthropomorphic personifications'; Death and the Lady don't require belief to survive. Though it does shape them.
I also think there were earlier beings that preceded the gods - titans, primal concepts, elder evils - that didn't require, and weren't able to make use of, mortal belief. The gods overthrew them with the additional power their mortal followers granted them.
This explains a bit to me. What I've been longing for is a being that doesn't need belief, but is capable of using it. Is there no such bird, then?
Mythology naturally won't acknowledge the dependence of the gods on mortal belief ... most gods are not as powerful as their worshipers claim.
Makes being a cleric on the planes kinda rough, don't it? ;^) You can see all these other gods running around making similar claims, and then there are the Athar and personal-god factions like the Transcendent Order. You need some pretty good theological gyrations to keep it going... and as players, we know that our clerics' rationalizations are just that, because the system is set up explicitly so that they're believing a lie. That's a shame, in my opinion.
My slightly non-canonical take on gods makes them all, in a sense, such creatures: that is, it makes the lie truth. Pelor and Ra have both achieved divinity by, in some sense, intertwining their beings with the concept of the sun itself, including its aspects such as sunlight and healing. If one worships the sun, the power of that worship could flow to either, though if one worships the sun with Pelor's name attached, the power flows to Pelor. Even if Pelor's name is completely erased from memory, he remains comatose on the Astral because the part of him that is sunlight and healing exists as long as those things exist in the multiverse.
Maybe. I've never GM'ed a Planescape game, so I haven't worked out all the ramifications. Heck, if I did I might go entirely with the "incarnations" route and use the In Nomine Archangels and Princes of Hell instead of the usual Planescape religions...
Godhood is more than a name. It is a condition of being. One does not achieve it merely by being immortal, for even the lowliest laborer in the fields may achieve continuity of existence. Is it then the conditioning of an Aspect? No. Any competent hypnotist can play games with the self-image. Is it the raising up of an Attribute? Of course not. I can design machines more powerful and more accurate than any faculty a man may cultivate. Being a god is the quality of being able to be yourself to such an extent that your passions correspond with the forces of the universe, so that those who look upon you know this without hearing your name spoken. -- Yama, from Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light
Makes being a cleric on the planes kinda rough, don't it?
Yeah, that's true, and I was using a bit in-character rhetoric. The rhetoric I used was that of the Athar. I think that while it's important not to declare the cleric class is unambiguously based on a lie, it's just as important not to unambiguously deny the philosophy of one of the factions - the Athar aren't necessarily based on a lie either.
The gods exist in a state of ambiguity - their claims might be true, but they might be the cheaters and tricksters the Athar claim they are, too. Maybe Corellon created the elves, or maybe the elves made him. Maybe both of these things are true simultaneously.
This ambiguity is the heart of Planescape, in my opinion - the war of philosophy and belief, the process of learning what might be true.
It's unambiguous that gods have died from lack of belief - Badir, Amaunator, and others have corpses on the Astral Plane that planewalkers can visit. In Dead Gods, the PCs can even experience the exact details of Badir's death from his perspective.
However, that doesn't mean all gods are absolutely that way. Who knows, maybe some are realer than others.
It is possible that some divine-level beings can exist without belief of any kind - Gaea, the titans, the elemental rulers, and the Lords of the Nine may be examples of these.
"Gods might living personifications of the forces of the concepts of the planes. In that sense these personifications might exist without followers when they exist without relation (Boccob, Kossuth, etc) to mortals . Maybe what permits a god to exists is for their concept to exist. Thus Gods like Pelor could grow silent but the as long as the concept of a life giving sun exists, there will be a personification of it
That's why gods go dormant on the astral planes. Since concepts are at many times forgothen and found again. The spiritual energy they represent would simply rejoin the universal cosmic pool of divinity while the God in question, who is alive and has a soul , something I won't go into at the moment. Would fall dormant till his concept would garner enough importance again to bring the energy back into the form that the god personifies ( In a sense Pelor would be ressurected)
And ascension ? same thing, as a certain concept gains importance, something is chosen to personify this concept. Perhaps a new God is born, perhaps a mortal comes to so perfectly embody the concept that the energy divine flows to him and he becomes god.
Godly creations, clever, clever. God's could know the truth and thus they create, leave a piece of themselves behind, that way even if he is forgothen, what he created is'nt. Perhaps even if every single dwarf in the multiverse forgot the mere concept of Moradin, he'd be just fine. Why because Moradin embodies the positive concepts of the dwarven races. Even if his concept is forgothen, there are still all those dwarves running around and every image and memory related to dwarves. Moradin thus would from a third hand perpective always exist as a concept and be just fine for eternity (as long as the concept of a small race of loyal and brave bearbed smiths exist).
Similarly some concepts can't be explained by the shape of a person. Concepts like good, evil, fear, madness, light, dark. Thus the God that embodies it could never appear as a person because that would be contrary to the concept. These would lend power to clerics of Philosophies and forces...
Or Perhaps I'm way off and it's another matter entirely. Either way it's doubt that keeps life interesting and that's why the search for truth never ends
-Deakon Shadowmoon, gnome Cosmic scholar and high Magus of the Radiant Empire-
Here's another interpretation...
It is possible that some divine-level beings can exist without belief of any kind - Gaea, the titans, the elemental rulers, and the Lords of the Nine may be examples of these.
I should know the answer to this, and don't... do any of those beings have clergy with the typical powers thereof? I know there are various feats that allow you to swear allegiance to the elemental rulers, the Lords of the Nine, and the Upper Planar exemplars, but I can't recall any of them being capable of empowering clerics.
Gaea seems to be the most obvious candidate, but Googling "Cleric of Gaea" doesn't get me any d20 hits.
(...random thought. Maybe they're responsible for empowering druids. And rangers. Maybe these are the classes that worship beings that don't need worship, but can use it.)
This explains a bit to me. What I've been longing for is a being that doesn't need belief, but is capable of using it. Is there no such bird, then?
Mortals.
But technically, a god can create a race and still be created by belief - they're just made from the beliefs of older races.
Or they have a more complicated relationship with time than we do.
Gods don't need worshippers any more than you need friends in order to exist.
I think that's a different kind of need, your social health, it definitely isn't good for you to have none.
I should know the answer to this, and don't... do any of those beings have clergy with the typical powers thereof?
Yes. All of the above.
Technically, a cleric can get powers without any deity or planar entity at all. You can be a cleric of a philosophy, or a force like Entropy, Death, or the Cadence of the Planes.
The Forgotten Realms setting requires a feat for clerics of non-divine beings, but standard D&D doesn't. Even in the Forgotten Realms, there are clerics of the elemental rulers, and no particular feat is required.
Yes. All of the above.
Intriguing. Next cleric I play might have a bit of a different outlook on theology.
Technically, a cleric can get powers without any deity or planar entity at all. You can be a cleric of a philosophy, or a force like Entropy, Death, or the Cadence of the Planes.
That much I know, heh...
Nah, it's arrogant mortals who think that the gods they happen to worship were the ones who created them - in their arrogance they believe the gods of their tribe or culture are more powerful than any of the others, as an extension of their arrogant beliefs in their cultural superiority. In their need for security and comfort they delude themselves into thinking the gods can solve all their problems. More humble ones realize their gods might not be as all-powerful as they wish they were.
Most gods didn't create anything - they're spiritual parasites who drink the nourishing beliefs of their mortal patsies, growing fat off of prayers and sacrifice and passing themselves off as something they aren't. They didn't create mortals; mortals created them through their need to simplify and explain the universe. Gods are the pretty lies we tell ourselves.
But technically, a god can create a race and still be created by belief - they're just made from the beliefs of older races. Corellon Larethian, for example, may have been worshipped by the leShay before he created the elves. Moradin may have been created by the ancient plane-traveling race called the Crafters, who died out over 10,000 years ago.
This is precisely the "arrogant mortal" thing I was talking about.
Face it, if mortals didn't drown themselves in their own make believe self worth, then they would probably kill themselves from depression.
Worshippers are like little groupies, they're not needed but it's amusing to have them around.
Face it, if mortals didn't drown themselves in their own make believe self worth, then they would probably kill themselves from depression.
I don't agree. Just because your god is dependent on worshipers doesn't make you important. Having a more important god makes you more important by proxy, whether the god needs you or not. If the gods themselves are relatively minor players in the cosmos, then the mortals who worship them are less important, not more, because they've harnessed their wagons to inferior horses.
The dependence on worshipers doesn't, or at least shouldn't, result in a self-congratulatory human thinking "Zeus needs me!" Zeus doesn't need you; you're a tiny cog in Zeus' machine. Everyone you know and love is. Even on a larger scale, you're only cattle, and Zeus only needs mortals the way a shepherd needs sheep. That's certainly not a reason for the sheep to get arrogant or uppity.
I maintain that independent gods - gods who really are manifestations of aspects of the cosmos - give mortals a greater basis for arrogance than the opposite. A truly arrogant human, convinced of the rightness of his or her faith, is more likely to paint a scenario where the gods he or she favors are completely omnipotent. A humbler one, capable of doubt, may allow for humbler gods.
If you're the suicidal type, knowing the god you've dedicated your life to isn't all he or she claims is what should pull the trigger. Knowing a strong, invulnerable god exists eternally to care for you is what gives you strength.
The only reason why the rules imply that gods need worshippers is to shine an ever important light upon mankind (elves, orcs, centaurs, etc...). It's to make the little insecure mortal feel like they're needed. Hence the lame belief that if no one worships a god, then said god will wither away.
That's just plain stupid. Besides in all honesty, if you don't want gods in your campaign then don't have them and if you want them (however retarded) to be dependent on mortals, hey it's your campaign. Though just because that's the way they imply it in the rules doesn't mean that it's true. Remember, they also refer to the overgod or overdeity who needs no one and who created all the others.
Personally, I think the gods' dependency on worship is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard of......still though, it's up to each DM.
The only reason why the rules imply that gods need worshippers is to shine an ever important light upon mankind
I think you're wrong about that. Rather, it's to further a theme: the power of belief. The Outer Planes are created and sustained by belief, and the gods are no different.
This doesn't have to be mortal belief. Mortals are just the largest body of believers, not the only ones by any means.
It's to make the little insecure mortal feel like they're needed.
If the gods themselves are impermanent, their positions insecure, then mortals are more insecure, not less. If the gods can die, then everyone can die, and afterlives are not eternal. This is such a terrifying thought that it's no wonder mortals prefer to think their gods will outlive them. It's no wonder mortals created the gods in the first place, as heavenly security blankets who would watch over them in the scary hereafter, keeping them safe from monsters.
The overpowers really didn't create much - they're just the stewards of particular crystal spheres. The gods generally came from beyond, outside the highgods' purview.
My answer, "No."
End of story.
Listen, I'm not going to debate it with you. The thread was "do gods need worshippers?"
My answer, "No."
End of story.
Man, it's a good thing these aren't discussion boards. Otherwise people might actually want to have some manner of discourse with you on the subject.
Personally, I think the gods' dependency on worship is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard of......still though, it's up to each DM.
I think you might have missed one of the core concepts of the Planescape setting. Probably the most important core concept: Belief is power.
Someone must be believing in them or they'd suffer the same fate.
Then the same rule is true about mortals.
Someone must be believing in them or they'd suffer the same fate.
usually mortals believe quite fervently in their own existence.
IN my campaigns gods don't need worshippers AT ALL, it has no bearing on there personal power. obviously though they want to be the center of the universe, and this usually requires others recognizing it,+it gives them temporal power because more followers means more influence.
Having said that, there are gods with fantastic power with nearly no , or completely no followers.
The other way aroumd works too if you equate godhood as super-human entities with control over aspects of existence.
Either case, it works so it's up to the DM...
Then the same rule is true about mortals.
Someone must be believing in them or they'd suffer the same fate.
No; mortals are not natives of the Outer Planes, not even the ones that are born there.
No; mortals are not natives of the Outer Planes, not even the ones that are born there.
That doesn't matter.
Maybe the Outer Planes are the only real planes of existence and all of the core, "material" worlds are merely figments of some other beings imagination?
Maybe the Athar are right, maybe not. Clearly Divine Power comes from somewhere.
Even DnD mentions and acknowledges the existence of an Overdeity, though he is elusive and distant, seemingly uncaring of the events that take place as they are beneath him.
So it could be said that all things from gods to mortals exist simply because he wants them to.
Nobody on Krynn knows about Lolth, so she has no power there and her clerics who plane hop to it don't have any power either
Basically, it seems like this only because not all campaign settings had Planescape in mind when they were created and so not many of them actually recognize it.
Remember, Planescape never really seemed all that sure about what it was doing.
The gods of Krynn don't seem to need worshippers, as a matter of fact, it was the total opposite. No mortal had any power unless the gods wanted them to. If anything, worshippers proove constantly that it's they who need the gods.
That doesn't matter.
Maybe the Outer Planes are the only real planes of existence and all of the core, "material" worlds are merely figments of some other beings imagination?
All the planes are real. But the Outer Planes are a different kind of real, like how the Inner Planes are a different kind of real. The outer planes are the reality of belief, thought, faith. All things there - from the planes themselves to deities to outsiders - are created and sustained in some way by the belief of mortals.
If you want to try the canon stuff, try this, Planescape itself jumps back and forth between the subject. Not to mention that just because it was in one particular setting and adventure doesn't mean that it's definitive.
I don't think your claim here is correct. I think they were pretty consistent about gods needing worshipers. Secondly, since this is the PS board, I think it's pretty safe to assume that discussions here are firmly grounded in the Planescape setting; other kinds of planar discussions belong on Deities and the Planes. So in terms of Planescape canon, the way things are in Planescape materials is in fact definitive.
The gods of Krynn don't seem to need worshippers, as a matter of fact, it was the total opposite. No mortal had any power unless the gods wanted them to. If anything, worshippers proove constantly that it's they who need the gods.
LOL, I guess then that the other gods wanted to see Raistlin kill Takhisis, but didn't see he would eventually kill them as well, in the alternate future. Actually, I think it's hinted at that they helped Raistlin, once the DQ came through the portal it really drew thier wrath and they and Raist killed her.
Don't the Gods need some form of worship to have any power on one of the primes?
Nobody on Krynn knows about Lolth, so she has no power there and her clerics who plane hop to it don't have any power either
On Athas, which does not and can not have gods there is a fire cleric giant from another world who is still able to get up to 2nd level spells from his deity.
On Athas, which does not and can not have gods there is a fire cleric giant from another world who is still able to get up to 2nd level spells from his deity.
That's based on second edition rules, which went something like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong; this is from memory):
Clerics need to worship a god to get any spells. Certain planar phenomena (like the Great Unknown or the Source) can also allow a cleric to gain spells. Archfiends can grant spells of up to second level, and I think any cleric can gain up to second level spells based on faith alone.
So the fire giant didn't get anything from his god, he was cut off. But he could keep getting some spells simply from his faith (which was still to his deity).
So, what about Ao, then? He doesn't appear to have worshippers or do we assume he has some elsewhere? If I recall correctly the Forgotten Realms Deities didn't even need worshippers until the Time of Troubles.
But why to assume that Ao is a deity? Because he is powerful? We can find a dozen of beings which seem to be mightier than gods - the Guardian of the Dead Gods, the Lady, or Tenebrous, but neither can be called a power.
That's based on second edition rules, which went something like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong; this is from memory):
Clerics need to worship a god to get any spells. Certain planar phenomena (like the Great Unknown or the Source) can also allow a cleric to gain spells. Archfiends can grant spells of up to second level, and I think any cleric can gain up to second level spells based on faith alone.
So the fire giant didn't get anything from his god, he was cut off. But he could keep getting some spells simply from his faith (which was still to his deity).
Just where in the 2E DMG or player's handbook is this rule about being able to get up to 2nd level spells even when you're cut off from your deity, it's not the in priest description in the player's handbook.
Just where in the 2E DMG or player's handbook is this rule about being able to get up to 2nd level spells even when you're cut off from your deity, it's not the in priest description in the player's handbook.
It's not in either of those places, but it's in many other 1e and 2e sources. For example, the Spelljammer boxed set, Dragonlance Adventures, the Player's Guide to Greyhawk, and 1st edition Deities & Demigods.
It comes originally from 1e Deities & Demigods, which stated that 1st and 2nd level cleric spells come from a cleric's own knowledge and faith. Third, fourth, and fifth-level spells are granted by the servants, proxies, and subordinate demigods of a deity. Sixth and seventh level spells can only be granted to clerics from their deities directly. Only greater deities could grant seventh-level spells.
This is a rule that wasn't stated explicitly in the "core" books, but which was an assumption in all the world-specific 2e books. It explains the Athas thing you mentioned.
The 2e Complete Priests Handbook gave many examples of supernatural forces and philosophies that priests could gain spells from, rather than actual deities.
But why to assume that Ao is a deity? Because he is powerful? We can find a dozen of beings which seem to be mightier than gods - the Guardian of the Dead Gods, the Lady, or Tenebrous, but neither can be called a power.
I think the term Over Deity tends to get most currency? I don't know how perfectly accurate this Wikipedia Article is, but it seems to accord with my recollections of my (A)D&D 2.x Forgotten Realms stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Ao
I don't think that disqualifies him from the term 'Deity'. There are many different degrees of divinity, this just appears to be one above 'Greater'. Where does he get his power from and why has he withdrawn it from Deities below him? Who knows?
But why to assume that Ao is a deity? Because he is powerful? We can find a dozen of beings which seem to be mightier than gods - the Guardian of the Dead Gods, the Lady, or Tenebrous, but neither can be called a power.
Sure you can't call the lady a power? She killed a power after all, Aoskar. I'd rule she's an overpower in Sigil.
Some believe the Lady of Pain is an Abyssal lord who turned stag on the others. Some believe she's a mortal sorcerer who stumbled on a dark nobody else knows about. Some say she's the sentient spirit of Sigil, or the queen of the dabus, or an illusion created by dabus spellweavers, or the tears Time weeps, or the first of all heartbreaks, or three ratatosks standing on one another's shoulders, wearing a mask. She's any of those things, or all of them, or none of them.
Frankly, "the overpower of Sigil" is the most boring possible answer, which is why it fills me with loathing.
Most deities do need worshippers, but not all.
Some powers get their strength from other sources.
And of course there are those deities that get part of their power from worshippers, but pert of the power is their own.
But it is a good bet, that only those powers that actually need worshippers, will give a damn about them and go to all the trouble of granting them spells.
(Especially true for evil gods)
The Lady's a mystery. She's not a power, or an overpower, or any category we recognize. We're pretty sure (though not absolutely sure) that she's the one who killed Aoskar, but it's not known if she could repeat that feat on short notice.
On Hallowed Ground said she did in fact kill him.
The Lady's a mystery. She's not a power, or an overpower, or any category we recognize. We're pretty sure (though not absolutely sure) that she's the one who killed Aoskar, but it's not known if she could repeat that feat on short notice.
Some believe the Lady of Pain is an Abyssal lord who turned stag on the others. Some believe she's a mortal sorcerer who stumbled on a dark nobody else knows about. Some say she's the sentient spirit of Sigil, or the queen of the dabus, or an illusion created by dabus spellweavers, or the tears Time weeps, or the first of all heartbreaks, or three ratatosks standing on one another's shoulders, wearing a mask. She's any of those things, or all of them, or none of them.
Frankly, "the overpower of Sigil" is the most boring possible answer, which is why it fills me with loathing.
Has anyone ever injured her at all when she comes to maze/puree them, or at least attacked her?
Has anyone ever injured her at all when she comes to maze/puree them, or at least attacked her?
Not that I'm aware of.
Has anyone ever injured her at all when she comes to maze/puree them, or at least attacked her?
Has anybody attacked her, probably...
But since touching her causes your fingers to get cut off, I'm guessing that unless you were using a bow, you'd be the one to get things severed...
And you don't see the lady when she mazes you. You just notice that the alley you were walking down suddenly is a lot longer than before, and there are no people around...
Has anybody attacked her, probably...
But since touching her causes your fingers to get cut off, I'm guessing that unless you were using a bow, you'd be the one to get things severed...
And you don't see the lady when she mazes you. You just notice that the alley you were walking down suddenly is a lot longer than before, and there are no people around...
In Planescape Torment she put her shadow over the nameless one to maze him. I thought her shadow if it touches you basically puts you through the blender, but on herself she only has 3 blades protruding from her mask/head.
In Planescape Torment she put her shadow over the nameless one to maze him. I thought her shadow if it touches you basically puts you through the blender, but on herself she only has 3 blades protruding from her mask/head.
In the books, it only states that once the person who offends her is alone, he can find himself in the mazes. Whether it be walking down a hallway in his house which is suddenly longer than it was before, or in a back alley that never seems to reach the main road.
They may have done something dramatic in the game, but it's listed as more subtle in the boxed set.
As far as the need for belief from what I have read it seems to be the fastest route to godhood, ie. if enough people believe that someone is a god they will eventually become one. But there is are other who have gone the long and arduous path of just obtaining so much power without belief that with or without followers they have god like power and can bestow that power on who they see fit. The difference is that if the worship is removed from a god who gained power by belief, that god dies and looses his power, where as the god who achieved the power himself retains that power even if no one worships or believes in him anymore.
It seems important to remember that just because a god doesn't grant power to a mortal follow doesn't mean the god doesn't need that followers believe. Traditionally the gods grant power only to the most faithful and dedicated of their followers (ie. priests, paladins, etc) but still weaken if massive amounts of their non-powered followers are lost. They don't have to grant powers to their followers and often take away powers if their followers are screwing up.
The gods in DnD shouldn't be viewed as a case of which is the true god and which are pretenders, but instead they are the embodiment of an ideal or belief that their followers gather behind. For some it is the belief in the ideal that gives gives the god his/her power and causes them to rise to godhood, and in others it is simply that the ideals of a very powerful individual attacks others of like mind to follow and revere them as a deity. There is no "one" over riding god who is responsible for everything, even though there are gods such as Io who seem to have given rise to the current state of the multiverse.
Nothing in DnD seems to indicate that one being gave rise to the multiverse and creation as compared to what you would see in Christianity and the belief that God created everything.
What I mean is sometimes certain actions are considered acts of worship. In Legends and Lore 2nd edition, the Nehwon God hate it says is someone everyone worships, when they get angry and display it. You could say the same for fighting for a battle god, growing crops for a god of nature, etc.
In Stargate, the Ori are a race of ascended god-like beings, they don't need worship to exist, but it makes them more powerful and they kill anyone who won't kneel to them.
The thing with the Lady that separates her The laws of Sigil state that no god can exist within Sigil and such supplements such as the Harbinger House show that even a deity created in Sigil is quickly expelled from the City.
I thought this is how Vecna almost overcame her actually. He relinquished his divinity or was in between divinity states, then became a god in sigil.
Some DM's think they should require them, some don't. Not sure what I'd choose, but what do you think?
Gods requiring worshippers to exist wasn't really a staple part of the D&D game until it was mentioned somewhere in one of the old FR sourcebooks, and then incorporated into Planescape. The gods shouldn't need worshippers to exist any more than faeries should need believers to exist. Wouldn't it be silly and out of place if they did? Instead, their existence and nature is assumed by the very nature of the setting, and the same should be true of deities. Of course, you could argue, like the Athar, that the creatures we call "faeries" aren't true faeries at all because they don't fit into some inconsistent and poorly-defined definition of the fey that has no application to the D&D universe, but this is absurd.
Gods needing worshippers to exist is pretty much a post-modern concept that doesn't really fit well with me in the context of a mythology-based fantasy game. What the gods should remind the players is that there will always be something greater than them in the game's mileu, and that the universe doesn't actually revolve around the PCs. Quite humbling to think about, really.
AD&D was the first taste of this concept of requiring them I read. I never read a Greek/Egyptian/real world mythology book that said gods required worshippers.
Exactly. Another reason why it's out of place.
Gods in AD&D requiring worshippers makes them look like chairperson of some huge corporation, rather than not having any needs- with thier customers being thier worshippers, and they just like a mega company can die if they consistently lose "money" There's that faction in Sigil that says for this reason they aren't really deities, just super powerful mortals.
And do you know what's even weirder about that faction? They've failed to define what exactly "real deities" should be. They seem to have forgotten what multiverse they inhabit. Gods in the old mythologies were extremely powerful, but they were still often thought of as beings with physical bodies who inhabited the world (i.e. Poseidon was thought to live in the ocean, Zeus was thought to live at the top of Mt. Olympus). The idea of a transcendant, omnipotent God is really a Judeao-Christian concept that doesn't have much applicability to the quasi-pagan pantheon of the D&D multiverse. In short, I've always felt the Athar's arguments are pointless, and their faction really has no place in the D&D game.
Nothing in DnD seems to indicate that one being gave rise to the multiverse and creation as compared to what you would see in Christianity and the belief that God created everything.
There are hints that even greater powers exist beyond what is known by mortals, such as Ao. Such soliphisist deities would presumably require no worshippers.
Bah! Gods save us from monothesim and the ill-conceived notions that it wrought. And if they do, I'll save up for a goat or cow for them.
Gods needing worshippers to exist is pretty much a post-modern concept that doesn't really fit well with me in the context of a mythology-based fantasy game. What the gods should remind the players is that there will always be something greater than them in the game's mileu, and that the universe doesn't actually revolve around the PCs. Quite humbling to think about, really.
You need to separate the mythology from the metaphysics. Unless it directly affects the PCs somehow, it doesn't really matter if the gods the PCs worship could survive without that belief or not. The PCs will most likely believe that the gods would, as that's how the mythology was written (whether from the perspective of believers or the gods themselves). Keep in mind though that mythology is always heavily biased; ancient (or modern!) Earth mythology (and theology?) is no exception. There's no reason for the gods to admit to being dependent on belief, regardless of whether that is the case or not.
As long as the PCs beliefs are humbling, it doesn't matter if they're actually right or not. The players themselves shouldn't need that be-humbling, so you can think whatever you want about the world and the gods, since you believe in a force far greater than your character anyway: the omnipotent DM. And as far as the players are concerned, the world does revolve around their characters... it would be a pretty boring game otherwise.
Gods needing worshippers to exist is pretty much a post-modern concept that doesn't really fit well with me in the context of a mythology-based fantasy game. What the gods should remind the players is that there will always be something greater than them in the game's mileu, and that the universe doesn't actually revolve around the PCs. Quite humbling to think about, really.
I don't know about "post-modern", but you're right, it is an idea that doesn't quite gel with traditional fantasy. However the Planescape setting is far from traditional. These kind of unexpected and strange subversions on traditional fantasy fit perfectly well into the setting. The "belief is power" concept is just one of the many things that define Planescape's uniqueness.
Also I'm not sure that it's fair to say that explaining how Deities work necessarily makes them appear any less powerful. I know the mechanisms by which the UN Secretary General is selected, but that wouldn't make it any easier for me to take over the world :P. And it should also be remembered that Deities aren't the only powerful things in the multiverse for the PCs to tangle with. There's always someone/something out there that's bigger and meaner. If the PCs think deities are humbling, wait till they hear about the Blood War...
-If it was up to me, "belief shapes the multiverse" goes as far as reshaping the past, to the point that a creator deity, may actually become one; if the worshipers beleive in it enough to change that particular part of cosmic history.
-If you want to keep your games cannonical, keep with this. "the mingling of the elements create the ethereal, out of ethereal worlds and their inhabitants are born, the thoughts and imaginations of the thinkers create astral, and in astral thoughts congregate to form heavens hells and gods."
side note: in another game too I read the concept of monad (or demiurge if you like) rewriting history to reduce other gods to mere fairy tales. I don't remember the name but it's philosohical depth was astounding.
side note: in another game too I read the concept of monad (or demiurge if you like) rewriting history to reduce other gods to mere fairy tales. I don't remember the name but it's philosohical depth was astounding.
You may be talking about Steve Jackson Games' In Nomine, where the notion that God was an upstart tribal deity that took over a portion of the celestial realm and rewrote history is called the Ethereal Heresy ("Ethereal" having a different meaning there, being spirits that are between humans and angels/demons). Naturally, it's the angels that call it heresy. ;^)
I miss them..
p.s.: three pages and not a single thread hijack attempt??? what kind of a forum is this? :raincloud
No it's this way! <--------
STFU! It's clearly offsite.
NO U
ANGRY! All the time!
Love Can Bloom!
[USER WAS MAZED FOR THIS POST]
In the real world, it used to be common practice to make sacrifices to the gods. Why do you think that was? It couldn't be to nourish them, feed them power, could it? Nah, of course not. Gods are omnipotent and only interact with humans out of an omnibenevolent nature, or a desire to feed their own egos, right?
I don't know where 'omnibenevolence' comes in, but sacrifice was a function of atonement, usually to spare the followers from the wrath of natural disasters which they percieved to be manifestations of the god's fickle anger. To make sure they had enough, for instance, the Aztecs would sanction mass human sacrifices to win the favor of their deities. Children were sometimes mutilated to ensure tears would flow, which was a good omen from the rain god Tlaloc. Now was Cortes motivated to conquer the Aztecs as a Christian man, or merely a moral man? He succeeded primarily because he had help; the Aztecs were despised by their neighbors.
Bah! Gods save us from monothesim and the ill-conceived notions that it wrought. And if they do, I'll save up for a goat or cow for them.
The mass murderers of today have nothing on the (pollytheistic) ancients. None of the major monotheistic religions have required sacrifices for thousands of years, and I think civilization has fared better since.
I don't know where 'omnibenevolence' comes in, but sacrifice was a function of atonement, usually to spare the followers from the wrath of natural disasters which they percieved to be manifestations of the god's fickle anger.
This was one function of sacrifice (propitiatory) but there have been many others in the history of religion. Sacrifices were performed in gratitude (Pythagoras was said to have sacrificed a bull upon his discovery of the proof of the theorem that bears his name), as bribes (pre-battle sacrifices, chthonic fertility rites), and as bait (Houngans in the various voodoun traditions use offerings of liquor, chocolate, etc. to attract spirits who enjoy the offerings). Sacrificing an animal to perform extispicy upon its entrails was strictly a matter of payment for services rendered.
Some sacrificial offerings can become quite complex. Cannibalistic ritual sacrifice invokes magical principles of sympathy and contagion; I have heard of one Roman practice whereby an officer ritually sacrificed himself before battle, in order to strengthen his unit; if he fell the gods had taken their due, and if he survived the gods had deemed his devotion sufficient.
Limiting the notion of sacrifices to strictly propitiatory ones cuts out a lot of interesting flavor from real-world religion. :^) (Also, using a broader palette gives an interesting peek into the theology of Erythnul and his priests; when the entire religion is built on the notion of slaughter, every aspect of existence can be rationalized as some form of sacrifice.)
Now was Cortes motivated to conquer the Aztecs as a Christian man, or merely a moral man?
Neither; it was because he was a venal man. For the conquistadors, when it came to God, glory and gold, despite the ordering in English, God came in a distant third.
The mass murderers of today have nothing on the (polytheistic) ancients. None of the major monotheistic religions have required sacrifices for thousands of years, and I think civilization has fared better since.
The hajj today involves the largest systematic sacrifice in the world. Every one of the million or so pilgrims each year has a sheep slaughtered in his or her name (though groups can divvy up a camel) and the meat is later distributed to the poor. Aspects of sacrificial traditions can also be seen in the religious concepts of tithing, zakat, fasting of various sorts, and Lent.
The Lady's a mystery. She's not a power, or an overpower, or any category we recognize. We're pretty sure (though not absolutely sure) that she's the one who killed Aoskar, but it's not known if she could repeat that feat on short notice.
...
Frankly, "the overpower of Sigil" is the most boring possible answer, which is why it fills me with loathing.
Slightly OT: From what I can surmise, The Lady isn't anything. Her power is pure inertia - anyone disrupting the balance of Sigil is taken care of, and she is the manifestation of that. She is the fulcrum on which Sigil stands, and nothing can topple her, only tip the balance slightly until she brings it back to equalibrium. She has enough power to neutralise the threat and no more. I wrote a post about it a while ago, but I forget where. This is why she can destroy deities and powers, and why she shuns worshippers. Worshippers topple the balance by affecting her directly, pushing her into the realms of deityhood, and real existance (The Lady is unstatted, and cannot be statted no matter what - she isn't Lawful Evil, or even True Neutral. She transcends alignment, and any spell useed to find anything mechanical about her (imo) should fail)
The last part can only be proven if Planescape gods derive power from their worshippers. Which they can, as it's in a PS book. In terms of D&D, I think of it like this:
"If love gives a +2 circumstance bonus to a roll, think of what a million fanatics can do!"
Slightly OT: From what I can surmise, The Lady isn't anything. Her power is pure inertia - anyone disrupting the balance of Sigil is taken care of, and she is the manifestation of that. She is the fulcrum on which Sigil stands, and nothing can topple her, only tip the balance slightly until she brings it back to equalibrium. She has enough power to neutralise the threat and no more.
Any why would it be a "threat" if it can't topple her?I wrote a post about it a while ago, but I forget where. This is why she can destroy deities and powers, and why she shuns worshippers. Worshippers topple the balance by affecting her directly, pushing her into the realms of deityhood, and real existance (The Lady is unstatted, and cannot be statted no matter what - she isn't Lawful Evil, or even True Neutral. She transcends alignment, and any spell useed to find anything mechanical about her (imo) should fail)
Again, it does seem like there is a possibility of something happening if they worship her, does seem like it's a threat. And wasn't it said Vecna did almost overthrow her which would have rearranged the multiverse, that she is vulnerable somehow. I lot of this is conjecture it seems.
And do you know what's even weirder about that faction? They've failed to define what exactly "real deities" should be. They seem to have forgotten what multiverse they inhabit. Gods in the old mythologies were extremely powerful, but they were still often thought of as beings with physical bodies who inhabited the world (i.e. Poseidon was thought to live in the ocean, Zeus was thought to live at the top of Mt. Olympus). The idea of a transcendant, omnipotent God is really a Judeao-Christian concept that doesn't have much applicability to the quasi-pagan pantheon of the D&D multiverse. In short, I've always felt the Athar's arguments are pointless, and their faction really has no place in the D&D game.
Actually, yes, they have defined what a real deity should be, that shouldn't have any dependencies whatsoever, not on worshippers, not on their power, no limits at all, at least not to what they are gods of. I disagree that they have no place, if belief is power in Planescape
__________________
The hajj today involves the largest systematic sacrifice in the world. Every one of the million or so pilgrims each year has a sheep slaughtered in his or her name (though groups can divvy up a camel) and the meat is later distributed to the poor. Aspects of sacrificial traditions can also be seen in the religious concepts of tithing, zakat, fasting of various sorts, and Lent.
I remember seeing an episode of picket fences where there was an animal sacrifice of a goat with a sword in a place of worship, not sure what religion, maybe christianity, or judaism, not islam though. The judge ruled that he couldn't disallow it because most of the men in the town hunted, and killed animals for other reasons.
Sometimes enormous animal sacrifices were made if what the old testament says is true in 2 Chronicles 7:5 Solomon kills more than a hundred thousand animals to dedicate his temple to God which would be agricultural disaster.
What do you think of this? I'm trying not to be a hypocrite, I'm not a PETA member and I've never hunted, but I do eat lamb and other meats, I certainly wouldn't want to watch a sacrifice though, seems sick doing it for a religious purpose, and to me any religion like that is sick too.
Sometimes enormous animal sacrifices were made if what the old testament says is true in 2 Chronicles 7:5 Solomon kills more than a hundred thousand animals to dedicate his temple to God which would be agricultural disaster.
A lot of numbers like that come up in the Bible. I don't think they should be taken at all seriously.
What do you think of this? I'm trying not to be a hypocrite, I'm not a PETA member and I've never hunted, but I do eat lamb and other meats, I certainly wouldn't want to watch a sacrifice though, seems sick doing it for a religious purpose, and to me any religion like that is sick too.
If you eat meat but don't care to watch the butchering being done, you simply have the traditional civilized carnivore's dilemma. Perfectly natural. :^)
The hygienic and pain-ameliorative properties of various sacrificial rituals in real-world religions have varied, but generally sacrifices weren't done with the intent to cause pain. A torture-sacrifice would be a very dark and evil practice indeed, in which the god fed on the pain and fear of the victim rather than its flesh.
More relevant to the core of all of them is the choice by the worshiper to destroy or forego the use of some resources. From a strictly materialist anthropological point of view, it can be thought of as a form of conspicuous consumption: if you have had a very good year and have a cow that you can waste without gaining any physical benefit from it, killing it publically makes an impressive display. A Native American potlach or a Norse lord's gift of rings serves a similar function. Though these aren't typically considered sacrifices since the recipients of the largess are human rather than deific, they are conceptually kin, and indeed tithing and zakat are elevated to religious practice.
I mean, if gods have roughly the same power levels, or even varying power levels (that is, each god has different limits on what they can do, but not how many times they can) but it doesn't deplete their power (say they don't have to rest or there's no delay to do it again) to cause a continent-wide 10.0 earthquake, throw dinosaur-killer asteroids over and over as many times as they wish, have the ability to will ever mortal dead with a thought, then what's to stop the world from being their personal plaything, an how will mortals ever survive?
It's said absolute power corrupts absolutely, I know this isn't absolutely true, there have been situations where people had tremendous power and didn't abuse it, but more often than not they do, the only thing to stop them would be their own powers of restraint.
Something else confused me also. In the 2E Monster Mythology book, it's said greater gods can kill and resurrect mortals at will. Correlon and Grummush are both greater gods, so if Grummsh willed an elf dead, Correlon could instantly resurrect him, if this is the case, how can any god gain any ground at all? I mean if they can resurrect mortals no matter how are they killed, by their avatars, by other mortals, by any other means.
So, why have the elves wage a war against orcs, or the other way around, if one of those greater gods can simply will them alive again, it's not even worth the effort, unless there is some means by which they can't be resurrected.
The in-game answer to your question is multifold. First, gods do have limited amounts of resources (as you point out, the game limits these basically by number of believers), and they wish to spend them efficiently. They can't do everything, and it's possible that killing a loyal worshiper of another god is something they can't do on a whim. Perhaps this sort of divine protection is one of the gods' duties with respect to their flocks, and the more useful the killing, the more likely Corellon is to be paying that sort of attention to the worshiper.
It's also reasonable to assume that for Gruumsh, personally killing a loyal worshiper of Corellon Larethian is going to take more energy than it takes for Corellon to personally resurrect him -- or, since from Corellon's point of view the worshiper just becomes a petitioner, it might not damage his overall resources at all, allowing Corellon instead to use a similar amount of energy for a strike against Gruumsh's interests elsewhere. Alternatively, even if it took the same amount of energy for Corellon to respond, if the killing/resurrection was going to end up zero-sum, why waste the time doing it in the first place? Time is itself a resource.
Secondly, the powers of Balance don't like direct interventions by gods, and can be assumed to be attempting to prevent these. St. Cuthbert's recent writeup in Dragon mentions that Cuthbert likes to take a personal hand in battles via his avatar, but it's hypothesized that him doing so allows evil a chance to intervene directly at a later time. (And if Evil gets that chance, you can bet it will be trying something hidden, where Good can't effectively respond until it has taken root.)
In summary, should your players ever ask why the gods aren't doing something about this themselves, wave your hands and talk about preserving the cosmic balance, the vital role mortals play in the Grand Design, the faithful needing to prove worthy of their rewards, etc.
I think that if most people on the prime(and anywhere else) believe that gods as beings exist then that is enough for them to exist. If, for example, most of the people decided that gods didn't exist then they would stop existing.
Also I believe that the strength of belief is also important. If you have a lot of devoted followers then you will have more power as a god. So even if half the material plane believes that some "Pelor" dude exists somewhere, he would still need some more devoted followers to flesh him out.
Another part would be the god's belief in himself. Once he is created he can believe in himself and if that is strong enough then he might be able to exist without followers in a dormant state.
So if people on the Prime Material believe that there is some kind of hell then that is enough for the lower planes to exist, they don't have to worship them, just acknowledge their existence.
Some DM's think they should require them, some don't. Not sure what I'd choose, but what do you think?
AD&D was the first taste of this concept of requiring them I read. I never read a Greek/Egyptian/real world mythology book that said gods required worshippers.
I don't have the source anymore but I rememeber reading somewhere about a concept very similar in Egyption mythology.
Apep the enemy of Ra was always drawn with another god destroying him in the picture. From what I remember the Egyptions believed that by not showing Apep being destroyed they were empowering it so that each time they had to make a picture of it they had to include other gods destroying it so that the gods could continue destroying it.
They had entire rituals that were basically prayers to give the gods more power so that they could continune to constrantly kill Apep.
The concept is rare but it has appeared in some form in at least Egyption mytholoy.
Really I guess it depends on did the gods create the person or the person and the soul. If they just created the person and the souls came from somewhere else then its probably reasonable to believe that they get some kind of benifit.