Post by Chris RehmPost by MarcqSo, the world might grow for a significant time in population, etc. But
it is the gods' game, it isn't likely they want it to get beyond them.
Intelligent races could fight over who runs this land or that, but I
don't think the deities would want to let them get out of hand.
That could be the case for the gods. Or they could be like nearly all the
gods of human history pantheons where they did not shape any larger purpose
or plan in the manner you describe. I take the latter read on the gods given
that there are so many of them that don't like each other. Your read is also
possible. I don't see how you can insist that your read is the only way,
though.
Well, I didn't mean to insist that mine was the only way. But I pretty
much thought that all the gods of all the pantheons did in fact
manipulate. Maybe not to create a specific ending point, but to keep the
mortals from challenging the gods at least.
I don't recall much of that in the Norse myths but it certainly was present
in the Greek. It isn't really addressed in the default setting to my
recollection.
Post by Chris RehmPost by MarcqSo, what you are saying (I think) is that if the gods created (say) two
of each race, you don't think that a medieval world would evolve. Right?
Two might die out, but yes. The more the starting condition differs from the
medieval world, the less likely it is (I would think).
Well, okay, but do you think it is "less likely" than our own medieval
world was? I've been watching a lot of the discussion about that, and I
think I've come to the opinion that the technology of magic doesn't head
off a medieval society any more than physics did.
We can look around the world and see that there were many different
societies growing in different environments. Not all had a feudal era
filled with stone castles and iron swords.
But the feudal era was a result of a social climate, upper classes held
the power and lower classes were the chattel, a resource for the
powerful. The fact that it included the physical components it did was
just a matter of timing in the spread of technology.
Well, given the same set of social circumstances and making magic the
technology of the day, why would the rich suddenly fall out of power?
Does the existence of magic make them more likely to share their power
with the lower classes?
Because there are other arrangements of power, for one. Maybe more the Roman
or Byzantine models. These arrangement preserved more central power: that is
the haves were even better at holding on to power. As I've said elsewhere, I
think that the D&D fantasy elements would tend to centralize power more, not
less.
Part of this depends on exactly what you mean by medieval. The middle ages
were more than a feudal setting. japan was feudal and it had a very
different look to it. I don't imagine feudal relationships as improbable,
they existed to varying degree in many places but the variances are
significant. Also when you say medieval to me, I think of Europe 800 to 1400
and it includes a central dominant church, the feudal relationships, the
medieval city development (which changed a good deal in the period), the
guilds, the approximate pop and demographics.
I do think the Church had a profound influence on the middle ages and I
don't see such an institution in the standard setting. I think alot of the
medieval trappings (the fortresses and demographics) are products of
specific circumstances that aren't any more likely than a lot of other
possibilities as demonstrated on earth.
Oh, to toss one more brand on the fire, geography had something to do with
how Europe came to be as it was so a setting with different geography could
easily lead to other arrangements as well.
Post by Chris RehmPost by MarcqBut the deity relationships in most human pagan myths were not static.
Well, they are static. Not for the envisioned life of the deities, but
static through the application of the pantheon. In other words, while
the myth may say, "Loki stole a purse so the other gods hate him..."
that wouldn't have been an occurrence that happened yesterday. It was
"from before" and the relationship between Loki and the other gods was
static for the lifetimes of the believers.
That's because you are describing myths. If the gods actually were real
beings, why can't Loki stieal the purse tomorrow? BTW the standard deities
and demigod book for 3.0 specifically suggests settings for the norse mythos
that occur before death of Baldur, after death of Baldur and at Ragnorrok.
Clearly, the game designers envisioned more active gods. You could argue
that the first two settings could be interpreted as static but the last one
isn't static in anyway.
Post by Chris RehmThe difficulty with this, I can see, is that the DM needs to have
background flavor for deities, but that doesn't match the real life example.
Yes, but I don't think the real world examples offered D&D divine spells
either. It is simplest to use the static model (and tend to myself) but when
I say "assume the D&D gods" I'm thinking the D&D gods as the books describe
them: gods at odds with each, supporting different races and agendas. Either
is a valid premise. It is one of those niggly premise things that would need
to be agreed on.
Actually this thread is a real good example of the premise details. I should
try to capture this ;-)
Post by Chris RehmPost by MarcqSome of the reason I see more clerics in the world, is that I see gods
having good reason to have more followers in the world. My reason for this
is that I read much of the historical pantheons to be in conflict. They
nearly always had at least good and evil and sometimes entire opposed races
(Norse). In a pantehon where there is no common purpose and even conflict,
the gods would have incentive to strength their chosen ones with divine
power aka clerics.
Well, there's a lot open for debate here.
First, if we follow your reasoning along, if the gods granting spells is
the only requirement for clerical casting, then shouldn't those gods
just grant them 9th level spells on day 1? Get them started big! ;-)
Wait! You aren't representing my argument correctly. I say you need the
wisdmo ability and I haven't said you don't need study or "level
progression" (although I could argue that level progression need not come
from killing things.)
Post by Chris RehmSecond, the gods have plenty of reasons to want to build their
followers, but let's try to look at it from their side. :-)
How many gods are there? Let's say we have a big, rich pantheon of
thirty gods. Now, to them, that's the only real people they have to deal
with. Forever. Everything else is just temporary, transitional. Every
thing they do with manipulating people or whatever, is just
entertainment. A part of their social interaction with the other
deities. Some deities never get along, some always do. Their community
is very small.
So their transgressions against whatever codes of conduct they have
agreed to are passing. Just emotional zeal in pursuit of a victory in
the game of humanity.
So when you focus in on a snapshot in time, the point where the game is
occurring, and you are saying, "Why wouldn't the gods do this or that?"
you should keep in mind that this game has been going on for thousands
of years for them. Some of them are bored, some more interested.
Whatever parts of it they are paying attention to are for their own
amusement.
Sure, they might want to "win", but they know if they make a big overt
rush for the goal, five or ten of their peers wills say, "Hey, Bob's
doing to much! If we don't band together and stop him, we all lose." and
they'll knock him back. So instead they seek to set things in motion
that are subtle and strong.
You could take this reasoning and question whether the gods would even grant
spells. That they do suggestions some interest in mortal affairs. beyond
that, it depends on the setting.
In the norse setting, the gods seek allies for Ragnorrok (dead, worthy
humans who go to the various halls of fallen warriors). Other settings may
have other reasons for deific interest.
I see nothing in the standard setting that requires your disinterest. I do
see conflict all the historical pantheons I can recall and in some premises,
followers (like in the Norse) could be useful. Moreover, there is one
premise that I find reasonable (I realize other don't) that says the gods
gain power from their worshippers. This is not required for divine interest
in human affairs but it obviously encourage it as well.
Post by Chris RehmPost by MarcqIn a more static pantheon, the gods wuold have much less or no incentive for
this.
I can see better where you are coming from. This is one of the reasons I
harp on premise. I honestly can't see how you can read in the standard gods
that they *must* be static, if you allow me my conflicted gods, perhaps my
increasing cleric population doesn't seem so odd?
Okay, I surely allow for non-static gods, and for conflict, and lots of
clerics if you want. But I don't think it is a premise that is called
for by the circumstances.
I'm pretty sure I am getting a good idea of your vision. Deities want
all the clerics they can get. The number of people becoming clerics is
driven by "market pressure" (my term). So, you are looking for a
limiting factor to keep the numbers in line, rather than go with what
you see as an arbitrary limit in the D&D rules. Is that right?
So then I'm saying, "Hey man, change the way you look at what a cleric
is and what clerical spell casting is and that will give you a
solution." and you are saying, "Well, I want a solution that goes along
with my own view of how the game world works."
So I guess I'm less than helpful with my, "Don't make it work that way."
response, eh? ;-)
Well... not quite an accurate characterization. The one thing I ask you to
remember is that I don't find your read on the situation any more correct,
based on the rules, than mine. As you seem to favor your interpretation, I
find mine more reasonable given what I see in the analogs. But I do agree
with you that there are ways of dealing with the issue. I would just observe
that you could do so without static gods. As you might guess, I like that
aspect of the setting. it is very colorful ;-)
However, I will also observe that I think you need both static gods and a
fixed number of people capable of being clerics who also are always clerics
for the numbers not to be subject to "market" effects. The deific conflict
can cause more clerics, people valuing the priesthood over time can effect
the numbers of priests.
Let me ask you this- there are fewer people entering the Catholic priesthood
in the US than in the past but the number of Catholics has not fallen as
much. I can think of only three cases: the devout people must be turning to
other faiths and becoming ministers there or the number of priests is
influenced by more than just devotion or there are fewer devout people being
born to catholics these days. I think the middle case is more likely.
Post by Chris RehmWell, if you really want to make it interesting, and you really want
There is a limit to how much access each deity has to the pool of divine
magic. They can either use the magic themselves, or allocate it out to
their followers. So, while a deity wants as many clerics as they can
get, every time they enable a cleric to cast spells, they do so by
turning over a share of their own magic and weakening themselves.
So a deity with a billion clerics would not be able to have any of them
channel spells, since the amount of magic that each of them would have
allocated would be very weak. But a deity with no followers would be
very powerful, albeit as an individual.
So deities want only the most loyal of clerics. Those that will use the
magic in the way the deity would.
That's kind of what I proposed in my essay on the essay thread. But there
are some who find such a premise entirely unreasonable, believe it or not. I
think you are on that thread- might conscious attempt was to have conflict
among the gods but fixed clerics and I thought it would be interesting to
consider the case where the increase of ones followers actually meant the
god could help them less, per person. (I didn't develop that theme much in
the essay; 1000 words is pretty constraining.) But some felt this was an
evil plot of mine, I think.
Marc