The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games

[M. J. Young]

I've read good things about 7th Sea's treatment of religion. Thanks for sticking to your guns on that, John.

Multiverser takes a belief in magic to be inherently religious. It doesn't require any specific sort of religious belief but this: the belief that there is indeed supernatural power, some sort of force or energy which is tapped from beyond the universe. It does, however, distinguish between "holy magic" and "arcane magic".

The idea of "holy magic" is that the practitioner is specifically petitioning some supernatural persona to act on his behalf. Although most people immediately think God or gods (and most players play it that way), it equally applies to demons, djinn, dryads, and any other spirit creatures who might be petitioned by prayer or ritual to act on behalf of the character.

"Arcane magic" takes the view that there is some sort of "free energy" in the supernatural realm. Whether you think it something like the stuff of which that realm is made, or stray energy radiated from its inhabitants, or some other concept, the idea remains that the character is drawing energy directly rather than through the intermediacy of a spirit creature. This is still religious, in the sense that the practitioner must believe in the existence of a supernatural realm from which the power is drawn; but it does not require any specific connection to that realm and doesn't oblige the character to some personage who provided the power. Many characters use both holy and arcane magic; some appeal to more than one spiritual being for power.

Because the belief in the supernatural is a specifically religious belief, atheists and agnostics are barred from using magic of any sort. If they don't believe the power is there, they can't have the expectation necessary to tap it, no matter what they do to attempt to do so. This is balanced by a second factor, that if magic is used directly against them they are to some degree protected to the degree that they disbelieve it (a "religion" type score equivalent to the faith others have in the spirits who provide their holy magic).

Lon raises the issue of those who believe in magic which is not supernatural in origin. C. S. Lewis warned of the dawn of the "materialist magician" who could tap magic without believing in it. Some would insist that such persons are confused regarding the source of their own power; but Multiverser doesn't treat it so. Rather, the answer the game gives would derive from the sort of descriptions Lon gives for the source of the power.

Magick is a non-sentient force, and the "spirits" and "gods" are a psychological prop magicians use to manipulate that force.

Which suggests that the practitioner does believe in supernatural force, but not in specific persons in the supernatural realm; it is thus a religious belief supporting the use of arcane magic.

or:

Magick is a discipline by which unconscious talents and aspects of personality are brought out in the magician, in ways that can be used consciously.

Which states that the source of the power is within the user himself, and not in some supernatural realm; it is thus, under Multiverser rules, psionics and not magic, the power of the soul of the individual. Rituals in this case are merely means of focusing concentration to tap those powers, and the person is actually an atheist who uses something like magic but believes magic itself does not exist (as defined, even if he uses the word for what it is he does). It is much the same as the stage magician who calls his work magic even while he knows it is scientific illusion, not supernatural at all.

I suppose in the end there are different levels of religious belief. One of my current players has expressed his belief that "there is something out there, but I have no idea what it is". That would be sufficient for the character to learn magic under the game rules, although if he wanted to do holy magic he would probably have to decide what is out there.

--M. J. Young

Edit: It seems I've cross-posted with John; first time I've done that here, to the best of my knowledge. He seems to have hit pretty much the same points as I, considerably more cogently.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Simon,

Nice to be able to chat with you.

Course the main "problem" here, I think, is the belief that role-playing games are supposed to "treat religion in a way" that is anything other than a *game* scenario.  Viz. in a Fantasy game you have a Cleric, who uses "magic" with the "deity" whose tenents they must obey being the justification for the "how and why" that they are able to cast spells.

Actually that pretty much sums up Priests and Clerics.  They are merely magic users who must obey strict rules.  That is what alignment was really for.  It had no real bearing on other characters, except for Holy Warrior-Paladins and games based on a Moorcockian universe.

Given the very close relationship, to the point of common orrigin, between religious beliefs and magical theory in the real world I think you have this back to front. Magicians are merely lay people using theological lore outside the context of a religious institution.

It actually depends largely upon how you look at the developmental stages of religion (organized) verses religion (primitive practice).  Once you get into the realm of institutions there are rules laid down for how things are done.  Of course most of us, and perhaps even the clergy, have no idea why things are how they are.

But let us consider what would happen if the world suffered, God forbide, some terrible calamity.  It now falls to you to impart all your knowledge to the next generation.  Let us say you live in a rural area, thus gardening and farming skills may be part of your basic knowledge which you wish to impart.  Now, we all of us who have yards have foibles about how we water things.  Maybe we hve little garden gnomes, turtles, frogs, or what not in our garden.  Just decoration?

Not necessarily.  If you have a garden that does not have a lot of organic material (viz. high sand content) you may choose to use your water bucket by pouring onto a stone, leaves, or one of those previously mentioned garden ornaments.  Now you know you are just doing it to dispers the water more evenly.

Would a young child understand this?


Children learn by observation.  Things that are done, especially repetitive tasks, our foibles, can be passed on as traditions.  Thus what might a child two or three generations down the line make of this?

"Momma does it cuz grandma did it, and grandma... ??"

We have just outlined a possible tradition that, if overlayed with supertition could, concievably, a few years down the line merge into a religious practice.  Sort of a "propitiating the nature spirits" kinda thing, maybe?

Think about it for a minute.

Regarding you point on religion in Monopoly. If you play roleplaying games from a purely gamist stance, treating your characters as simple playing pieces with no characterised personality beyond your own, then that's a perfectly fair point. What you're missing is that many of us at least occasionaly explore the personality and motivations of our characters.

A gamist approach to playing a game based on Lord of the Rings might
be to have Gandalf take the ring to mount doom on the back of
Throdor (the giant eagle) and risk failing the saving thows to avoid
temptation by the ring along the way. A roleplaying approach taking into
account the character's personality almost certainly wouldn't choose
this approach, as it's contrary to the kindly old wizard's ethical
beliefs. If the ethical choices of our characters have a place in gaming,
then so do the religious convictions of our characters, just as much as
their political ideals might.

How one chooses to "roleplay" a character has little to do with the rules of play governing how that character is designed to operate, save that the rules of play will outline specific modes of play allowed within the established game environment.

Of course when talking about ethics, in relation to role-playing a set and specific persona, when playing a Cleric that sort of thing should (and indeed I would venture to say must) be established up-front in order to play such a character.  That is what makes them a Cleric.  For most games the Wizard is just sort of... there.  Any ethical considerations which the character may have are presumed to stem from the foibles of the player as they play their character.  Thus, for some, this represents a open opportunity to play the character however they see fit.

That should not be the case with a Cleric.  If I am playing a Hierorphant or Priestess of Athena then I would not expect to have access to any (special) electrical based spells... though maybe a loud and awe inspiring rabble rouser might do.  (viz. the affects of the Aegis.)

By the same token I would not expect a Priestess of Aphrodite to be exactly the same as a Priestess of Astarte, even though the basic template of the deity would be silimarl.  There are more than just cultural differences between the two.

Yet a mage is but a mage.  The most you can do with them is seperate them into basic archetypes like: Wizard, Sorceror, Enchanter, Necromancer, and etcetera.  Alignment rules really did not apply to them, not in the strictest sense, since they really came with no ethical package.  (Not even the Necromancer did, really.  Though that is debateable.)  It's really all a question of approach, more or less, don't you think?

As for Gandalf *evil smile*...

[Semi Amusing Ramble]
One could argue that the point was not so much the destruction of the ring (though the breaking of the circle is very symbolic of the end of a cycle) but rather that the ring, being invested with the will and essence of Sauron, was designed to create just such an end.  What Sauron could not possess in life he would destroy in death, thus the destruction of the ring, while destroying Sauron, was no true victory as the only way to win would be to reforge the ring (thus gaining power over the will and essence imbued within it) but... then again, there is that subtle hint of the fight against the "All Seeing Eye" and conspiracy theorists all know how futile that fight is.  ;)
[/Semi Amusing Ramble]


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


Eidted because I forgot to capitalize important word.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings John,

Lots of fascinating posts to read in this read today.

And, to cap it all off, I still don't see any reason for "clerics" and "wizards." Every magic system in the history of man has been based on faith in a supernatural power (there has never been an "athiest magic system"). In my mind, wizards and clerics are one and the same.

I'll let you in on a secret (shhhh) which few of us seem to realize, or at least remember...

We live in a post-Cateclysm, post-Apocalypse (sort of) world.

Yes, that's right boys and girls.  It may not be a world like those envisioned in Gamma World, Twilight 2000, or Fallout but if you've read Plato (and who here hasn't?) then you know what I am talking about.  It's one of those 'cyclical' things.  Even Eastern philosophical texts talk about the cyclical nature of civilization, and how each thinks they *alone* are the pinnacle of existance.

Don't believe me?

There are ruins of past civilizations dotting the entire surface of our humble globe.  From Stonehenge to the Pyramids, the White Pyramids of China to the Pyramids of the Moon and Sun in South America, to say nothing of the civilizations mentioned in the Mahabharata.

My point?

Wizards vs. Clerics.

Clerics are really the epitomy of the medeival (read post Roman Catholic Church) archetype of what a medieval Priest should be.  Pious, subservient to their deity, et al.  The Wizard is a throwback, someone with the *esoteric* knowledge of the "before time".  They know... things and stuff.  Whereas the Priest doesn't need to know anything, save how to call upon the aide of their Deity (or a representative thereof).  At least as presented in many a old FRPG, yes?

Anyone have a game that presents these character archetypes together, but in a different light?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

A lot of interesting posts.   Yet most speak to the treatment of relgious institutions within the context of a game environment, not so much the issues of game mechanics.  (viz. the actual crunching bits about running of religions or Priest characters.)  To me a good write up is always a plus for a game, not merely fluff, even if some may feel that it is.

So let me pose another brain teaser for your entertainment.

Since some are of the opinion that magic in inherent to *belief* in some preternatural force, be it a Deity or no, then I wonder why religion isn't a issue in Super Hero games.  Most, if not all, create the exact sort of preternatural affects which Wizards and Clerics are able to perform, within a game environment.  Yet, somehow, such games remain all but divorced for the sorts of debates which rage about Wizards and Clerics in relation to religion.

Why is that?

(No atheist magic indeed!  *wink*)

Games like Gamma World also managed to all but skirt this issue by making their Mutants seem more like superheros in a post-holocaust setting.  Again, funny how using the word superhero seems to diffuse these questions before they really get sparked.

Of course there is a difference.  In superhero games and post-holocaust games with superhuman characters these are considered abilities.  No lists of effects to memorize or skills, your character has certain innate abilities.  Yet is that not also what magic is to a Wizard?

I guess that would depend upon the system, wouldn't it!

After all the system, the actual game mechanics, those wonderful "rules of play" create the flavor of the game environment as much as the narrative write-ups help us envision the game world.

Still, I can't help but wonder if perhaps some of the arguements and debates some gamers have might not stem from some other source closer to home.

After all a game is just a game, even if it simulates a entire world environment, populated with diverse peoples and cultures, right?

Even so Religion is a rather touchy subject, to be sure.  Perhaps more so for some than others.  But does having a game allowing players to have a Cleric or Magic-User trivialize religion, as some might think?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


edited for clarity

[contracycle]

What I feel is missing from the portrayal of religion is wisdom.  Religious institutions are the locus of research, speculation about the world we inhabit; quite a lot of this data is useful if, as Kester pointed out, not well articulated and comprehended in its own right.  In RP, religion is either Useful or Not... it is not explicatory.  This is partly because worlds are seldom re-drawn to challenge our conventional thinking about how the world is composed - I am always amused to see fantasy worlds with gods and magic which are themselves spherical, in space, and in solar orbit.  Thus there is very little for the player to understand about the world; indeed the player understands the world better than the characters could possibly hope (see arguments about relativity in TROS forums).  The net result is that religion can only act as a material resource in the game world; it cannot and does not act to explain and church people are not revered for wisdom or insight.

There are exceptions, but I feel this is the general case.

[Alan]

Clerics [in most RPGs] are really the epitomy of the medeival (read post Roman Catholic Church) archetype of what a medieval Priest should be.  Pious, subservient to their deity, et al.  The Wizard is a throwback, someone with the *esoteric* knowledge of the "before time".  They know... things and stuff.  Whereas the Priest doesn't need to know anything, save how to call upon the aide of their Deity

You're right that most RPGs base their religious magic workers on the midievil Christian model.  But I think that "magic" workers throughout history have believed in two ways to gain power: piety and gnosticism (having a relationiship with the supernatural, and having special knowledge.)  Midievil Roman Catholocism just discarded the second one and required that all miraculous power must be the result of a relationship to god or the devil.

The word "gnosticism" means, roughly, "the practice of knowledge" and was coined to name a loose mystic movement among early Christians who believed that special knowledge gave special power.  It was an extension of the pagan mystery cults.

Piety comes from latin and referred to a worshipper's reverence for his ancestors and the gods.  Good relationships with these being brought blessings and powers.

Religious figures in pre-christian cultures used a combination of both to invoke "magic".  (I've read some material written in the late middle ages where the magician is instructed to pray for purity as preparation to spellcasting.)  During the Christian era, this practice went largely underground, though it rears its head from time to time.  Humans like the idea of special knowledge giving special power.

BTW Kester, did you know that Pelagius was a 4th century British heretic?  I recall he preached a personal relationship to god and the bishops didn't like being cut out of the loop.

[Mike Holmes]

BTW Kester, did you know that Pelagius was a 4th century British heretic?  I recall he preached a personal relationship to god and the bishops didn't like being cut out of the loop.

Interestingly, I think he was canonized. Oh, and culturally a Celt, IIRC. Coulda been somewhat Romano/British, I suppose (obviously, religiously speaking he was).


Anyway, to get back to my previous point, I think all you have to do is acknowledge that Atheism is itself a faith, and it all makes sense. Yes, John, I don't believe in magic precisely because I haven't seen it. I have faith in a rational world. Please don't belittle my beliefs, and I'll not belittle yours. ;-)

My point is that these are fantasy games, and we can fantasize about whatever we like. I don't need any real world examples at all, if I don't want to go that way. That's the advantage to fantasy.

OTOH, if you don't like such a treatment of magic, well, that I can't argue against. But that just makes it a personal preference, bearing no weight a priori. Each individual designer will have to decide if it makes sense to have an Atheist magic for themselves. Our resident Theologist seems o think it's viable...

As for Impersonal, Sentient forces that one can control, um, electricity? You are aware that there are those who believe that such forces are, in fact, supernatural, and that the scentists who manipulate such forces are just priests of beings that control these forces. Again, it's all a matter of perspective.

I could get further into arguments about whether it's possible to create an objective god in an RPG from a character's POV (I don't think it is possible). But that's just starting into my own opinion. Which was not my point. I just wanted to say that I feel there's really no "proper way" to approach magic and religion. Only ones that will satisfy our individual preferences more. And those preferences obviously differ in some particulars.

Mike

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Alan,

First time chatting with you?

Well, here's hoping our civil discourse does not accidentally lead to the corruption of the less informed by opening their eyes...  *wink*

You're right that most RPGs base their religious magic workers on the midievil Christian model.  But I think that "magic" workers throughout history have believed in two ways to gain power: piety and gnosticism (having a relationiship with the supernatural, and having special knowledge.)  Midievil Roman Catholocism just discarded the second one and required that all miraculous power must be the result of a relationship to god or the devil.

Actually that would probably be better distilled into "faith and spirituality" or "theism and theurgy", don't you think?

Gnosticism is more properly a proto-Christian movement rooted in the teachings of the early 1st to 2nd centuries B.C. that saw expression, or at least was labeled as such by the Church, in various heretical movements such as the Cathari.

The word "gnosticism" means, roughly, "the practice of knowledge" and was coined to name a loose mystic movement among early Christians who believed that special knowledge gave special power.  It was an extension of the pagan mystery cults.

Not wishing to quibble or appear to be attempting to slap your hands here but, alas, one must do what one must do...

"Gnostic" simply means "knowledge"

"Gnosticism" (when one uses the -ism) simply refers to the religious movements bearing the label/name of... well... Gnosticism.  Alas there were actually quite a few movements (even Mandeanism) labeled as being Gnostic "heresies", though many had no direct links to the historical gnostic movements of the early 1st-2nd centuries mentioned above.

addendum  I actually had one, but things hickupped on my end.  So much for attempts to clarify.  *laughs*  If I remember I'll let you know.  Until then, if you don't already have it, look for a copy of Frazer's Godlen Bough.  You can find a TXT version at Gutenberg and a few other flavors at BlackMask, among other things.  Good luck with your game designs!

Religious figures in pre-christian cultures used a combination of both to invoke "magic".  (I've read some material written in the late middle ages where the magician is instructed to pray for purity as preparation to spellcasting.)  During the Christian era, this practice went largely underground, though it rears its head from time to time.  Humans like the idea of special knowledge giving special power.

Yet, for all that, isn't it amazing how most RPGs distill the Cleric down into little more than a spellcaster with healing magic?

I mean, honestly, there is rich and vibrant real world tapestry of historical background to draw upon.  Ss how is it that the Priest character became a wound tending medic able to Turn Undead, in some games???

BTW Kester, did you know that Pelagius was a 4th century British heretic?  I recall he preached a personal relationship to god and the bishops didn't like being cut out of the loop.

Since you asked so nicely... Yes, I was peripherally aware of the fact.  I did a quick search to try and find the links I originally stumbled on, only found one.  But for those who are wondering what we are talking about, and who may want a few decent sites to do research into their game's religious orders, I offer you the following:

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopdeia article on Pelagius and Pelagianism.

Here's the Mystica article on Pelagius.

Another interesting article about Pelagius.

There might also be a few links in the Forge's Resource Library, if let me know and I'll add half a dozen links to core texts for the game developers out there in need.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Mike,

Do you ever look out your window and realize, hey, this already *is* a Mad Max kinda world?

I mean we have the intelligent mutant squirrels and people road raging all over the place.  Sad, really, then again it could be worse.

My point is that these are fantasy games, and we can fantasize about whatever we like. I don't need any real world examples at all...

....I feel there's really no "proper way" to approach magic and religion. Only ones that will satisfy our individual preferences more. And those preferences obviously differ in some particulars.

Ah, and that's the sticky wickett isn't it.

Personally I'd say that it is not the responsibility of a game designer to represent real world religion in any wise.  However, what it is the responsibility of the game designer to do, is present the world they have chosen in as playable a format as possible.

For pure fantasy games this means at least taking the time to do basic research, even if that means checking out a copy of Hamilton's or Bulfinch's mythology books.  (Though Graves would be better.)  As for religion, at the most basic game mechanics level, all that is really needed is a simple expression of how it works.

Of course in order to present such a mechanic one has to do research, real research, into real religions past and present.

Very sticky ewok, er, wicket.  *smiles*

OTOH, if you don't like such a treatment of magic, well, that I can't argue against. But that just makes it a personal preference, bearing no weight a priori. Each individual designer will have to decide if it makes sense to have an Atheist magic for themselves. Our resident Theologist seems o think it's viable...

We have a resident Theologist?

And which of our fabu moderators might that be, if I dare ask.

As to the "Atheist" magic thing I'd say... magic is magic.  First define the effects, in terms of game mechanics, then worry about the why's and whatfore's.  *wink*

As for Impersonal, Sentient forces that one can control, um, electricity? You are aware that there are those who believe that such forces are, in fact, supernatural, and that the scentists who manipulate such forces are just priests of beings that control these forces. Again, it's all a matter of perspective.

Exactly!

Which is why, in some post-apocalyptic fiction and RPGs, there are "Techno-Wizards", "Techno-Shamens", and even *gasp* "Techno-Priests".  Amazing how that works out, isn't it?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Uncle Dark]

John,

It didn't sound antagonistic to me, just a little dogmatic.  As to whether or not focusing will is magick, it seems you and Aliester Crowley (and I) would disagree.

But on to game mechanics...

It seems to me that religion plays three roles in a game:

1) a source of supernatural power
2) a way to link a character to a society, via contacts, special skills, advantages/disadvantages and so on
3) to give context and motivation to a character's actions

Most games seem to focus on 1, giving the other two some notice in passing.  I think 2 is the most neglected.

Note, however, that 2 and 3 are not dependent on 1.  In a game where there is no supernatural power, religion can still play these roles.  Usually without modifying the mechanics of a game at all.

That this hasn't been written into non-fantasy settings more often seems to be due to one of two reasons; either the "religion is a myth we'll grow out of (in many SF settings)" assumption or "we don't want to offend any potential customers with our portrayal of religion," or both.

Lon

[Blake Hutchins]

Lon,

Thanks for the correction RE: Hermetic philosophy.  Much appreciated.  Obviously, I shall have to have to read more carefully next time.

John,

That abacus cleric does sound way effin' cool, especially with that kind of pulp/Gothic dialogue.  Reminds me of the True Reason stuff once bouncing through Ars Magica, but much, much better.

Everyone,

FWIW, I know in computer RPG design, clerics are typically cast as wielders of defensive magic and wizards as wielders of offensive magic.  It's an oversimplified, somewhat hidebound take, I think, but surprisingly entrenched and absolutely derived from the DnD classes.

Best,

Blake

[Seth L. Blumberg]

John--As for "atheist magic systems" in RP, have you ever read Bonewits's Authentic Thaumaturgy?

[greyorm]

Much Chaos Magick and certain forms of Magickal Qabalah and Ceremonial Magic are athiest.

Some, I would say, says the other occultist in the room.
The Qabalah is heavily rooted in Judaism, so much so, that even if you aren't Jewish or if you are an atheist, you are still left with the psychological trappings of a religion. So while you may recognize that the spirits and so forth are mere psychological construct to help focus the Will and free the conscious mind from modern, mundane limitations, you still have a religious aspect to it that is quite telling.

What I believe John means, if he's as up on his armchair occultism as I think he may be, is that no magical system in the world is bereft of any of these religious elements -- no matter what they are ultimately believed to be: real beings or internal mental constructs -- and no system arose from a non-religious void.

In ancient times, magicians and priests went hand in hand: they were one and the same (one factor for this being that a magician is studied and knowledgable; in times past, this was only true of the priests of a culture). Look at Babylonia and Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Objibwe or the Celts for specific examples. Hence magic and religion went hand in hand.

But, there are two problems with stating magic is religious because "belief in a supernatural power" is religious, or that calling on "the force of magick" is religious:

First, magick is not seen as supernatural by its practitioners. Magick is the natural ability of the mind (the Will) to affect the world at large.
Second, no studied practitioners will claim magick is a "force" or a "thing" or an "energy" as magick is a non-entity. Magick is a verb like run, swim, think, pee.

Much as there is no "thought energy" that must be believed in and embraced or drawn upon in order to think, there is no "magickal energy" that must be believed in and embraced or drawn upon in order to work magick, despite what you read in modern fantasy.

So, magick itself is not a religious act...that is, one of faith, because it is not perceived or performed as such (ie: you don't know what you're going to get). You want to walk or run, you walk or run. You want to work magick, magick happens...though it has ritual and ceremonial aspects to it, and functions in the realm of the psychological, much as religion does, they are ultimately two different beasts.

Religious institutions are the locus of research, speculation about the world we inhabit...This is partly because worlds are seldom re-drawn to challenge our conventional thinking about how the world is composed - I am always amused to see fantasy worlds with gods and magic which are themselves spherical, in space, and in solar orbit.

This is dead on, and one of the big problems I've had with most fantasy worlds for ages. It bothers me so much, in fact, that my current D&D campaign breaks this mold and specifically creates a mythic reality:

For example, there is an edge to the world, beyond which lies the shores of the afterlife, you only have to sail westward long enough.
There is no eastern edge of the world, it is a desert that goes on forever, over which the sun rises each morning (no, it can't be logically explained, and that's the point).
The sea is literally a vicious goddess, the shadow of a once-slain god.
The stars are servants and children of the sun, which can be called down to the world to serve wise magicians.

Additionally, the whole concept of mythic reality is bound up in the myths and religion of the main culture...all the above realities are straight from the religious texts and mythology of the main culture of the campaign.

Though they've already had the experience of saving a city from sinking into the Abyss, the great, empty void beneath the world where all the demons who fled at Creation hide, I'm not certain if my players believe the material I've sent to them about the world quite yet.

I think they are starting to realize that it isn't just like Earth with a funny hat on...and ultimately, I think it will challenge their assumptions enough that if they stumble upon some fact like "climbing the Mountain of Ur will bring you to the heavens, where you can walk among the star-spirits," their modern minds drenched in typical D&D won't immediately think "just a mountain, must be a portal or something to some outer plane" but may just believe that climbing the mountain will directly lead to the heavens, just like sailing west will lead you over the edge of the world or to the lands of the dead.

[Walt Freitag]

I'm surprised this discussion of fantasy magic and religion has proceeded so far without (unless I missed it) mention of what I thought was the most common fantasy-religion trope of all: the idea that gods are created and empowered entirely by the cumulative acts of worship performed by their believers. In a magic-saturated world, worship is a specific exercise of magic whose effect is to imbue power (and all the phenomena fueled by that power, such as sentience and moral identity) into the supernatural entity being worshipped. Thus, gods are objectively real and truly supernatural, but not necessarily mysterious. A god's individual action can be capricious, but overall, the deity's behavior must always be what the society of believers expects it to be.

This fits in nicely with role #2 on Lon's list. The god represents (metaphorically but also literally, inside the fantasy world) the cultural power of a society.

A cleric in such a fantasy world can be confident (even through direct observation) in the existence and power of the deities he worships. It's also reasonable that in most cases the cleric would believe in the deities' eternal-ness or existence independent from worshippers. Inside the fantasy world that would be an objective falsehood, but it would be difficult to observe, so gods would be perceived as powerful in their own right. At the same time, the cleric might have opportunity to observe that in a foreign land where some other religion is practiced, his gods lack power (except that which might be locally channeled through the cleric himself) over the society, or that ancient forgotten gods have little or no power.

Few modern real-world religions claim to have created their own gods nor that the continued existence of their gods depends on continuous worship. So fantasy religions based on this idea are at the same time distinct enough from real-world religions to be inoffensive to most, and consistent enough with the observable behavior of real-world religions to be plausible or at least not jarring. (For example, in the real world, in a head-on clash, the army whose gods have the most worshippers tends to win, though smaller groups can often prevail locally or when their worship is more fervent. And most real-world religions are rather insistent on serving and glorifying the deity through worship, even while vehemently denying that the deity, being already omnipotent, is in any way in need of such service.) This notion of how gods work is unfalsifiable in the real world, just as the existence of specific gods is. This makes depicting gods this way in fantasy reasonably comfortable, except for those who must regard even a fictional entertaining of such a notion as blasphemous.

- Walt

[Seth L. Blumberg]

...what I thought was the most common fantasy-religion trope of all: the idea that gods are created and empowered entirely by the cumulative acts of worship performed by their believers. In a magic-saturated world, worship is a specific exercise of magic whose effect is to imbue power (and all the phenomena fueled by that power, such as sentience and moral identity) into the supernatural entity being worshipped.

This view is not too far off from one that is well-represented in real-world practitioners of ceremonial magick: see Bonewits's Real Magic. Bonewits would disagree with you about whether gods are sentient or have a moral identity, however.