celtic mytholgy in RPGs

[madelf]

Sorry to no get back and try to steer this on course, Ron.
I posted in the middle of the night (my time) and didn't expect such as response so quickly.

My intent with this thread is to try and define (or at least guide) the way a pagan (celtic as an example) religion might be portrayed in a role-playing game (or at least the setting for such).
This would certainly require (I think)a good deal of preliminary discussion to pin down what constitutes a celtic/pagan religious "template" and it's potential effects on the society of the setting, before much of substance can be directed toward making that work in a role-playing form.

The discussions of whether it is appropriate to utilize a system where the worshippers influence the gods (whether or not they realize they do), whether or not pagan societies should have holy wars included in the game setting history, and similar discussion is spot on for what I had in mind. All of this can be applied directly to the development of a "realistic" religion for use in a fantasy game.

I can't really address individual comments yet as I've only skimmed through (and I'm supposed to be working), but I will look through these posts and I'm sure I can apply much of this discussion to the topic of roleplaying. Just give me a little time.

So, please don't close this down yet. I think this is a valuable thread, and may be more pertinate to the topic than you realize. Just try to bear with us a bit, it's difficult to discuss pagan religions in role-playing without discussing pagan religion and mythology.

[contracycle]

Gareth, when you say "it," what do you mean? Religion? Paganism? Morality? Or what?

Kinda religion and morality, seeing them as motivating factors to character action and properties of the story structure (and thus motivating factors to player action).

I think a great many of the problems with RPG magic is that magic is generally just a tool.  It is not revelatory, it does not contain Wisdom, it does not enlighten.  Quite naturally, it has no role to play other than the proverbial swiss army knife of problem solving, and worse, it often contradicts its social locus as specialised and significant insight by becoming workaday.

We tend to do magic as individual power, disconnected from enquiry into the nature of being or a social phenomenon.  In so doing it gets deconstructed to the point of essentially being a "modulate the shields" one-stop-shop plot device or a material resource to be husbanded.  Nominal solutions to this problem have often foundered on trying to add "mystery" parsed as "ignorance", making theology post-modernistically relative or magic mechanically bounded by a powerful whiff factor.  I'm not even sure that magic has much to with religion at all, anyway, but its often used to off-load or sidestep philosophical questions.  

What is to me missing is discussion of the contextual discussion about religion.  We sometimes get statements to the effect that brave warriors die and go to odins hall to wait for ragnarok but not about what that really means to the individual, how they think about it.  Perhaps something that set out to explore this could offer schools of thought on the matter and expect a character adopt an extant school or express a position of their own.  We sometimes get strong differentiation on matters of regional politics or inter-splat relations, but a sort of check-box tokenism when it comes to belief systems.  There is seldom material with which to explore significant philosophical differences from the inside.

I think lots of people notice and feel the lack for lots of different reasons.  The issue has come up sooner or later in every place I've seen RPG's discussed.  Theres a strong body of opinion that think it should be vigorously avoided, and I recognise the difficulty of even discussing it with out at least appearing to be polemical.  But where a game says that a culture believes in reincarnation it tells me very little, becuase it presuposes they and I share and understanding of what reincarnation really means and what it entails.  What is missing is discussion of the content of belief systems and the dialogues within them - without that religion is necessarily stale and flat and unimportant.

[ejh]

I seem to remember a book called _Stolen Lightning_ which was a sociological study of magic.  It explained (I don't know if this was unique to that book or a commonplace of sociology) that while religion, in a sociological context, articulates the nature and power of the society in supernatural terms, magic articulates the nature and power of the individual in supernatural terms.

This was a view that postulated magic and religion as opposing forces: magic supports the individual against the claims of the group, and religion supports the claims of the group against the individual.

From this point of view, the classic "give me power!" role-playing-game magic would be perfectly in character for magic.  And indeed, if one looks into historical magical texts, magical goals tend to be amazingly pratical and even selfish: love spells, thief-catching spells, spells to help you win a contest or win favor at court, and so on...

[madelf]

belief does change deity. Look at Athena, who was once a goddess of Sex and Battle (like the Celts' Morrígan) but changed into Wisdom.

That is an external analysis you have imposed. I don't believe anyone in the ancient world has ever believed this

Perhaps in a fantasy setting this might be true, however. Whether or not the people of the game world realize or believe in the concept of the worshipper affecting the god, if the people's worship had such an effect it might be an interesting twist.

While I would agree that historicaly pantheistic religions are very tolerant of foreign religons, I think you go too far. The Romans were very tolerant of foreign religions and indeed their empire would have been impossible to controll if the hadn't. Nevertheless they ruthlessly tragetted and suppressed the religion of the druids, and I'd have no problem characterising their root-and-branch military expeditions against the faith through Gaul and the british isles as a crusade.

I think either idea might be adaptable to a game setting, depending on other factors in the game.
If one assumes that a particular pantheon is "real" and that they are the only pantheon for the world, or region, then holy wars would be certainly be unknown, because their would be no opponent for them.
If one assumes that there are multiple pantheons and they're all real, then holy wars could become an even more frightening thing, as the gods themselves step in and do battle themselves, giving a whole new meaning to the term "holy war". This could be excellent for a war-torn apocalyptic setting.
Or instead perhaps this occurred long ago, and now the gods have called a truce and brought an enforced end to holy wars so that they don't inadvertently destroy the world (again?). This idea could work well in a post-apocalyptic setting.

In these places, philosophy and morality began to develop as part of an "atheistic" impulse

Society imposing morality separate from the religion? Now where have I heard that argument before....?
:)

Certainly that's true. But we're not talking about how worshippers perceived the Gods way back when - we're talking about the here and now, and particularly as it relates to fantasy religions.

Actually I'd like to think that there is room for both views. Looking at how the worshippers perceived the gods, we can then decide whether, and how much, we want to deviate from that.
Do we want to determine that the worshipper's perception is correct, and the god is what it is regardless of belief?
Or do we want to decide that the perception is only that, and the actual case is that the god is influenced (or perhaps even created) by the belief and desire of the worshipper?
The first is the way it is usually interpreted (in my experience at least), but I kind of like the latter concept myself. Especially when you consider the possible effect of an educated and intelligent, high-ranking priest discovering this fact and deciding to use the information to his own ends. With some patience and subtle manipulation of his flock, the gods themselves could be reshaped to suit the priest's desires. Plot hook anyone?

it was purely political opposition that spurred the Romans to target them.

I've often wondered how many of the holy wars were primarily political rather than religious in nature anyway. I suspect most, and probably all. After all organized religious entities have quite often been a powerful political force.

Gods came and went with the fortunes of cities.

This is another good argument in favor of having gods dependant on their followers. A "real" god that was a powerful force in its own right, wouldn't be so quick to disappear or fade away. On the other hand, a god who drew its strength from it's followers would disappear with its followers. This would be an excellent reason (beyond mere vanity) for a god in a fantasy world to desire, and actively recruit, followers.(This also works for the concept of "old gods" being awakened by a cult dredging up lost rituals. The new infusion of power brings the weakened god out of dormancy)  
If this is determined to be the case, it is a small step from the god being empowered by its followers to its nature being influenced by them.

Not a great deal, IMO. Theres not much info available about the Druidic organisation, if in fact there even really was such a thing (I think so, but some have doubts). But a question: why would we even expect a religion to provide moral instruction? I don't think thats what they are really there for; although they may pass on instruction which contains moral value incidentally. Celtic society was not marked so much by adherence to law in the first place as a regulated sequence of responses and reprisals after the law was broken. So I tend to see the Druidic function as more interested in Fair and True and Correct rather than in moral terms such as good and bad.

I think that actually is saying a great deal. In this setting I think conjecture is fine. We aren't dealing with an historic treatise on ancient celtic religion, we're just trying to pin down some semi-valid parameters on which to base a semi-realistic fantasy religion. So guess-work is ok, where hard facts fail.
In answer to the question, I don't think I really expect it to. Particularly in the case of a pagan religion. If we were discussing Christianity, then imposed morality is very much present, but not so much with what we're discussing here.
I think you've clarified the celtic societal "morality" fairly well. Or at least provided an understandable working model.

However if we were to assert that the religion is true, Athene does exist and is a real goddess and grants real magical power (as a fantasy game with working magic suggests), asserting that the worshipers still determine the nature of the goddess seems a bit weird IMHO. If it were true, why do the worshipers need gods at all?

Perhaps they truly don't. This could be a real driving force behind the church as a political entity. The priests loyal to the gods (in exchange for favors or power perhaps) don't want people to get in their heads that the gods are unnecessary. If that happened they'd be out of a job (the priests and the gods). So they'll do anything to keep the belief in the necessity and power of the gods going.

Why couldn't they construct a more efficient and utilitarian religion that granted customised and optimised magic?
See the argument above.
Also see the rant in my old thread about magic not being necessarily tied into religion. Certainly it can be, if that's the direction the game creator chooses to go. But I maintain that it doesn't have to be. Especially if one were to go with the premise that the gods are actually other-worldly creatures (aliens, inter-dimensional travelers, whatever) that are simply vastly more powerful than the "mortals". Think Stargate.
Certainly this wouldn't work for all games, but it could work for some.
Alternately, perhaps if you try to science it up too much, it stops working. Maybe the  gods feed on the emotional aspect of the worship, and the precise rituals are merely a tool for raising and focusing that emotion. If the rituals are done in a cold, emotionless, scientific manner, then the god gets nothing out of it and gives nothing in return. If you start thinking it out too much and not "feeling" the prayer, then the spell fails. Taking the god's name in vain with an unfeeling prayer may even offend the god. Keep it up and the god may get really ticked off and swat you like a bug.  So If you want the gods help, you better mean it when you start throwing the prayers around.

Surely such artificial religions would be the natural result of continual refinement if it was all just in the worshiper's heads anyway?

Well if the gods were "real" (whether influenced by the followers or not) the religion would be "real" as well. So "artificial" really doesn't work well when taking about something fictional in the first place. It's naturally artificial.
The refinement issue might be true if you could get a few thousand people to all believe, and consciously influence, the gods in exactly the same way over a prolonged period of time. As opposed to all wanting their own thing out of the gods. (And if you discounted the influence of the political church) This is actually what makes the concept interesting, the possibility of unintentional (or intentional) change. It gives the opposing dark and light cults something valid to fight over. Each is struggling to influence the gods to their way, while all they really manage do is maintain the balance. At least until something tips it.
This could make for a pretty cool adventure if the scenario I mentioned above with the unscrupulous (or perhaps well-intentioned instead) priest was attempted. One charismatic individual could come close to changing the world that way, for good or ill. But the adventurers would have to put a stop to it of course, since that's what meddling adventurers do. Either that or they're fighting for the forces of light to create a utopia overseen by gods unencumbered by their dark aspects.
The concept has all kinds of potential, whether you leave it static or whether you place the campaign at the critical point where the status quo is breaking down.
But like all of this, it's only one way to do it. If you want gods that are powers whole unto themselves, then don't use this piece. Just grab up all the other good stuff.

Indeed, they also highlited the barbaric and depraved religion of the Carthaginians and used it as a pretext for annihilating their only real rivals in the mediterranean at the time.

[sarcasm] My isn't religion a useful thing...[/sarcasm]

The thread Calvin is referring to is Help with magic?

Yes, it is. Thanks.

It has never, IMO, been done well in an RPG and that is both an interesting ommission and a frustrating problem.

Maybe we can cure that here. I think we've got some good hi-lights of things that could certainly improve the "realistic" feel of a pagan religion in a game.

What is missing is discussion of the content of belief systems and the dialogues within them - without that religion is necessarily stale and flat and unimportant.

Unfortunately it seems that we may have some resistance from the powers that be when it comes to having such as discussion here.

Personally I'd like to delve into this a bit, if we can get away with it.
I'd like to try and  define that content. Then I'd like to see how can we encompass that content into a role-playing experience.
It's been stated that it needs to be done. That's good. Now...how do we do it?

This was a view that postulated magic and religion as opposing forces: magic supports the individual against the claims of the group, and religion supports the claims of the group against the individual.

From this point of view, the classic "give me power!" role-playing-game magic would be perfectly in character for magic. And indeed, if one looks into historical magical texts, magical goals tend to be amazingly pratical and even selfish: love spells, thief-catching spells, spells to help you win a contest or win favor at court, and so on...

Hmm... now that's interesting too.
But from what I understand, magic often was tied up in religion. Spells often involved prayers and such. So I have trouble resolving that.
Plus, if religion and magic were opposed, how would the priests (or the gods for that matter) have power?
Unless the meaning is that there were two powers. One of a religious nature, drawing power from the gods by prayer. The other (magic) being of an non-religious nature, drawing power from some other source.
But when you put in the opposition, that starts to sound an awful lot like Christian justification of witch hunts to me. "They have powers not granted by God, so they must be heathens in league with the Devil".
Might make an interesting game as well, with the non-religious (or at least not following the "proper" religion) spell casters hunted and persecuted by the church, fighting for their lives and their  magical freedom.

So, Ron...
Are we getting enough role-playing development going on here now to keep this thread viable? I feel this is certainly about role-playing, and since it's not tied to a specific game I didn't think it belonged anywhere else on the site.
If what I'm attempting to do here isn't appropriate for the Forge forum, I can probably try to take it off site. But I'd hate to have to.
It's your call though. What do you think?

[Windthin]

Hmmm... okay, a subject near and dear to my heart.  First off... I feel that certain cultures/religions are overdone in RP: Celtic and Egyptian are two of these.  That said...

One of the first things you need to do in any pantheistic setting is actually look at it from a pantheistic view.  Confused?  A great many worlds present cultures with supposedly pantheistic views.  Now, whether or not these gods exist in these worlds, or their true natures if they do, is irrelevant for the moment, so leave that aside.  In truly pantheistic cultures, people at least acknowledge the existence of most or all gods, and likely pay homage to a good collection of them, even if some choose one or two or three as personally representing them.  Some gods do develop clergies devoted specifically to them, while there are others who act as the mouthpieces for all the pantheon, or groups of gods.  But most games approach pantheism very monotheistically: there is a strong drive to separate out the gods, to place them constantly at odds, to make these gods more goals than thinking beings with foibles and flaws, as the gods of most myths possessed.  These gods are converted often into single-minded entities pursuing the goals layed out for them by their positions, each aloof and demanding utter and undying loyalty of their followers.  Now, this isn't true all around, I know... but if you really want to make any pantheistic setting, you need to see things more as a web, a network, interconnected, and less as rival hierarchies constantly vying with each other.  Case in point would be the Olympian gods, also often overdone, who often warred and intrigued amongst themselves but stood together still against other threats.  They split right on down the middle practically in the Trojan War, but was either side truly good or evil?  Hardly.

A thing to remember, incidentally, is that in almost no culture did the gods come to exist in a void.  Frequently mythos changes radically as time passes, in fact, as different groups conquer each other and war; their gods also conquer their foes gods, or sometimes they find they prefer these new gods better and they subsume their own old ones, or even join them in a combined pantheon.  Sometimes similar gods will be melded together, creating some truly strange entities.  You cannot speak of any ancient pantheistic religion as a system that always was a certain way, unchanging from start to finish.  Many of the demons in the Bible were originally gods, worshipped before the change to monotheism and relegated to new roles to explain them away.  Likewise, when Christianity moved into the norselands, they found the similarity between Thor's Hammer and the Christian Cross made for an easier transition.  We shall not even go into the wildly varied version of Christianity that existed before the Roman Empire accepted it as the official religion and stamped out all versions but the one they endorsed.

What I am trying to say here is, do not think of religion as a static event.  It flows, is as malleable as all of history.  If you wish to investigate what would have occured with the many different Celtic panthestic beliefs, from the Gaul to Ireland, perhaps you need to extrapolate how all of these would have changed in the course of history on their own, and with influence from invasions and other major events (perhaps, for example, a strong nordic influence in the isles, a strong germanic one for the gauls?).  Are we speaking, though, of an alternate earth here, or another world altogether?  For in another world altogether, you have different influences, different histories... different peoples, cultures, and we're not even going into different cultural and species mindsets and perspectives.  Religion holds so many factors... it's not something that can be done simply, no more than politics or culture can, else you create a charicature, a hollow stereotype, a shadow of a moment in history, usually Earth's, let's face it, that has somehow been transposed to an alien world.

[taalyn]

Just a note to the above, which I mostly agree with:

Pantheistic and polytheistic mean different things, and their implications on a game world would be significantly different. Pantheism - where God(s) is everywhere and in everything, would be less likely to have pantheons of "class gods" (like D&D's ranger god, or mage god, or...) or conceptual gods (like wisdom, etc.). Rather, concepts would be derive from symbolic meanings of natural phenomena. Pantheistic religions would be less prone to religious wars as well - everybody's god(s) are truly gods.

This could develop into polytheism, where conceptual gods are much more likely, and religious wars (as a function of social mores) would be possible.

Very different effects on the game world, I think.

Aidan

[ejh]

(Massive amounts of semi-informed commentary about ancient world religion almost completely unrelated to RPGs deleted)

Hmm... now that's interesting too.
But from what I understand, magic often was tied up in religion. Spells often involved prayers and such. So I have trouble resolving that.
Plus, if religion and magic were opposed, how would the priests (or the gods for that matter) have power?
Unless the meaning is that there were two powers. One of a religious nature, drawing power from the gods by prayer. The other (magic) being of an non-religious nature, drawing power from some other source.
But when you put in the opposition, that starts to sound an awful lot like Christian justification of witch hunts to me. "They have powers not granted by God, so they must be heathens in league with the Devil".
Might make an interesting game as well, with the non-religious (or at least not following the "proper" religion) spell casters hunted and persecuted by the church, fighting for their lives and their  magical freedom.

Um... I'm going to just have to recommend the book to you.  I don't think this is the place for a "sociology of religion and magic 101" course, and I don't want to waste a lot of time trying to deconstruct all the assumptions you're bringing to the table here.  Besides, it's been several years since I read it.

I was just trying to point out that there are good resources out there which examine the place of magic in society vis-a-vis religion, books written by real scholars, which you might want to look into, if you want a "realistic" depiction of magic and religion in a game.

[John Kim]

it was purely political opposition that spurred the Romans to target them.

I've often wondered how many of the holy wars were primarily political rather than religious in nature anyway. I suspect most, and probably all. After all organized religious entities have quite often been a powerful political force.

Well, but the converse is also true: political wars also had their religious side.  For example, how much of the American Revolution was the clash between the more liberal Puritan/Presbyterian colonists with the more conservative Episcopalian/Anglican British?  Throughout most of history, religion has been an integral part of politics.  Separation of church and state is a very modern invention.  Apropos of Celtic culture, the Druids were known to be judges and leaders of the Gauls who often resisted Roman rule -- hence the Roman suppression of them.  

In my mind, the interesting part of religion is precisely how it influences politics, philosophy, war, and everyday life.  

Also see the rant in my old thread about magic not being necessarily tied into religion. Certainly it can be, if that's the direction the game creator chooses to go. But I maintain that it doesn't have to be. Especially if one were to go with the premise that the gods are actually other-worldly creatures (aliens, inter-dimensional travelers, whatever) that are simply vastly more powerful than the "mortals".  

Well, this calls into question what a religion is.  If the "gods" are simply powerful aliens, then I would say that obeying the gods is probably a political organization, not a religion.   One could have a religion, say, which denies the divinity of the aliens and says that they should be resisted rather than obeyed.  

As for the relation to RPGs:

For me, religion in RPGs has generally been a part of my character rather than a part of the plot per se.  For example, my character Antonius Publius Eldarus was a devout follower of the Roman empire.  To him, religion was a matter of social trust.  He saw religion as part of social conformity.  He made sacrifices to the gods.  He didn't understand why, but then, he didn't understand how the metal of his spear was made, either.  Belief in the religion was to him based on his acceptance of Roman society as a good thing.  

(Incidentally, this was in a fantasy campaign set in a variant of Europe with fantasy elements like elves, dwarves, and magic.  Antonius was an elf who rejected the barbaric and primitive ways of his culture to embrace the Roman Empire.  He accepted that there were faults in the system, but ultimately it was the greatest good for the greatest number.)  

I would tend to approach religion not directly (i.e. what is right, what happens after we die), but rather through politics, cultures, and other parts of human life where religion has an influence.

[madelf]

liberal Puritan

Two words I never thought to see together.
:)

Separation of church and state is a very modern invention.

And largely a fiction (in my opinion), when the government consists of people with religious beliefs. Even with the best of intentions it is difficult (on a cultural level) to separate the influence of the church from anything.
In a setting where there would be only single religion allowed (or real in the case of a fantasy game) it would follow that the influence of religion would be even harder to escape.

In my mind, the interesting part of religion is precisely how it influences politics, philosophy, war, and everyday life.

I think this is important. It's becoming more and more apparant to me that getting into that level of detail in the design of the religion and culture is probably all that would push the game religion beyond a collection of names and dogma.

Well, this calls into question what a religion is. If the "gods" are simply powerful aliens, then I would say that obeying the gods is probably a political organization, not a religion.

It might be a matter of interpretation. Personally I really see a structured church as a political organization. I don't think it's possible for them to not be. In either case the actual nature of the "gods" isn't really whats relevent. It's what people believe about them that counts.

One could have a religion, say, which denies the divinity of the aliens and says that they should be resisted rather than obeyed.

Sure. Opposing religions are certainly a possibilty. It's a good way to have a holy war in the works.

For me, religion in RPGs has generally been a part of my character rather than a part of the plot per se.

And that's probably not a bad way to handle it really. Beyond the influence on the culture of the setting, the heavy emphasis on religion should probably be optional. Not everyone might be confortable with a game that was too saturated with religious overtones. How deeply they want to get invloved in the religion of the game should probably be up to the players.
Or it should at least be stated up front if religion is a major factor in the playing of the game, so the player knows what he's getting into.

I would tend to approach religion not directly (i.e. what is right, what happens after we die), but rather through politics, cultures, and other parts of human life where religion has an influence.

That is sounding like the best way to do it.

Um... I'm going to just have to recommend the book to you. I don't think this is the place for a "sociology of religion and magic 101" course, and I don't want to waste a lot of time trying to deconstruct all the assumptions you're bringing to the table here. Besides, it's been several years since I read it.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth there, if it came off that way.
I was just saying what the idea your post sparked in my head was and then ran with it.
I really wasn't sure I understood what you were saying about magic and religion being opposed forces. Apparently I didn't understand.
I'll see if I can find the book. You wouldn't know the author would you?

Pantheistic and polytheistic mean different things, and their implications on a game world would be significantly different. Pantheism - where God(s) is everywhere and in everything, would be less likely to have pantheons of "class gods" (like D&D's ranger god, or mage god, or...) or conceptual gods (like wisdom, etc.). Rather, concepts would be derive from symbolic meanings of natural phenomena. Pantheistic religions would be less prone to religious wars as well - everybody's god(s) are truly gods.

This could develop into polytheism, where conceptual gods are much more likely, and religious wars (as a function of social mores) would be possible.

Very different effects on the game world, I think.

I could see these possibly being cultural differences in the same world as well.
It sounds like the pantheistic idea would be appropriate for a native american-like tribal people, while polytheism might be the norm in the more advanced societies.

overdone in RP: Celtic and Egyptian are two of these

Sorry. I had an ulterior motive for going with celtic, as I'm working on a pseudo-european setting. And yes I know that's been done to death to but...tough cookies.
:)

These gods are converted often into single-minded entities pursuing the goals layed out for them by their positions, each aloof and demanding utter and undying loyalty of their followers. Now, this isn't true all around, I know... but if you really want to make any pantheistic setting, you need to see things more as a web, a network, interconnected, and less as rival hierarchies constantly vying with each other. Case in point would be the Olympian gods, also often overdone, who often warred and intrigued amongst themselves but stood together still against other threats. They split right on down the middle practically in the Trojan War, but was either side truly good or evil? Hardly.

Another very good point. Going back to the no true evil idea, but taking it a little further. Treat the gods as a social group of their own, or an extended family (as my research is showing the celtic gods to have been). I like that.

A thing to remember, incidentally, is that in almost no culture did the gods come to exist in a void. Frequently mythos changes radically as time passes

This is something I'd really like to address.
Taking the scholarly knowledge here (that without a doubt blows my passing aquaintance with mythology away) can anyone hypothesize about how a polytheistic religion might evolve over time?
(and please don't just point me at historical examples of what religion has actually become. I'm looking for game setting ideas based on the concept that a polytheistic religion developed around "real" gods, and then evolved with those gods still a palpable force)

Are we speaking, though, of an alternate earth here, or another world altogether? For in another world altogether, you have different influences, different histories... different peoples, cultures, and we're not even going into different cultural and species mindsets and perspectives. Religion holds so many factors... it's not something that can be done simply, no more than politics or culture can, else you create a charicature, a hollow stereotype, a shadow of a moment in history, usually Earth's, let's face it, that has somehow been transposed to an alien world.

Well, I'd like to keep it as open as possible, rather than pinning it to my current game (which is pretty much alternate earth). Really almost anything that the human mind is going to come up with is going to be based, to some extent, on our world. Certainly not all events will be the same, but there would almost have to be some similarities.

[taalyn]

Taking the scholarly knowledge here (that without a doubt blows my passing aquaintance with mythology away) can anyone hypothesize about how a polytheistic religion might evolve over time?
(and please don't just point me at historical examples of what religion has actually become. I'm looking for game setting ideas based on the concept that a polytheistic religion developed around "real" gods, and then evolved with those gods still a palpable force)

Here's an attempt, heavily influenced by my own education and thoughts.  I have a BA in religion, and an MA in Celtic Lang and Lit, so this seems particularly appropriate to the task at hand! ;)

Step 1: religion focuses on an impersonal magical force, which then progresses to characterizing/imagining this force in particular forms - taking a clue from pop-Celtic ideas, let's say trees. Culture is primarily hunter/gatherer. Ritual is freeform along certain principles, magic the same.

Step 2: As culture becomes hunter/agricultural, knowledge and observation about trees (as manifestations of the Force) become more detailed, and trees come to be associated with particular animals and phenomenon. Guiding it gently towards a pop-RPG idea of fantasy religion, perhaps some careers and functions within society gain associations with the trees. Other natural forces, particularly those important to the health of the forest and trees become significant. Pantheon thus might consist of the gods of Pine/Squirrels/Woodsmen, Oak/Pigs and Cattle/Herders, Apple/Motherhood, Weather, Sun, and Bees as primary deities, with other tree species, rivers, and so forth being minor deities. Ritual and magic are very simple, becoming more complex.

Step 3: Culture becomes more structured, with a chieftain, a couple of societies of warriors. priests, etc. With this change, The beginning of conceptual simplification begins. The apple goddess becomes a mother goddess in general, with the tree becoming simply a totem or symbol  of the goddess. The Pine god becomes a god of hunters and mythology surrounding him involves squirrels as hunting aids. A bee goddess becomes a goddess of fertility. The association between the trees and other aspects of the deity remains strong. Social order within the culture becomes applied to the deities themselves. The Pine god becomes the chieftain (as best hunter is chief), and Apple goddess is his wife. The Bee goddess is another wife, and the sun god becomes a god associated with the priesthood and their ability to support and encourage the life of the tree/community. Ritual begins to become standardized, as does magic.

Step 4: Culture reaches a stable structured form (something vaguely medieval/feudalistic), and begins to exapand its borders, contacting a couple of foreign cultures. Gods are imported, some are lost. The connection between trees and the gods becomes vague and highly symbolic. Magic and ritual are highly structured. The Chief God (formerly the pine tree and the hunter) becomes split into two distinct deities, a Hunter god and a King god. The Fertility goddess (bees) becomes the wife of the Hunter god with the Mother goddess becoming the wife of the King god, as social mores move away from polygamy. The Sun god begins to viw for power with the King god, as the priesthood becomes more powerful and the church gains in power. The Ash god (god of wolves and warriors) becomes more powerful and significant, patron deity of knights and such. Imported gods might include a Sea goddess, perhaps "racial" gods from an elven or dwarven pantheon - gods of archery or craftsmanship and blacksmiths, perhaps. A Host of minor deities might evolve to prominence from formerly little known gods - the Moss god, for example, common in forests, might become the patron of comfort and ease, healing, and innkeepers.

I think that sats up some of the basic processes of religious change, within a pagan context, and including some of the foundational ideas of fantasy religion. Is this what you wanted?

[Windthin]

Something some here are forgetting in arguments of religious reasons for war versus political ones: for some, indeed many, societies, there IS no separation of politics and religion.  Take the ancient Hebrews, for whom the church was the government and the gobernment was the church (and incidentally, there is some evidence that some laws/scriptures/stories may have been introduced specifically to change aspects of government at different times).  Some times you do have a government and a religion or religions, many and varied or few and vying.  And sometimes you the government IS the religion, and vice-versa.  That does not, of course, mean that this entity denies the possiiblity of all other religions, beliefs, so on.  That depends on the particular culture.  But don't let separation of church and state slip in where perhaps the concept is utterly unheard of.  How this can reflect in and influence an RP setting I don't feel I have to tell you.

[madelf]

Is this what you wanted?

Heh..., maybe.
It's a good guide for evolution of religion, and interesting in it's own right.

I'm really not sure what I actually want out of this, other than just to throw some ideas around and see what comes of it.

What I'm getting from this is that the structure of religion is pretty directly resulting from social structure. That the animism (i believe that's the right concept) idea of gods being within natural things, such as trees or weather, would be appropriate for a primitive culture, but would be out of place for a more advanced culture.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the next step. Taking the religion out of the medieval period and proceeding onward in cultural development.
Do you think that religion would tend to consolidate into a more monotheistic structure, or could a polytheistic religion (as the "primary" religion) be valid for an advanced society?

I rather like the pattern you've set up here. It actually ties in well with my pet theory that the gods in a fantasy game could be shaped by belief, beginning as the impersonal force which is then characterized and eventually evolves into a group of unique and individual god/entities.

[James Holloway]

I aim to oblige.

RPGs don't deal with religion well, as far as I can tell, because:

- real-world religion attempts to address questions (what is "good," how should I behave toward my neighbors, who invented the horse) that are more or less irrelevant to the way most RPG characters behave. Fake religions correspond to this fake society and fake way of life much better.

- understanding real religions is difficult. The only game setting I know that has created mythology/religion that's as complex and vibrant as the real world is Glorantha. And it could be argued, I should think, that in its current incarnation Glorantha is very much *about* the issues of its mythology and religion -- the questions that religion poses and answers are likely to be at the heart of the stories of the PCs.

So I think that the question "how do RPGs/ should RPGs model religion" is not as important as "what is the role you want religion to play in your game?" Because if it's just there to add a little local color, that's one thing, but if the characters are going to be struggling with their relationships with faith that's another. And I suspect that answers to the question "why do RPGs model religion the way they do" can be found by examining the role designers intended religion to play in their games. Or, alternately, that the designers are dumbheads. Or both.

[James Holloway]

Addendum to my last post: I think FVLMINATA deals well with a historical religion, although it doesn't really have time to go into it. It accurately portrays Roman religion as the kind of goofy, baroque syncretic mess it was at the height of the empire. It also ties it directly, fundamentally into the system. I think this is part of the game's never-quite-clearly-articulated goal of shoehorning the players into some kind of understanding of Romanitas. Which is, I think, a good goal.

[Windthin]

Animism tends to not be so much replaced... as evolve.  Mind you, animism is still practiced by some modern cultures, so do not write it off entirely.  However, it goes through a metamorphosis over time, as its followers imbue their gods with more and more might and personality, sort of consolidating them into greater beings, while the myriad of gods formerly found now become spirits and fae and so on, a part of the world but different at the same time.

Polytheism and pantheism are both alive and well, in many cultures.  We forget that many with pan- or polytheistic beliefs did not willingly depart with them, but were rather forcefully torn from them.  This accounts for a large portion of the New World and a fair amount of the Old as well.  Under different circumstances, you could well have an entirely different scenario.  Asia and Africa are the main homes of pan- and polytheistic religions these days, en masse, the least effected by the spread of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and I say least, not un-).  These beliefs can still be found worldwide, however, and many are seeking to rediscover them, aided by more liberal times and greater amounts of communication and research material available.  So no, I would not say that a culture must inevitably go from many gods to one god.  Heck, look at communism, that went from many or one god to none!  And that is no new movement: as somebody pointed out earlier, Sophocles was an early humanist, concerned more with the motives and will of man than the whims of the gods (for a fascinating look into this and how the Greeks thought, read Antigone, all three versions by Sophocles, Euripides, and Aeschylus.  You will find an interesting scenario wherein one focuses on the people, one rails against the meddling of the gods and the inability of men to escape them, and one upholds the status quo pretty darn effectively).

I'd have to agree, sadly... that most religions in roleplay are hollow cardboard cutouts of the true thing, whether the gods they follow exist or not.  They are cliches, layed down to follow a specific course, often lacking the full depth and breadth and impact and feeling of true religions, beliefs, ideas.  Religion is a... sloppy thing, really, constantly branching out and splitting and evolving.  What can you expect of something that so accutely reflects the desires of man (not to mention other races)?