lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (12/24/84)
I'm back from Fermilab for a few days and have read all the
submissions to net.games.frp for the last two months in a single
sitting. Some of them were truly marvelous, and I'll try to get
around to commenting on as many as I can. I'll be gone before
this message propagates through the net, so if you want to reply
you can reach me via USMail or BITNET (RIGNEY@FNALVX13).
This is in response to Scott Turner's remarks that PCs should
have no chance against gods. I certainly respect his position
and admire his work in A&E, but in making a generalized statement
he has erred seriously. [This is what happens to one's argument
style when working for the DoE. :-)]
As a matter of fact, my most recent fantasy campaign (using a
Champions/Bushido hybrid rules system) involved character
conflict against the gods. It's very easy to do, all you need
are:
a) good players
b) gods with opposing interests (and I know of no
mythology that doesn't have these)
c) a basis for the gods' powers that provides limits.
In the case of my campaign, c) was provided by the fairly
widespread mechanism of having the gods' power come from their
worshippers,and expended by miracles. If a god expends more
power than he recieves from his worshippers (and intensity of
worship is as important as numbers) he diminishes, and if he uses
his power wisely he can gain many converts with the occasional
well-placed miracles, and grow stronger.
This system implies that gods are unwilling to directly confront
each other, with one god throwing lightning bolts at a priest he
doesn't like and another shielding him. In that situation both
gods are expending massive amounts of energy, without doing
anything to gain converts or benefit themselves. Direct
intervention tion is very costly, and that's why gods have
priests as middle-men. If a god meddles in mortal affairs too
much without proportional benefit, he diminishes, and it's only
natural that as a god grows weaker and less able to benefit his
worshippers that they'll turn to other, more effective gods.
Once a god has declined seriously it's very, very hard to make a
comeback, especially if rival gods are there to stomp him when he
tries. Stomping your equal is a no-win situation, but it's not
too difficult to pick on old gods (although seldom worth the
bother unless they show signs of revival, in which case it's a
good idea to stop them while they're weak) or new gods. In fact,
some gods make a habit of crushing newer gods as they arise in
their sphere of interest, these are known as the nature of
certain types of gods to scheme against their rivals (if there
were a god of cooperation he could hardly do so, now could he?
And how many gods of cooperation do you know of? See my point?)
Gods of War and weather tend to be powerful because they're very
good at conflict and tactics. Likewise they tend to be more
ephemeral because a few big reverses (like having the empire that
worships them get conquored by heathens) can cripple them
seriously at which point they get shredded (figuratively
speaking) by the others. What warrior wants to worship a Loser
War God?
On the other hand harvest deities are more durable if less
flashy. As long as they keep the crops coming in they'll get all
the prayers and sacrifices they can use.
[But what about the PCs?! I hear you cry. It's coming, so hold
on.]
Matters are complicated more by pantheons, where a set of gods,
often worshipped in common by a people, have similar interests.
They all want their worshippers to prosper since it benefits them
all, but they often have differences of opinion as to how to go
about helping them. Conflicts of interest from overlapping areas
of interest are less acute, but there can still be considerable
intrigue, and since gods as a rule have natures compatible with
their interests there can be considerable personality conflict.
I could go into massive detail on this, but you can probably
figure it out yourself, and anyone who's interested in
corresponding about all this is certainly welcome to.
[Keep in mind that I'm talking about the godsystem in *my*
campaign, so if you handle things differently don't think I'm
generalizing or saying it has to be this way. But as Hunter S.
Thompson said, it works for me.]
Now of all the things a god can do, manifesting an avatar is the
most costly, and direct physical intervention on the material
plane comes next. When a god manifests an avatar he can't expect
to get much of that energy back when he recalls it to heaven (or
wherever), a lot of it gets used up in miracles and just
maintaining the Presence in the mortal realm (Magic Leaks), and
if he puts too much free will and power in the avatar it can
break away from him, causing a schism in his followers (there are
obvious examples) and providing an instant rival. If he's forced
to crush his own avatar he's expended immense amounts of power,
possibly shaken his priesthood seriously, and in effect destroyed
a portion of himself, as well as suffering the ridicule of his
peers (no small thing, since he may need their aid sometime -
Pantheons are something of a mutual aid society - and be refused
because he's considered not worth the risk of power). But if he
limits the avatar's self-will he has to spend much of his time
directing it, taking time away from his other interests, or risks
it falling under wrong influences or acting without restraint.
And if he gives it too little power it could fail, which is
utterly disastrous. If a god manifests an avatar, the ultimate
expression of his power, and it fails, he is usually doomed.
Worshippers fall away, priests have their faith shaken, champions
are unwilling to come to the aid of a god who fails, and he has
already suffered the loss of the energy used to create the
avatar. And once a god is on the downward slope, it's very hard
to arrest the fall (positive feedback, for you metaphysical
engineers out there).
So you can see that avatars are excruciatingly dangerous to use.
Therefore most gods prefer to act through priests and champions.
A little touch of power here and there when the champions needs
it most, and otherwise let the hero do his own dirty work.
A truly great champion or priest is an immensely valuable tool
for a god - he's invested a lot of energy and time in building
the tool, and a person with the potential to be such a champions
is very rare - they must be exceptional individuals.
So if a god directly strikes at another's champion, the other
isis has little choice except to defend, and then both gods
either have to back off or are likely to diminish themselves in
their struggle, most likely while a third god makes off with many
of both's followers.
So gods are very relunctant to strike directly at another's
champion, but if they can kill or impede that champion with their
own temporal forces (e.g. priests, followers, and champions) they
can strike a considerable blow.
So you see from all the above that the gods are playing a very
delicate game of survival among themselves, in which their mortal
pawns enjoy a limited form of immunity. Of course if a champion
is *too* successful a rival god may decide to risk eliminating
him in the hopes his patron will not consider the loss major
enough to risk retaliating. Direct intervention against a major
champion is something like limited tactical nuclear war - a very
tricky business indeed.
There is another reason a god may wish to use a minimum of power:
the gods aren't omniscient, but most are sensitive to the use of
power, especially in their own sphere of interest. Larger
amounts of power are more likely to be noticed and traced. Frying
the Paladin Gwinnel is certainly going to be noticed, but
infecting a wild animal with rabies in the hopes that Gwinnel
will be bitten and die is far less likely to be noticed. The
example is a very bad one, since Gwinnel's patron could just heal
him (or request the healing god of his pantheon to do so for a
consideration) anyway. You'll notice that most Paladins are
immune to disease for this very reason.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. This system
gives me everything I want in a godsystem, and I can use it to
figure the results of interactions with the gods instead of just
being arbitrary. Note that the moves and countermoves I've
mentioned above can be over a period of centuries, and the Game
of the Gods is too subtle for most mortals to realize, far less
comprehend.
Note that most Champions have a patron god, but there are a very
few that free-lance. Such people are very powerful and very
dangerous, and have done so many favors for so many gods that
they can call upon a number of different deities for aid. Or in
some cases he's proved so useful that no god wants to destroy
him, since he might want to use the free-lancer himself at some
future date. An example of this kind of person would be Taira of
the Thousand Names, the Evil NPC I posted two or three months
ago. She has no patron (except temporarily when on a mission for
some goddess or other), but she's proved so useful to most
Cthonic goddesses that she's effectively shielded.
A very blatant example of a champion would be Stalker (a DC
fantasy comic which only ran 4 issues, alas) who as a young boy
pledged his soul to a war god in return for mastery of all
weapons and the chance to serve the god. The god accepted the
offer, and took the soul as immediate payment (the large print
giveth, and the small print taketh away :-) ). More common
examples are of course the D&D Paladin, although anyone
sufficiently devout and useful could be a champion.
This article is long enough already, but if anyone has any
questions or rebuttals I'd be delighted to discuss all this in as
much detail as you can stand. Since I'll be back off USENET
shortly, you can reach me at:
Carl Rigney
USMAIL: Dorm 4, Room 45/ Fermilab/ Box 500/ Batavia, IL 60510
BITNET: RIGNEY@FNALVX13 (send a short test message first to
make sure it works)
SLAC DECNET: FNAL::RIGNEY (if you can reach the node FNAL)lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (01/22/85)
This article is being reposted as the original was
mangled in transmition. All comments, questions, etc
will be forwarded to Carl at Fermi (as will any responses
posted in this group).
--Rick
uok!tmrichar
I'm back from Fermilab for a few days and have read all the
submissions to net.games.frp for the last two months in a single
sitting. Some of them were truly marvelous, and I'll try to get
around to commenting on as many as I can. I'll be gone before
this message propagates through the net, so if you want to reply
you can reach me via USMail or BITNET (RIGNEY@FNALVX13).
This is in response to Scott Turner's remarks that PCs should
have no chance against gods. I certainly respect his position
and admire his work in A&E, but in making a generalized statement
he has erred seriously. [This is what happens to one's argument
style when working for the DoE. :-)]
As a matter of fact, my most recent fantasy campaign (using a
Champions/Bushido hybrid rules system) involved character
conflict against the gods. It's very easy to do, all you need
are:
a) good players
b) gods with opposing interests (and I know of no
mythology that doesn't have these)
c) a basis for the gods' powers that provides limits.
In the case of my campaign, c) was provided by the fairly
widespread mechanism of having the gods' power come from their
worshippers,and expended by miracles. If a god expends more
power than he recieves from his worshippers (and intensity of
worship is as important as numbers) he diminishes, and if he uses
his power wisely he can gain many converts with the occasional
well-placed miracles, and grow stronger.
This system implies that gods are unwilling to directly confront
each other, with one god throwing lightning bolts at a priest he
doesn't like and another shielding him. In that situation both
gods are expending massive amounts of energy, without doing
anything to gain converts or benefit themselves. Direct
intervention tion is very costly, and that's why gods have
priests as middle-men. If a god meddles in mortal affairs too
much without proportional benefit, he diminishes, and it's only
natural that as a god grows weaker and less able to benefit his
worshippers that they'll turn to other, more effective gods.
Once a god has declined seriously it's very, very hard to make a
comeback, especially if rival gods are there to stomp him when he
tries. Stomping your equal is a no-win situation, but it's not
too difficult to pick on old gods (although seldom worth the
bother unless they show signs of revival, in which case it's a
good idea to stop them while they're weak) or new gods. In fact,
some gods make a habit of crushing newer gods as they arise in
their sphere of interest, these are known as the nature of
certain types of gods to scheme against their rivals (if there
were a god of cooperation he could hardly do so, now could he?
And how many gods of cooperation do you know of? See my point?)
Gods of War and weather tend to be powerful because they're very
good at conflict and tactics. Likewise they tend to be more
ephemeral because a few big reverses (like having the empire that
worships them get conquored by heathens) can cripple them
seriously at which point they get shredded (figuratively
speaking) by the others. What warrior wants to worship a Loser
War God?
On the other hand harvest deities are more durable if less
flashy. As long as they keep the crops coming in they'll get all
the prayers and sacrifices they can use.
[But what about the PCs?! I hear you cry. It's coming, so hold
on.]
Matters are complicated more by pantheons, where a set of gods,
often worshipped in common by a people, have similar interests.
They all want their worshippers to prosper since it benefits them
all, but they often have differences of opinion as to how to go
about helping them. Conflicts of interest from overlapping areas
of interest are less acute, but there can still be considerable
intrigue, and since gods as a rule have natures compatible with
their interests there can be considerable personality conflict.
I could go into massive detail on this, but you can probably
figure it out yourself, and anyone who's interested in
corresponding about all this is certainly welcome to.
[Keep in mind that I'm talking about the godsystem in *my*
campaign, so if you handle things differently don't think I'm
generalizing or saying it has to be this way. But as Hunter S.
Thompson said, it works for me.]
Now of all the things a god can do, manifesting an avatar is the
most costly, and direct physical intervention on the material
plane comes next. When a god manifests an avatar he can't expect
to get much of that energy back when he recalls it to heaven (or
wherever), a lot of it gets used up in miracles and just
maintaining the Presence in the mortal realm (Magic Leaks), and
if he puts too much free will and power in the avatar it can
break away from him, causing a schism in his followers (there are
obvious examples) and providing an instant rival. If he's forced
to crush his own avatar he's expended immense amounts of power,
possibly shaken his priesthood seriously, and in effect destroyed
a portion of himself, as well as suffering the ridicule of his
peers (no small thing, since he may need their aid sometime -
Pantheons are something of a mutual aid society - and be refused
because he's considered not worth the risk of power). But if he
limits the avatar's self-will he has to spend much of his time
directing it, taking time away from his other interests, or risks
it falling under wrong influences or acting without restraint.
And if he gives it too little power it could fail, which is
utterly disastrous. If a god manifests an avatar, the ultimate
expression of his power, and it fails, he is usually doomed.
Worshippers fall away, priests have their faith shaken, champions
are unwilling to come to the aid of a god who fails, and he has
already suffered the loss of the energy used to create the
avatar. And once a god is on the downward slope, it's very hard
to arrest the fall (positive feedback, for you metaphysical
engineers out there).
So you can see that avatars are excruciatingly dangerous to use.
Therefore most gods prefer to act through priests and champions.
A little touch of power here and there when the champions needs
it most, and otherwise let the hero do his own dirty work.
A truly great champion or priest is an immensely valuable tool
for a god - he's invested a lot of energy and time in building
the tool, and a person with the potential to be such a champions
is very rare - they must be exceptional individuals.
So if a god directly strikes at another's champion, the other
isis has little choice except to defend, and then both gods
either have to back off or are likely to diminish themselves in
their struggle, most likely while a third god makes off with many
of both's followers.
So gods are very relunctant to strike directly at another's
champion, but if they can kill or impede that champion with their
own temporal forces (e.g. priests, followers, and champions) they
can strike a considerable blow.
So you see from all the above that the gods are playing a very
delicate game of survival among themselves, in which their mortal
pawns enjoy a limited form of immunity. Of course if a champion
is *too* successful a rival god may decide to risk eliminating
him in the hopes his patron will not consider the loss major
enough to risk retaliating. Direct intervention against a major
champion is something like limited tactical nuclear war - a very
tricky business indeed.
There is another reason a god may wish to use a minimum of power:
the gods aren't omniscient, but most are sensitive to the use of
power, especially in their own sphere of interest. Larger
amounts of power are more likely to be noticed and traced. Frying
the Paladin Gwinnel is certainly going to be noticed, but
infecting a wild animal with rabies in the hopes that Gwinnel
will be bitten and die is far less likely to be noticed. The
example is a very bad one, since Gwinnel's patron could just heal
him (or request the healing god of his pantheon to do so for a
consideration) anyway. You'll notice that most Paladins are
immune to disease for this very reason.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. This system
gives me everything I want in a godsystem, and I can use it to
figure the results of interactions with the gods instead of just
being arbitrary. Note that the moves and countermoves I've
mentioned above can be over a period of centuries, and the Game
of the Gods is too subtle for most mortals to realize, far less
comprehend.
Note that most Champions have a patron god, but there are a very
few that free-lance. Such people are very powerful and very
dangerous, and have done so many favors for so many gods that
they can call upon a number of different deities for aid. Or in
some cases he's proved so useful that no god wants to destroy
him, since he might want to use the free-lancer himself at some
future date. An example of this kind of person would be Taira of
the Thousand Names, the Evil NPC I posted two or three months
ago. She has no patron (except temporarily when on a mission for
some goddess or other), but she's proved so useful to most
Cthonic goddesses that she's effectively shielded.
A very blatant example of a champion would be Stalker (a DC
fantasy comic which only ran 4 issues, alas) who as a young boy
pledged his soul to a war god in return for mastery of all
weapons and the chance to serve the god. The god accepted the
offer, and took the soul as immediate payment (the large print
giveth, and the small print taketh away :-) ). More common
examples are of course the D&D Paladin, although anyone
sufficiently devout and useful could be a champion.
This article is long enough already, but if anyone has any
questions or rebuttals I'd be delighted to discuss all this in as
much detail as you can stand. Since I'll be back off USENET
shortly, you can reach me at:
Carl Rigney
USMAIL: Dorm 4, Room 45/ Fermilab/ Box 500/ Batavia, IL 60510
BITNET: RIGNEY@FNALVX13 (send a short test message first to
make sure it works)
SLAC DECNET: FNAL::RIGNEY (if you can reach the node FNAL)srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/25/85)
My objection to this kind of analysis still stands. If you play your
ghods this way, they are no different than very powerful NPCs. Further,
this treatment just begs the question. Who is above the "ghods" in this
kind of scheme? (Since they clearly have no quantum differences from
player characters.)
Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods:
(1) Creation of the universe.
(2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species.
(3) Omniscient/Omnipresent.
(4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times.
(5) Control over death/the afterlife.
There is a consistent factor in these powers - that god has absolute
power over the human domain. His power is without limit as far as men
are concerned. If you accept this principle, then PCs are never going to
kill a Ghod or his Avatar. Ever. It isn't a matter of having more power
than the Ghod, or catching him when he is weak. He has absolute power, and
does what he wants.
You may decide to base your Ghods' powers on their number of worshippers,
their place in the pantheon or something like that. But the moment you
limit their powers they are no longer gods in the traditional sense. They're
just powerful monsters people happen to worship. Might as well worship the
toughest NPC wizard for that matter. He can provide the same benefits. I
think you lose something from your game with this approach.
The rub with having truly all-powerful Ghods arises from having more than
one Ghod. What happens when you have a number of all-powerful Ghods
meddling in human affairs? And what happens when they come in conflict with
one another? (An interesting theology question even today. Why doesn't
the Christian God (for instance) simply remove Satan from the scheme of
things?)
The answer, I think, is to have self-imposed restrictions on Ghods. The
ancients who worshipped pantheons weren't unaware of the philosophical
problems, and their usual solution was to give each god a domain over which
he had control by tacit approval of the other gods. That's a good solution,
I think, but you could probably come up with any number of others, the more
bizarre and contradictory the better.
To sum up my position: I'm aware that there are interesting ways to play
Ghods that limit their powers and make situations possible where PCs can
battle and defeat the Ghods. I don't think that is the most interesting
manner of play possible - FRP has enough monsters as it is. Building a
mythos without true gods is like a house without windows. Workable, but
lacking.
Scott R. Turner
UCLA Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024
ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srtrobert@gitpyr.UUCP (Robert Viduya) (01/28/85)
><
The way I would like to see gods in an rpg like D&D is that their power
and existence is based on the worshippers. Gods have a built-in immortality,
contigent upon what worshippers he has. As long as he has one worshipper,
a god lives. Regardless of what kind of trouble he's in, he cannot be killed
unless you kill his worshippers. No worshippers and he's gone. It should
also is possible for a god to 'die' from lack of worshippers, and be revived
when people start believing in him again. His power should be based and
dependent on his worshippers. For example, take the Roman god, Neptune.
His oceanic powers came from the fact that his worshippers believed him to
be a god of the ocean (not necessarily true, historically).
Of course, there have to be rules to this.
First off, true faith is required.
Second, modification of a god's powers is not done because the people
will it (they normally don't know they can change the god's powers).
Instead, that's left up to the upper rank priests to tell the people that
their god has power X, and, lo and behold, the god *does* have power X.
The upper rank priests would keep this as a secret.
Third, a given gods total power depends on the number of people who believe
in him. The formula should take into account the number of active worshippers
as well as those who believe, but don't worship (in a pantheon, you get a lot
of these).
This is far from complete, but it's a start. Any comments?
robert
--
Robert Viduya
Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332
Phone: (404) 894-4669
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert
...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!roberttim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (01/29/85)
I think Gods do need to be distinguished from all other entities in the game, not just in being the only beings with 300+ hit points or the spirits with the biggest POW. They should exist in a fundamentally different way from mortal races. The way I am distinguishing them in the RuneQuest camapign I am putting together now is that they derive from their worshippers a "distributed intelligence", that is, they use the brain equipment of all their followers like a distributed OS. A god therefore cannot be destroyed unless its worshippers are destroyed, since the god lives in all their unconscious minds. But a god might build a body to work directly on the material plane, and that can be destroyed or driven back. However, beneath a certain critical threshold of worship, a god loses some divine powers and becomes just a wonderful spirit. Furthermore, normal spirits can gain divine powers by accumulating enough worshippers. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
boris@mit-athena.ARPA (Boris N Goldowsky) (01/29/85)
I think it is wrong to say that in every religion all dieties have absolute power. As you say, in many religions there are several gods and each has power over a limited domain, which makes conflicts between them quite interesting, because each uses his or her special powers against the others'. In Greek mythology the gods are often fooled, and occasionally overcome by mortals. They are never, of course, killed: they are immortal. In Greek mythology, that is the basic (only?) difference between gods and men. The way I would work gods in a role-playing game is by having one god who has a power that makes him or her invincible (ie, power of fiat or equivalent) and several others who have neat powers of one kind or another. It might be possible for a very powerful character to force a wimpy god to do a favor or release some information, but that is the worst you could do (without engaging the aid of some other immortal...) I missed the beginning of this discussion. Sorry if I'm being repetitious. --boris
euren@ttds.UUCP (Leif Euren) (01/30/85)
<mat f\r den lille gr\ne rad-{taren>
In article <3429@ucla-cs.ARPA> srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner) writes:
:
> You may decide to base your Ghods' powers on their number of worshippers,
>their place in the pantheon or something like that. But the moment you
>limit their powers they are no longer gods in the traditional sense. They're
>just powerful monsters people happen to worship. Might as well worship the
>toughest NPC wizard for that matter. He can provide the same benefits. I
>think you lose something from your game with this approach.
I think You are very wrong here. Of course I can have mistaken Your
meaning of 'traditional'. Surely there are traditions about JHV, God and
Allah, and they (or is it just one and same?) are all-powerful, as we know
them. But to the me there are also the tradition of the Asa-gods (i.e. the
Norse mythos), the belive in which this country was converted from just some
1000 years ago.
Now, this mythos contain among others the story about Balder, how he
accidently was killed by a human with an non-magical arrow (though with some
'help' from Loke). And Thor was NOT immune to the simple illusions cast on
him by Trym, the giant. I would say that these gods were not all-powerful
but are indeed traditional.
The best way to handle PC's killing gods, is to have them sucked into the
'vacuum' thus created on the outer plane. There they have to take up the
gods fallen mantle, or die because of lack of worshippers, and also risk the
wrath of other gods (who then are on their home-ground).
Leif Euren euren@ttds!enea!mcvax!seismo...chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (01/31/85)
> > My objection to this kind of analysis still stands. If you play your > ghods this way, they are no different than very powerful NPCs. Further, > this treatment just begs the question. Who is above the "ghods" in this > kind of scheme? (Since they clearly have no quantum differences from > player characters.) Scott, I think your problem is that you are looking at gods as a christian would (i.e omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) and not as a pagan would. > Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods: > > (1) Creation of the universe. > (2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species. > (3) Omniscient/Omnipresent. > (4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times. > (5) Control over death/the afterlife. > > There is a consistent factor in these powers - that god has absolute > power over the human domain. His power is without limit as far as men > are concerned. If you accept this principle, then PCs are never going to > kill a Ghod or his Avatar. Ever. It isn't a matter of having more power > than the Ghod, or catching him when he is weak. He has absolute power, and > does what he wants. Thats the point. Gods do NOT have unlimited power over the human world. Look at any set of pagan gods. While the pantheon has most of those powers, no one god has all. Some of the common pantheons, by the way, did NOT create the universe. The gods with power before them did. Historically speaking, you end up with all-powerful gods when you have monotheism. There's a big difference, by the way, between control over death (i.e. a god can kill people) and control over the afterlife. As for self-imposed restrictions, it doesn't really matter who or what imposes the restrictions. The players don't know. What's important is that the restrictions are there. A god usually won't step on you because he's feeling nasty that century. As for player defeating gods, there is lots of precedent in literature for this happening. This is usually because somebody had the support of some other god, or more usually because that god couldn't use all his power. (Just try that on his home plane on the other hand...) Omni* gods can take a lot of fun out of a world because gods like that don't have to obey any rules and thus can be the extension of the DM's whim -- at will. I still claim that a world should be consistent and shouldn't require frequent intervention by the DM in the form of all-powerful gods. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (jagardner) (02/01/85)
... I don't want to start a religious argument here, but the omniscience of gods is a relatively late concept (as noted by another letter writer, whose name I can't find at the moment). In fact, the _earliest_ known objects of worship were kings, normal human beings who by accident of birth (or by winning a fight against the old king) happened to be in charge of the local village/city/country. These people had none of the powers we might attribute to a god, except that they were obeyed. This has nothing to do with the best way of portraying gods in D&D, of course. D&D is a game played by 20th century people, almost always English-speaking people to whom the most familiar religion is Christianity or Judaism. It makes sense to depict gods in a way that is most entertaining to the players or to the DM, and who cares about historical accuracy. (By the way, if you DO care about historical accuracy, I would recommend "The Masks of God", a four volume exploration of mythology by Joseph Campbell. It outlines the general development of the concept of a "god" from the most primitive societies to the present. It's heavy on the archaeology, but fascinating all the same. For a more controversial hypothesis about the origin of gods, see "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.) Jim Gardner University of Waterloo
req@snow.UUCP (Russell Quin) (02/05/85)
There have been a number of articles posted here on the subject of Player Characters doing Heroic Battle against Gods/Ghods/Deities/Dieties[sic]. (I'll call them Ghods to save confusion with Christian/Jewish/whatever Gods). So here are a few pseudo-random thoughts on the subject... I have found myself agreeing with many of the approaches that GM's say that they take, but there is some problem with the theology.... It depends on what you mean by "Ghod". If you view the Ghods as imminent, palpable entities, as creatures who breathe the air and live and die as mortals do, then it is not unreasonable that they be susceptible to physical violence. ... And thor put down his mighty hammer, but Alas!, he did put it down even upon his great and worshipful foot and did cry out in pain, and there were many great winds all over the World. ... :-) Perhaps even PCs could become Ghods in this sense, if the GM lets the campaign get sufficiently high-level (but see other recent net.games.frp articles :-) ). There doesn't seem to be any justification for making a distinction between PCs and NPCs in this respect; an interesting HighLevelCampaign (HLC) could involve a race between PCs and NPCs to become Ghods and form a powerful religion. Although I'm not sure I'd like to write -- or run -- subsequent scenarios!! If, however, you view the Ghods as intangible manifestations of ultimate existence, power, virtue or <other-adjectival_phrase>, then it becomes completely meaningless to talk about <<Fighting the Ghods>>, because they exist on a different level of reality. You could no more say ``I tickled Allah's left big toe yesterday'' than ``We killed a Ghod''. These ``MetaGhods'' may be reflected in some way in the nature of the universe, or in the way in which magical effects are made manifest, for example. It is possible that they, too, are dependent in some way on their worshippers for their power. But this is power between themselves; they will not necessarily appear to be weak on Earth simply because they have few worshippers. The Ghods that are worshipped most may well become powerful enough to fight or even defeat other Ghods in either case, but the MG's demise will most likely be marked by some subtle yet pervasive change -- the Ghod of Relit Fire weakens and the spells that deal with fire become less effective..... Who can say -- or even speculate upon -- what would happen if the Christian God were to pass away in this world? Perhaps the Gods never die -- they merely wax and wane. PCs do battle with manifestations of some or other aspect of a Ghod's personality (if that's meaningful), and not with the Ghod itself. Destroying the manifestation need not weaken the Ghod directly -- although the resulting loss of faith of its worshippers might make dramatic differences in the long term. -- ... mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!snow!req Striving to promote the interproduction of epimorphistic conformability ....
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/07/85)
> Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods: > > (1) Creation of the universe. > (2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species. > (3) Omniscient/Omnipresent. > (4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times. > (5) Control over death/the afterlife. This list of properties strikes me as grossly biased towards a Judeo-Christian view of what a god is. Neither the Greek nor the Roman gods met most of these specs, and their worshippers most assuredly considered them gods. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
eliovson@aecom.UUCP (02/11/85)
> > My objection to this kind of analysis still stands. If you play your > ghods this way, they are no different than very powerful NPCs. Further, > this treatment just begs the question. Who is above the "ghods" in this > kind of scheme? (Since they clearly have no quantum differences from > player characters.) > Why do you think there is material written on divine ascension? Just because you never had a character of divine material doesn't mean someone else could not have- and have been made into a demigod. Further basis for my arguement is from Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light. In this sf-fantasy novel "gods" were those with very developed powers (relating to the Indian mythos). Demigods were underdeveloped talents who were held in store in case the god of the same power died or something. In which case, tons of worshipers were not left forsaken, the demigod became the god. > Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods: > > (1) Creation of the universe. > (2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species. > (3) Omniscient/Omnipresent. > (4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times. > (5) Control over death/the afterlife. > In the Elric saga by Michael Moorcock we see just how these powers are excersised. Even to the extent of destroying the gods of that time itself. In this case Chaos became too strong on the primaterial plane and Law had to take the most drastic measures to prevent the utter destruction of the world. In a later Moorcock book, Arioch starts trouble again- infesting the world with tons of denizens from hell to support the cleric who he wants to get the holy grail for him. > There is a consistent factor in these powers - that god has absolute > power over the human domain. His power is without limit as far as men > are concerned. If you accept this principle, then PCs are never going to > kill a Ghod or his Avatar. Ever. It isn't a matter of having more power > than the Ghod, or catching him when he is weak. He has absolute power, and > does what he wants. > As clearly evident in numerous fiction- and in religion today. G-d or gods work within the framework of the nature they or that has been setup. Arioch could only send minions of his to aid his believer/servant. The best example may be the Thomas Covenant Chronicles. How do you explain that?!? Despite was clearly on the level of a deity. Covenant was not. So, by your reasoning Donaldson is going to have to write a 3rd set explaining where he went wrong?.... > You may decide to base your Ghods' powers on their number of worshippers, > their place in the pantheon or something like that. But the moment you > limit their powers they are no longer gods in the traditional sense. > They're just powerful monsters people happen to worship. This is true. So what's your point? > Might as well worship the > toughest NPC wizard for that matter. He can provide the same benefits. I > think you lose something from your game with this approach. > On player sheets you will notice the lines: ________________ or Guild Representative:________________ or such. This is because lower level pc's gain much better chances of survival for working for or licking the high level pc's ROT. > The rub with having truly all-powerful Ghods arises from having more than > one Ghod. What happens when you have a number of all-powerful Ghods > meddling in human affairs? And what happens when they come in conflict with > one another? (An interesting theology question even today. Why doesn't > the Christian God (for instance) simply remove Satan from the scheme of > things?) > They don't meddle because they're running things! You're contradicting yourself. As others have said, that's what they have clerics for. The rarity of intercession is proven by the minute percentile chance you have for them to appear. Satan, known as Lucifer was the most beautiful angel serving G-d at his right hand. Until he wanted to stop serving and be served for a while. For this he was cast down. In the later Moorcock book I meantioned- sorry I don't remember the name- his theme is that Lucifer wants to talk with G-d and repent. To do this he has someone quest the holy grail for him. Without going through the whole story, he speaks to G-d and finds out that he is still serving G-d. Without free-will there is no basis for true worship. On the otherhand, the concept of punishment works wonders to set people on the right path. > The answer, I think, is to have self-imposed restrictions on Ghods. The > ancients who worshipped pantheons weren't unaware of the philosophical > problems, and their usual solution was to give each god a domain over which > he had control by tacit approval of the other gods. That's a good solution, > I think, but you could probably come up with any number of others, the more > bizarre and contradictory the better. Why should we play games then? We have that today. > > To sum up my position: I'm aware that there are interesting ways to play > Ghods that limit their powers and make situations possible where PCs can > battle and defeat the Ghods. I don't think that is the most interesting > manner of play possible - FRP has enough monsters as it is. Building a > mythos without true gods is like a house without windows. Workable, but > lacking. > My position is as follows: In the finale of Zelazny's Dilvish the Damned, Jelerak the ARCHarch wizard attacks the ELDER gods. He manages to burn some god's hands and to hold out for about five minutes before they squash his will. If a pc wants to mess with a god it's up to him. Moshe T. Eliovson Yeshiva University Academic Computer Center 500 W.185th Street, New York, NY 10033 UUCP: ...!philabs!aecom!eliovson in response to: > Scott R. Turner > UCLA Computer Science Department > 3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024 > ARPA: srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA > UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
shawn@garfield.UUCP (Shawn Kearley) (02/13/85)
In article <5026@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Consider the kinds of powers normally attributed to gods: >> >> (1) Creation of the universe. >> (2) Creator of the human species and/or other living species. >> (3) Omniscient/Omnipresent. >> (4) Hears the prayers of all worshippers at all times. >> (5) Control over death/the afterlife. > The following quotations were taken from the Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG) and from the Deities and Demigods (DD) manuals. Hopefully these will clear up the problems about the gods in AD&D being omniscient and/or unkillable. DMG p42 fifth level clerical spell commune explination " [...] Note, that it is possible for a deity to answer 'I Don't Know', as most deities are not omniscient." DD p8 paragraph 2 "However, it is true that a gods power often increaces or decreaces as the number of his worshipers varies." DD p8 paragraph 7 "If a god enters combat (willingly or unwillingly), he or she will always attempt to avoid any situation where the god can be physically defeated. [...] The easiest avoidence of combat is the god's innate teleport ability, which enables him or her to leave combat entirely, or "blink" away to a convienant distance and resume combat in a manner of the god's choosing (spells, special abilities, etc). DD p11 paragraph 7 "Type V and VI demons must rest a century before returning unaided to the plane where they were slain; Demon Princes and Lords, and Greater Devils and Arch-Devils require 2-8 weeks to restore there energies to a point where they can plane travel or send a servitor to another plane; and even the Greater Deities require 1-4 weeks of rest before dealing with activities outside there home plane." DD p11 paragraph 8 "If any servent or minion of a deity (or even the Deity itself) is slain on its home plane, that being is absolutely and irrevocably dead." DD p11 paragraph 9 " DIVINE ASSENSION " " as a study of the various mythologies will show, it is remotely possible for mortals to ascend into the ranks of the devine [...]" from these quotes it is easy to see that in the AD&D setting the gods are neither omniscient nor unkillable by mortals. The powers that the gods have should make this nearly impossible but as shown the possiblity is there that a PC could kill a god. As to weather the gods are mearly high level characters, the final paragraph shows that high level PC's can possibly become gods. This paragraph continues to tell what is required to become devine and what happens to the character but I didn't think there was any need to include it here. It does however say that after a period of time the character can become a demi-god, thus it is possible that the gods were at one time just highly superior mortals. Shawn Kearley shawn@garfield.UUCP
srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/20/85)
In article <2469@garfield.UUCP> shawn@garfield.UUCP (Shawn Kearley) writes: > The following quotations were taken from the Dungeon Masters Guide (DMG) >and from the Deities and Demigods (DD) manuals. Hopefully these will clear >up the problems about the gods in AD&D being omniscient and/or unkillable. <sarcasm on> Oh. I had forgotten that the DMG was the One True Way. I'm sorry, the next time I have my doubts I'll just re-read all of Gary's books. Then I'll know what the RIGHT answer is. <sarcasm off> Nuff said? -- Scott