Trying to tackle an aspect of world creation here...Religion (traditionally) is based on faith, which is belief (as I understand it) without proof. I suppose it's a bit different in a fictional world-especially a fantasy world, where miracles are witnessed and documented, but let's assume that some real world tendencies carry over into our world creations.
Religion is faith based, and magic is generally (using the stereotypical D&D studious wizard model) a studied power. How do clerics get along with wizards? Or am I digging to deep? This has never come up at a game table..I don't really think it is appropriate for that sort of thing..but perhaps in developing a world for a novel..or some other media it might be relevant. Can religions in fantastical worlds coexist with magic users ? Or would the cleric of the party forever be damning the wizard?
Just a thought.. Strange morning.
No, this came up heavily in the GS system and Celtricia cosmology.
I think the presence of divine magic, supplied by deities directly or powered by faith, is a good issue to raise.
In GS, priest access the same void-borne sources of magic as everyone, there are just some they tend to be better at. For example, last night on the IRC, LC was creating a character and he looked at the Church of Solid Earth (Madrak), and found they have good spirit, earth, and resotrative spell skills.
I've always kinda seen them as competing world views, much like how scientists and priests often snipe at each other. Science (and wizardly magic for the most part) is about performing experiments and then using that information about the natural laws to your advantage. Faith (and by extension divine magic) is a gift, granted by the grace of your god/gods. Given that dichotomy, it becomes obvious how tensions can arise. I mean, could you really imagine a priest using his deity's power for the purpose of something so mundane as lighting a candle? Yet wizards do that all the time.
On the flip side, depending on exactly how your religions view the delving into of secrets not meant to be known by man, it might get along quite well with magicians in generally. Of course is magic is viewed as a gift from the Prime Evil or whatever, then your priests will generally follow that belief.
It depends on how you execute things. With my last setting, Wizards and Clerics were actually quite similar, with the only real distinction being the kinds of power they have written access to and what they chose to manifest their powers as, as well as what "team" they're working for.
For your world, assuming the Studious Wizard from DnD-like games:
If I'm a cleric, do I have to study ancient and worn tomes of spells handed down by long-gone prophets of godly powers? Or to gain my magic spells, do I simply have to endure a long time of kneeling and praying and ritual-ing? Or do I have to have innate magical powers to become a casting priest? If the first one, I'm functionally a wizard. If the second, I'm the usual "cleric", and if the third I'm just a sorcerer with a fancy symbol around my neck.
Do all religious servants have magic? If I join "the church", will I inevitably become a spell caster, or will most of us (and likely me) spend most of our lives with no real magic? Or is it a leveled thing (kind of like Hogwarts), where I have to be "promoted" to learn or undergo ritual for the weak magic like "heal cut"? Would I then always be promoted to learn powerful stuff like "save soul" or would I have to prove myself worthy (and thus risk never having such power)? What if I join the church and I have innate (and typically wizardly) powers like fireball?
Are there any 'legit' magic people who find secular origins of their power? Do "wizards" just approach their godly powers different? The whole origin of Cleric Vs Wizard smacks of science vs religion -- one side sees a "reasoned" or "educated" source while the other thinks it's because of divine influence. This doesn't always have to exist. You can have god-less spiritual people who study magic from books but believe they're from a form of spirit energy either internal or external. You can also have the same kind of people who just learn by example or simply by meditation -- their magic would, to them, be a form of self expression.
I know leveling (which makes it complicated) has influence on it; you could theoretically have a level 2 Cleric who's a high INT, WIS or even CHA guy that managed to become the "Pope", calling shots to level 15 "mid rank guys", who manifest more "holy power" than he does. I guess you could claim that he'd be leveling by undergoing "challenges" within the leadership of his church, or perhaps he has to earn it by merit by killing the enemies of the faith, but this isn't always so.
Examples from what I've done are below in the spoiler. Let me know if it's clearly written, or if it's unclear and you would like me to clarify.
[spoiler]
In my last setting, there were no living gods. They were distinct bodies of energy that were created by mankind's belief in the concept of their god. The more who believed, the greater that power became, and vice versa. When you joined the Church as a powerless human, you underwent the usual study regarding your Scriptures and the like. Essentially, you spent no time gaining any real power but greater faith in your own religion. These guys are functionally equivalent to a real-life Christian monk or whatever you call a non-confirmed priest. They're knowledgeable in their faith, but they're not particularly "holy". I do learn useful things, though. If I study at the healing temple, I do -learn- "medical" knowledge (in my setting roughly equal to humorism and Hippocratic anatomy), and people who study in the temple of the god of war are trained in weapon use, the philosophy of war, and tactics. It would, however, generally suck to be at this level in the "elemental gods" temple, as the only useful thing you'll really learn relates to the gods of nature, where you learn the secrets of animal husbandry, agriculture and gardening to a high degree.
To get magic from your gods, you had to be selected as intelligent enough and prove indirectly that you weren't going to go rogue with it. Then you underwent training to utilize the weakly magical force already present on your world. From their POV, they're being granted initiate types of power directly from their real god. From a reality POV, they're just learning how to use the stereotypical energy already present on their planet. You gain these powers from classroom instruction, practice and book learning (written works that are more "personal experience" than "how does magix").
Exactly what kind of powers you learn are based on what god you worship. Just like in real life, if I'm studying to become a doctor, I'm certainly not going to learn the mysteries of engineering. If I've been studying in the temple of the Healing God(ess), then I'm going to learn some kind of healing oriented magic because that's what they're teaching me. I'll learn weak magic like "seal cut" and "slow poison", but I am not physically capable of say, "unbreak neck" and "regrow limb".
To get real divine power capable of big things, I need to be tapped into the cosmic psychic thing that is my god. At this point, "cure 1HP" or "cure 1d4" hp (at an extreme) is the pinnacle of my magical knowledge, which is supplemented by my medical knowledge. I could well bring back someone from the brink of death, but not everyone...
So, after completing my training and learning how to magically medic someone and seal their boo-boos, I've proven myself to be worthy (read: Not go psycho with) higher power. I then get more training in mind and body to survive a ritual which links me in mind and body to this "higher power". I essentially lose my ability to interact with the planetary ether-stuff that is magic for my old self, and can now potentially fuel greater powered spells. I use this new power to fuel my old stuff like "cure 1HP", and it doesn't become any more powerful (the concept being the same), but it does open me to things (eventually) like "cure serious wounds".
Exactly when in your life you get the right to undergo this was a little vague, as it could really be anywhere from 15 years old (trained from 10 - 15 in the basic magics) to 50 years old (spent much of your life as a lesser clerical guy). Level wise...eh. Originally I intended to kind of redo how classes functioned to make them a tad more generic, so that your "spell levels" are not a direct function of your characters level so much as there being a requirement both physical and philosophical -- no more gaining magic from no where in the middle of an adventure!
Wizarding and Clerical powers were split up into different gods and schools as par usual, but with greater restrictions to kind of prevent the 3.5 wizarding syndrome from kicking in. That's where the wizard is better than you because his spells do -everything-. The way I was working on it, the Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer couldn't be capable of being a one man army -- the "confounding" wizards couldn't be all that great at killing, the killing ones couldn't really disable or negate obsticles, etc. For the above Clerics, this is based on your temple. Not every temple teaches a whole lot of magic, as the temple to the god of Law has not a whole lot of magic that fits their theme.
The application for the Clerics in the world at large is based on their power level and what temple they are. Some temples don't even have "linked" people as they have no need and others only have a handful at a time. It's something that not everyone enjoys playing, though, as you can become functionally quite weak in the grand scheme of things because you'll never have access to potent magic. It fit with my world (generally) as the level cap was 6 and the challenges you faced never world-shatteringly powerful like high level DnD stuff.
For the Wizards, they have to undergo a planar linking similar to but not exactly like the Clerical one (they access an indistinct plain that doesn't "color" their magic; a Cleric who studies healing at the high level and is linked can't use his "god's power" to cast a fireball like the Clerics of the Temple of Fire because the mental concepts are different. For the Wizards, you can use the same power source to learn different magics, but they have legal schools that prevent them from becoming too powerful in their eyes. The initiates learn magic using the low level stuff just like the clerics, and also lose connection to this when they undergo their ritual. The line between the initiate (most common) wizard and the initiate (most common casting) cleric is rather fuzzy when it comes to magic ability; it comes mostly from type of education and their philosophy of application/origin.
Sorcerer and sorcerer like classes only ever deal with natural magics, but their innate physical make up builds them to be something like a powerful lens, enabling them to focus the weak natural stuff into quantitatively powerful masses of energy, rivaling that of "off world" sources. How they learn to apply it is between natural study (figuring it out on their own or "feeling" intuition) and book study, like that of Clerics and Wizards. Sometimes you will see Sorcerers within Clerical and Wizarding schools -- they're people who can wield powerful magic without "linking" (which is potentially deadly). Wizards are suspicious of these types because they're not often seen as having any kind of "sacrifice" for the art, and don't have a history of seeing why wizarding power is "distributed". The Clerical types tend to be suspicious because they can wield all kinds of spells from multiple temples (as they're not linked to a particular kind of magic) at a much higher power level than those who are not linked (but theoretically lower than those who are). If snapped up young, these sorcerers just turn out to be powerful unlinked people, something of a prophet or messiah-like figure (or someone to be tightly controlled for the good of all mankind). If found later in life with considerable magical knowledge behind them, they're often thought of as an abomination -- they're not properly "checked".
[/spoiler]
I hope I said something with my above ramblings. I am not too sure if I'm very good at expressing what it is I want to say. If you need me to sort it out, either ask me to or ignore it and wait for someone better-written to come along.
M.
EDIT: It took me ages to write this reply as I kept getting interrupted by people (started at around 8:45), so I think I may have said much the same as the above two.
EDIT2: Left out an important bit: In the setting above, Wizard/Cleric relations have not be ironed out as they shouldn't be existing in the same nation as legit magic users. I think my real intention was to do away with the "studious wizard" in his tower-school and make all the legal (socially acceptable) magic users some kind of Cleric, with the non-faithful who peruse magic akin to covens. Wizards need not a scientific understanding of things to do magic; they might not even have a recognizable approach like generic fantasy wizards do. It's a complex question, I think.
I think the whole division of magic into divine and non-divine is a bad idea that should be avoided. Magic is magic; it's the making use of occult phenomena that exist in the context of the setting. Whether or not divinities (confirmed or uncertain) are supposed to have anything to do with these phenomena is really irrelevant. You do the magic ritual -> stuff happens.
Now, a magical ritual/"spell" could very well include some appeals (or commands) to some supposed divinities. This certainly does not presuppose that the magic-user is any kind of priest, nor even have any faith. Neither does it necessitate that the magic should be (in nature) any different from another ritual/spell that doesn't involve the invocation of supposed divinities.
On the other hand, one has to wonder where to draw the line between magic and other interaction with divinities. Anyone can pray and offer sacrifice. So here's a question: If you chop off the head of a chicken and declare it an offering to the goddess of luck, then go on to win the lottery, does that make you a magic user?
Quote from: GhostmanSo here's a question: If you chop off the head of a chicken and declare it an offering to the goddess of luck, then go on to win the lottery, does that make you a magic user?
This is a very good question, and one which I have put before my various groups on multiple occasions. There are people TODAY, some of I am friends with, who think they do magic by performing some kind of offering or ritual, and then go on to see some kind of effect from it and call it magic. It should not be strange for every character to think he's performing functional magic by sacrificing something, be it a sword into a lake or a ram into a fire. In fact, if magic and religion are heavily featured in your setting, it should be the norm!
In history, "magic" was performed by all kinds of people in a vast variety of ways -- "magic" never exists in a void. Hell, there are recipes in Renaissance
fencing manuals that are considered "magic potions" and magical means of figuring out when to fight duels based on the letters of your name. The former might not have had any noticeable effect, but the latter DID, as your opponent was aware (and believed in) the magic behind the day he was fighting you on -- lowering his morale and boosting your own.
M.
EDIT: Blacksmiths in many cultures (and bronze workers before them) were considered functional magicians by most people for a long time. Even into the Renaissance we had "how to" manuscripts on making superior (magical) swords using materials that, from a metallurgical point of view, have little to no effect on the final product. These include things like hair and water taken from a particular source or with a particular additive.
I think that in forming your question, you are taking for granted some assumptions that don't need to be made. For example, the assumption that in most game worlds, miracles exist, religion is based on faith without proof, magic is based on deep study or scientific-style research, and that said research would create conflict by contradicting said faith.
There are probably worlds where all of the above are true. There are myriad worlds where none, or at least not all, of the above are true.
Here's my poorly-researched theory:
Conflict in fantasy worlds between science and faith, or between "arcane magic" and "divine magic" (which are really just science and faith in disguise) are a logically inconsistent carryover from real-world tension between science and faith.
People with scientific mindsets reject assertions that contradict empirical evidence (i.e., young-earth creationism, or the notion that the world is flat). Many (but not all) take a stricter route, rejecting assertions that don't contradict accepted evidence, but which aren't supported by any accepted evidence, either (i.e., God exists). Since religions, by and large, are known for making both types of statements in varying numbers and to varying degree of emphasis, we have a real-world conflict, and this conflict is translated over to fantasy worlds by writers in search of heavy-handed allegory (or, often, writers who are kind of lazy!)
Here is the interesting part (I promise that there is one):
If you are considering a fantasy world where, for example, miracles occur and are witnessed, that counts as empirical evidence that could support any number of theories re: gods, faith, afterlives. With sufficient evidence, faith's no longer unscientific because it's no longer making (as many) unsupported claims. (It's arguable that, at least by your own stated definition, it's also no longer faith. But that's another topic.)
If your in-world scientists or scientist-stand-ins (magic-using or otherwise) have a problem with faith because it's unscientific, it's likely that they're doing their science wrong-- as a scientist, I couldn't just decide to ignore gravity or electromagnetic radiation or inertia without being intellectually dishonest; if overwhelming evidence within my fantasy world supported the existence of one or more gods, I couldn't dismiss that, either.
Likewise, if science doesn't have a problem with faith, faith probably doesn't have a problem with science, because science probably isn't making heretical claims like "You know, they're really no logical reason to believe this God fellow actually exists."
I think that in most games (and particularly in your typical D&D world), there's no good reason even for an arcane/divine distinction, much less a framework of grudges and conflicts. Especially not if the root cause of it all is that one is essentially rational and the other is essentially irrational (because unless divine magic only functions when nobody is watching, it's hard to make that case).
Of course, it's possible to create that kind of conflict by providing a reason for it that still holds up. For example, maybe when wizards use their arcane heathen magic, they siphon off a little portion of the gods' power with each expenditure, gradually weakening the gods (and pissing off the clergy). At some point, though, I'd ask myself whether or not I'm just enshrining an essentially nonsensical distinction and scrounging for arbitrary ways to support it.
This has always been one of my big issues with "core D&D" type game systems, which is why I've almost always stripped my games down to one casting class, or at least one type of casting class. That way magic is either all divine/spiritual in nature, or magic has nothing to do with religion (except perhaps as examples of "unholy devilry" and so on... witch-trial type scenarios can make for interesting adventures).
However, I think my favourite set-up is the one my current campaign uses; magic and the supernatural exist, but they're the domain of NPCs. This way, to the players, magic isn't arcane or divine but simply WEIRD. As a GM, I find this arrangement suits me a lot better, as there doesn't need to be any kind or airtight "system" about how the magic all works or where/who/what it comes from, as the players are (most likely) not going to get a good enough knowledge of spellcraft and suchlike for it to matter, which leaves me free to use magic as more of a plot device than a game mechanic, which leaves me with a powerful storytelling tool in my hands - as well as building a more "wondrous" flavour for the magical people and beings, as there is a very real mystery surrounding their powers.
That said, even in this nebulous system miracles, divine intervention and the like could occur, which could fit nicely with the tone of strangeness and otherness about the magic... so there could well be some sot of religious or at least deific connection to magic... I dunno. I seem to have rambled for a while, and now realised I haven't made much by way of a point. Oh well :)
Quote from: Endless_HelixFaith (and by extension divine magic) is a gift, granted by the grace of your god/gods. Given that dichotomy, it becomes obvious how tensions can arise. I mean, could you really imagine a priest using his deity's power for the purpose of something so mundane as lighting a candle? Yet wizards do that all the time.
transmute water into wine[/i] really worth God's time?). Yes, there are clearly situations in which a priest might balk at using his power, but I think it's telling that the problems, needs, and afflictions of "ordinary people" are often the ones most directly addressed by religion. People have prayed, given sacrifices, and so on for mundane personal things like a good harvest, personal fertility, favorable weather, and other such mundane things since the days of the ancient Egyptians (and probably long before that). The fact that something is commonplace or mundane doesn't make it unworthy of divine help; on the contrary, the mundane may well be more the domain of the average priest than calling down pillars of flame or raising people from the dead.
Otherwise (and unrelated to the previous), I'd echo what LC said - there is often no very good reason for an arcane-divine distinction. D&D has it because D&D aims to appeal to as many mainstream fantasy tropes as possible - both the stereotypical bearded, scholarly wizard in a pointy hat, and the faithful priest that brings the wrath of god(s) down on his foes. These classes were made because these were common fantasy stereotypes that people enjoy playing, not necessarily because it made the most internal consistency to divine magic in that way. Like LC, if I saw such a distinction in a homebrew setting that aspired to be internally consistent, I would be interested in reading about the reason for its existence and the relationship between these two sources of magic.
I haven't read all the responces yet. I want to post my reply to the OP before I read the rest.
Quote from: SarisaTrying to tackle an aspect of world creation here...Religion (traditionally) is based on faith, which is belief (as I understand it) without proof. I suppose it's a bit different in a fictional world-especially a fantasy world, where miracles are witnessed and documented, but let's assume that some real world tendencies carry over into our world creations.
I am a literature major, with a focus on Mythology and Relgion. I forget the name of the author, but he broke down this sort of thing into a quick little table:
| [th]Sacred[/th][th]Secular[/th]
[th]Provable[/th]| Holy-History | History |
[th]Non-provable*[/th]| Mythology | Fable |
I didn't want to make the table huge, but "non-provable" is supposed to be "cannot be emperically proven". It is a very fine line between dismissing and accepting. Just to set my viewpoints on the record here.
As you say, "faith" is not required so much in many fantasy worlds because miracles can be proven. You can walk into most temples and say "Prove to me the power of Pelor" and a cleric can heal your illness or make light in his hand or any number of things. But, faith might still be involved when dealing with issues of the afterlife. In 4E D&D, for instance, no one knows where the dead go after they pass through the Raven Queen's realm. If one religion says that you get to go live in your god's domain, accepting that is faith.
There is a world religion that is very useful for study when considering fantasy worlds. Confucianism, from my understanding, is more of a philosophy than a religion when compared with the other religions of the world. A very base and simple definition of religion is "a belief in spirit beings". Being able to prove their existance doesn't change that. I think the definition should be expanded to also include doctrine; whether that doctrine is just how to keep the spirits of nature and your ancestors happy (as doctine is in animistic cultures) or is the rules given by a god (as it is in deific religions), guidelines and rules on how to act are a big part of religion.
I'm rambling a little, but that is something to consider. Athiests cannot exist in traditional fantasy worlds, but people can still choose to not live by the doctrine of faiths. Sure, if I was living in 4E D&D world, I would acknowledge that Pelor and Bahamut and Moradin and all the other gods exist, but that doesn't mean I have to follow their doctrine (though I'd probably like Moradin, I like being good, productive, and building stuff).
Quote from: SarisaReligion is faith based, and magic is generally (using the stereotypical D&D studious wizard model) a studied power. How do clerics get along with wizards? Or am I digging to deep? This has never come up at a game table..I don't really think it is appropriate for that sort of thing..but perhaps in developing a world for a novel..or some other media it might be relevant. Can religions in fantastical worlds coexist with magic users ? Or would the cleric of the party forever be damning the wizard?
This is going to definitely be on a setting-by-setting case-by-case basis. In the traditional D&D viewpoint, clerics and wizards get along just fine. Both study their magic, it is just that one gets their magic from ambient arcane energy and the other is given it by their god. In 4E D&D, clerics aren't even given it by their god, they access it from the same sacred energy that gods get their power from.
In my world, all magic is drawn from the spirits of nature. Everything has a spirit, even innatimate objects (technically things can lack a spirit, but they are deader than dead; if you killed the spirit of a rock, the rock would decay and crumble to nothingness, not even dust). Not all of these spirits are sentient. Priests forge relationships with the spirits or with a single powerful spirit (a deity), and this relationship translates over to many other spirits; when a cleric casts a spell, the spirits around them aid them and perform the magic. Wizards, on the other hand, learn how to tap into this energy through rituals and formulas; they do not have to make deals with the spirits in question.
Some look down upon Wizards. They find the way the Wizards gain their power to be disrespectful of the spirits. But the amount of energy one would have to draw from even a weak spirit to kill it is so large that Wizards typically do not cause any harm to the spirits around them, so there is little real reason to hate them for it. Some faiths hate wizards for their lack of required piety, and other faiths wish to see wizards more regulated since they do not need the spirits permision to use their power. But these viewpoints are not held by all priests.
But this is for my world.
It isn't a silly or strange thing to think of. I believe the opinions of one character class for another are important parts of a world, especially when a class is actually something fundamentally different from another (it is hard to see the fundamental differences between a fighter and a rogue, since that can simply be training, but the differences between wizards and clerics can be big parts of the world). Definitely consider how you want these relationships to play out in your setting.
One of the big problems with the Arcane v. Divine magic debate is that, now-a-days there isn't a huge difference between the two fields. When D&D first came out, Magic-User was the class to use if you wanted to be a Gandalf/Dumbledore/Elminster type - long beard, pointy hat, old, very smart, wise and possessed the ability to cast mind blowing spells. Cleric, on the other hand, was the class for those who wanted to be a Warrior but also have a bit magic (that was typically focused on healing and buffing himself and allies).
Over the years the Cleric was realized to be the linchpin class of the game, a class so necessary it was a requirement to have in any and ALL groups. This mentality lead to a lot of people being shoved into the role of Cleric because 'we need one and you drew the shortest straw.' These unwilling clerics often looked to morph the cleric into the class they actually wanted to play, such as a Warrior or a Mage. Once 3rd edition was released this unwilling mentality was addressed by, functionally, giving the Cleric the ability to be a pure warrior, a pure mage or something in between. Heck with multi-classing and the right domain, you could even be a Lockpicking Priest! This, more or less, diluted the design of the Cleric into a cesspool of haphazard and ill-thought-out ideas.
In turn this cesspool, when looked at from a new player's perspective, looks like a Wizard (who is also a cesspool of magical abilities) and the only real conclusion one can come to is - Magic is Magic no matter the source. There's nothing unique or cool about a Cleric, no way no how.
In reality the original purpose of the two fields of magic was to separate two different roles - pure caster and warrior-healer. When these distinctions were lost there really is no reason to maintain the split between arcane and divine. I remember reading and interview with Monte Cook once and he said, flat out, that the thing he most regrets in designing D&D 3.0 is allowing the Arcane-Divine split to remain.
Even if you decide that "magic is magic," and there is no formal, cosmological distinction between "arcane" and "divine" magic, that doesn't mean that the people of the setting won't create their own artificial distinctions between them-- I mean, if you want to preserve the flavor of D&D while try to make it harmonize with some of the views presented here, you could always say that's what's going on anyway.
In a previous, more traditional setting (not Crystalstar), I had an artificially created distinction like this. Magic in the cosmology was just magic, but magic as it applied to the setting was also rather tightly regulated by a few institutions. The general category of wizards was governed by the Mages' Guild, whereas the general category of clerics was governed by the Church. Magic-users (in this context, anyone who uses magic, not excluding clerics/priests/whatever) had to be sanctioned by either the Guild or the Church, and there was something of a rivalry between them. The Guild was more or less an arm of the state, where the Church (inspired by medieval Catholicism) was seen as something both vital to the fabric of society but also as a foreign influence whose loyalties are not entirely certain. This meant that the two different types of magic users might not get along, but their reasons were political, not cosmological.
Quote from: GhostmanI think the whole division of magic into divine and non-divine is a bad idea that should be avoided. Magic is magic; it's the making use of occult phenomena that exist in the context of the setting. Whether or not divinities (confirmed or uncertain) are supposed to have anything to do with these phenomena is really irrelevant. You do the magic ritual -> stuff happens.
Now, a magical ritual/"spell" could very well include some appeals (or commands) to some supposed divinities. This certainly does not presuppose that the magic-user is any kind of priest, nor even have any faith. Neither does it necessitate that the magic should be (in nature) any different from another ritual/spell that doesn't involve the invocation of supposed divinities.
On the other hand, one has to wonder where to draw the line between magic and other interaction with divinities. Anyone can pray and offer sacrifice. So here's a question: If you chop off the head of a chicken and declare it an offering to the goddess of luck, then go on to win the lottery, does that make you a magic user?
Late to the party I know, but I wholeheartedly agree with Ghostman about the unnecessary division of magic and how that has unfortunately become almost "standard" in fantasy and RPGs. RPGs in general seem to have an unavoidable tendency to categorize, define, and explain
everything - races, classes, alignments, etc - that magic/supernatural/divine has also fallen victim to.
I love reading this thread. It is
fascinating.Quote from: Leetest of Them AllRPGs in general seem to have an unavoidable tendency to categorize, define, and explain everything - races, classes, alignments, etc - that magic/supernatural/divine has also fallen victim to.
This is a very good point! Suddenly I am finding myself curious about how much of our hobby-wide trend toward (sometimes arguably detrimental) overcategorization can be traced back to the same root.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonSuddenly I am finding myself curious about how much of our hobby-wide trend toward (sometimes arguably detrimental) overcategorization can be traced back to the same root.
i would say it's more detrimental than it is not. I'm sure some of it comes from trying to "balance" various RPG systems. In my opinion, balance and categorization should NOT be a key factor in pen and paper RPG and that it takes alot of the magic (no pun intended) and literary quality out of a setting through forcing definition and explanation of everything in concrete terms, such as magic and religion.
I tend to agree; I just try to avoid making broadbrushed, sweeping statements. :yumm:
Quote from: LeetzQuote from: Luminous CrayonSuddenly I am finding myself curious about how much of our hobby-wide trend toward (sometimes arguably detrimental) overcategorization can be traced back to the same root.
i would say it's more detrimental than it is not. I'm sure some of it comes from trying to "balance" various RPG systems. In my opinion, balance and categorization should NOT be a key factor in pen and paper RPG and that it takes alot of the magic (no pun intended) and literary quality out of a setting through forcing definition and explanation of everything in concrete terms, such as magic and religion.
I agree with you but only from a world builder's perspective. From a player's perspective, it's always better to have large sums of information whittled down to easy-to-read and understand concepts.
Saying magic is magic doesn't really evoke any emotion or mental images. Saying Divine magic is a gift from the gods, while arcane is theft from the gods, tells you a lot more. Further, it gives players a great starting point for developing what matters to them - their characters.
Too often I think we forget just how basic the needs of the player, as compared to a world builder, really are. They need to know just the facts and not much more; we need to know everything up to and including the passionate one night love affair shared between the Daimyo of Kawatana and the Duchess of Lincolnshire on the island of Maui 12,347 years ago.
In my setting there is no mechanical separation between arcane and divine magic. Magic is magic. Also, religion is not necessarily (and pretty much never primarily) about faith in unprovable things.
But there are churches who will have libraries with rituals in them. Some churches or cults will have pacts with supernatural beings who might intervene on their behalf. Others may have unique ceremonies that aim to change the participants in some way... sometimes magical sometimes not. As for how members of a church gain access to the church's magic (if it has any), it varies church to church. Usually at least membership is required. Sometimes you must actually be a member of the clergy. Others you can just buy access to certain scrolls.
Also note that a church (and it's pact, library, ceremony, etc. if it has any) is distinct from its religion (with its worldview, dogma, philosophy, sacraments, community, etc.) even if it is a member of some larger faith. Though the religion will often determine the type of rituals a church will seek and/or keep. Gnostics will have their water scrying and druids their beast shapes (or what have you).
There are also secular magical schools in some places. They tend to be more insular, less spiritual, less politically connected, less demanding on certain scruples of their students. There's also the possibility of being self-taught, either researching in the field to find forgotten tomes in dungeons or making pacts with supernatural entities yourself.
In other words, there's no vs... just many ways to find your spells, with various pros and cons to any method.
Good stuff in the thread so far. Really, it's all down to how you -want- it. You could easily have a world where there is no religious magic and the "wizarding" types have it all, or a world where secular magic doesn't exist or is an obscure "shadowy" thing. You could also have a yin-yang approach, where the regional philosophy is that one cannot exist without the other.
M.
YOU MENTIONED LINCOLNSHIRE!
Sorry, most people seem almost completely unaware of it's existence, despite it being one of the largest counties, so whenever it comes up I tend to spazz slightly :P
Quote from: Luminous CrayonI love reading this thread. It is fascinating.Quote from: Leetest of Them AllRPGs in general seem to have an unavoidable tendency to categorize, define, and explain everything - races, classes, alignments, etc - that magic/supernatural/divine has also fallen victim to.
I just wish the days had more time to ansewer these and read them.
Tying this to E_E's post, the orginal types of rulesets were much sets of guidelines. Whether T&T, D&D, TFT, the original rules left a ton of room for improv, and faith and how it came ito the game is one of those places that was wide open. The inclusion of the cleric was that of the 'fighting priest', and once AD&D came into being, the cleric had to choose a religion. This obviously necessitated HAVING religions in the fantasy world, and while the older supplement 'Gods, Demigods, and Heroes' was more of a suplement, by the time AD&D came out with the advanced version of same, flexible guidelines had irretrievable morphed into canon, which gave birth to more rules (Domains and dogmas come to mind) in the place of faith and religion in the D&D game.
My biggest problem with this is that clerics and priests in most games followed deities (patron deity used to be on the old AD&D charcter sheets, I have no idea what happenned afterwards), as opposed to faiths or religions. Getting spells directly from that deity and communing with the servants of the gods daily to get these spells (and directly at later levels) I always felt totally reduced any sense of awe or wonder.
I enjoy the sitance between the divine and the mundane, and while I don't have divine magic in Celtricia, the place of religion is paramount in this world of factions. And Religions are organized by people, not by the gods.
[ooc]"The now-taken country of the Theocracy of Nebler lies to the east of Trabler, and most of the priesthood escaped into Igbar; but there is also a large Church of the Lawful Triumverate, (which includes Nebler, along with Rakastra and Abradaxus the harsh), so those two groups are at odds" [/ooc]
The human elements of faiths are what makes religion in a setting interesting, much more than a list of deities and spheres. What do they believe in, how do they worship, and how does this affect the daily lives of the inhabitants is grist for the roleplaying mill.
Quote from: Cheomesh...a world where secular magic doesn't exist or is an obscure "shadowy" thing.
Arga*
*(shameless setting bump)
Also Ouroboros 2.0 :p
M.
I think one of the best representations of religion and magic in a fantasy "setting" was in the ASoIaF novels.
Quote from: LeetzI think one of the best representations of religion and magic in a fantasy "setting" was in the ASoIaF novels.
Read them and greatly enjoyed them, but I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: LeetzI think one of the best representations of religion and magic in a fantasy "setting" was in the ASoIaF novels.
Read them and greatly enjoyed them, but I'm not really sure what you are referring to. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?
the way they are presented, in a less-is-more fashion, lets the readers imagination fill in a lot of the gaps. plus, they are not presented in a matter of fact, "this is the truth from the mouth of the writer" kind of way, you never really know whether the gods are real and Martin doesn't talk down to the reader explaining every detail of the world just for the sake of details. you never know if gods give magic to mortals, or if mortals thank the gods for magic that comes from somewhere/something else.
the Warlocks of the east, the god of fire and shadow, the weirtrees, and especially the Drowned God were all so f-ing awesome and mysterious. i don't think they would have been nearly as transfixing if Martin would have approached them from a scholarly, as opposed to literary, perspective.
Quote from: Leetzthe Drowned God
I could have swore that this just just regular mouth to mouth resecutation. (don't mind the spelling).
I will add that the "less is more" can work pretty well.
In the Malazan Book of the Fallen, all magic is taken from Warrens. These are like alternate dimension things, that are literally the home of the gods. So all magic users share the same source for magic.
As many pointed out, the divine-arcane distinction, or rather the divine-arcane conflict, could still exist in world terms.
In a greek-like civilization, where alledgedly their gods where involved in human affairs throughout the history (but none
have actually seen them), the clergy could cast spells, make rituals and ascribe their powers to a divine source.
Moreover, they could also say that only those in their church would be able to have "the divine grace" -a.k.a. cast spells-.
What would happen then if an atheist was able to cast a spell? The church could well lose its credibility.
Even worse: what if those atheist organize themselves in some sort of guild and start imparting their knowledge to everyone?
We have conflict of interests going on here. The idea could be further expanded, since in this scenario the church is the
"evil side" of the conflict.
An atheist would never be able to cast a spell -- they'd be immediately denounced by the power-base as a person in league with their devil/Morrigan/malignant force and would have a very bad day.
M.
EDIT: nevermind.
Quote from: Cheomesh[An outside would] be immediately denounced by the power-base as a person in league with their devil/Morrigan/malignant force and would have a very bad day.
Exclusivity is a common theme for Arcane Magic. The biggest reason it is an oft neglected theme for Divine Magic is most likely due to the fact that Divine magic has a boss where as Arcane does not.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfQuote from: Cheomesh[An outside would] be immediately denounced by the power-base as a person in league with their devil/Morrigan/malignant force and would have a very bad day.
Exclusivity is a common theme for Arcane Magic. The biggest reason it is an oft neglected theme for Divine Magic is most likely due to the fact that Divine magic has a boss where as Arcane does not.
Hmmm, not so sure...that's a sort of an stereotype, but it could well be the other way round (e.g.the clergy being the elite of your world)
welcome to theocracy
Welcome to Organized Religion.
M.
Quote from: LordVreegwelcome to theocracy
This is one of the ideas I've recently been having a lot of fun playing with! (I should probably go back and finish that thread (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?73862) some time.) I have been holding off on posting about it because it is complicated, and because I like to err on the side of avoiding waving my own writing around like a flag, but I've got in place an example of many of the ideas discussed in this thread.
[spoiler=the Readers Digest version]In the Jade Stage, the whole practice of scholarly, well-read and -researched magic (sorcery) is connected to the largest and most influential of the world's religions (the polytheistic Cardan Faith). Sorcerors draw their power from a reserve that, depending on who you ask, is either siphoned off directly from two of the gods (who, due to their own feuding, are in no position to do much about it) or is a naturally-occurring reservoir of energy (i.e., not essentially different from gravity or sunlight, and certainly not dependent on the idea of deities or the supernatural).
The whole discipline of sorcery was inventors by a cabal of brilliant thinkers (the Cold Spring Drinkers) who were (ultimately unsuccessfully) searching for the secret to immortality. They were working in concert with political rebels (the Dissident Clans) who wanted to break away from Cardannis and found their own nation free from what they perceived as Temple-sanctioned tyranny, but they needed some sort of divine sanction to do so. The sorcerors, with their stolen divine power, seemed to qualify!
Now, centuries later, the order of sorcerors most directly-descended in thought and practice from the Cold Spring Drinkers (the Order of the Gold Chain) serves as the strong-handed advisors and administrators to the king of newly-founded Tiburon, making that nation a theocracy in all but name. The Order has three duties: a political duty to guide the figurehead leaders of the nation they've helped found, a metaphysical duty to safeguard their source of magical power (putting them at odds with a few secretive, splinter group of sorcerors who aim to
free the deities they're all supposedly siphoning power from), and most secretively of all, a duty of stewardship: safeguarding and delivering the letters written by the Cold Spring Drinkers.
See, although they were not successful at figuring out how to cheat death and live forever, the Cold Spring Drinkers stumbled upon some sort of long-range precognition, which they put to use by writing many letters addressed to specific individuals who would not be born for decades or centuries. These letters seek to shift the course of future events by encouraging their recipients to change minor-seeming but crucial events. It's unknown what larger goal the Cold Spring Drinkers had in writing these letters-- whether they were trying to bring about something specific, or merely to achieve second-rate immortality by continuing to affect world events after their deaths. Trusted archivists and couriers within the Order of the Gold Chain safeguard these letters in their hidden vaults, and make sure they are delivered unopened when their specified dates arrive.[/spoiler]
Except most Churches are more than welcoming to new recruits, they always need some one to clean outhouse and farm the church fields... Exclusivity is not something I tend to see in Fantasy churches because they are either very much like the Catholic Church and always on the prowl for new brothers or they are like true D&D and there are just too many understaffed churches for them to truly turn anyone away.
Of course the idea of a true theocracy is a very interesting idea and is one of the oft neglected themes for good gods. I mean we've all seen the uber evil god have theocracies but what about the good gods? Why can't they have theocracies? Or do all theocracies, no matter the intentions, become evil?
As for the limited Arcane, I was making reference to things like the Circle of Magi (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Circle_of_Magi) in Dragon Age: Origins, the Wizards (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Wizard) in LotR, the Mages Guild (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Mages_Guild) in Morrowind/Oblivion, the Ministry of Magic (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/British_Ministry_of_Magic) in Harry Potter, the Kirin Tor of WoW (http://www.wowwiki.com/Kirin_Tor), the Izzit League of Ravnica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravnica_(plane)#The_Izzet_League) and the Wizard's Guild in Aeolond (hehe plug!) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?66357.60#post_68548)
QuoteAs for the limited Arcane, I was making reference to things like the Circle of Magi in Dragon Age: Origins, the Wizards in LotR, the Mages Guild in Morrowind/Oblivion, the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter, the Kirin Tor of WoW, the Izzit League of Ravnica and the Wizard's Guild in Aeolond (hehe plug!)
What common quality of these are you referring to?
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuoteAs for the limited Arcane, I was making reference to things like the Circle of Magi in Dragon Age: Origins, the Wizards in LotR, the Mages Guild in Morrowind/Oblivion, the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter, the Kirin Tor of WoW, the Izzit League of Ravnica and the Wizard's Guild in Aeolond (hehe plug!)
Organized 'arcane' magic which have an air of exclusivity. Sorry, this was in response to Cap. Karnaugh (aka gnola14) post which quoted me.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfExcept most Churches are more than welcoming to new recruits, they always need some one to clean outhouse and farm the church fields... Exclusivity is not something I tend to see in Fantasy churches because they are either very much like the Catholic Church and always on the prowl for new brothers or they are like true D&D and there are just too many understaffed churches for them to truly turn anyone away.
Of course the idea of a true theocracy is a very interesting idea and is one of the oft neglected themes for good gods. I mean we've all seen the uber evil god have theocracies but what about the good gods? Why can't they have theocracies? Or do all theocracies, no matter the intentions, become evil?
As for the limited Arcane, I was making reference to things like the Circle of Magi (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Circle_of_Magi) in Dragon Age: Origins, the Wizards (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Wizard) in LotR, the Mages Guild (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Mages_Guild) in Morrowind/Oblivion, the Ministry of Magic (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/British_Ministry_of_Magic) in Harry Potter, the Kirin Tor of WoW (http://www.wowwiki.com/Kirin_Tor), the Izzit League of Ravnica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravnica_(plane)#The_Izzet_League) and the Wizard's Guild in Aeolond (hehe plug!) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?66357.60#post_68548)
Good Gods? Evil Gods?
I have some religions that are more benovolent, and some that have a malevolent side, but 'EVIL theocracy'?? I have trouble with EEEEVIL religions being worshipped at all in mainstream society.
No, My Theocracy of the Church of Nebler the Defender got wiped out by the Empire of Argus 5-6 game years ago, but the Theocracy of Gorntar, run by the 'Five Most Holy' is actually 5 churches that hold sway. The Church of Obscurity and Fate (Darkling) is one, as well as the Church of Change and Black Humor (Jubilex), but neither of these is 'evil' per se.
Exclusive arcane?
collegium arcan (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/Collegium+Arcana-Igbar) is a good example.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf[...] As for the limited Arcane, I was making reference to things like the Circle of Magi (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Circle_of_Magi) in Dragon Age: Origins, the Wizards (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Wizard) in LotR, the Mages Guild (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Mages_Guild) in Morrowind/Oblivion, the Ministry of Magic (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/British_Ministry_of_Magic) in Harry Potter, the Kirin Tor of WoW (http://www.wowwiki.com/Kirin_Tor), the Izzit League of Ravnica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravnica_(plane)#The_Izzet_League) and the Wizard's Guild in Aeolond (hehe plug!) (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?66357.60#post_68548)
I get your point, but what I meant was that, though popular, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Being fantasy, we don't have to be attached to how usually church and pagans religions worked in the real world.
Quote from: LordVreegGood Gods? Evil Gods?
I have some religions that are more benovolent, and some that have a malevolent side, but 'EVIL theocracy'?? I have trouble with EEEEVIL religions being worshipped at all in mainstream society.
No, My Theocracy of the Church of Nebler the Defender got wiped out by the Empire of Argus 5-6 game years ago, but the Theocracy of Gorntar, run by the 'Five Most Holy' is actually 5 churches that hold sway. The Church of Obscurity and Fate (Darkling) is one, as well as the Church of Change and Black Humor (Jubilex), but neither of these is 'evil' per se.
Any religion worth its salt recognises how awful and ugly this world can be. In the same way that goodness or its more specific aspects (like bumper crops, smooth sailing, new life, knowledge, etc.) have their representatives, so too does "evil" or if you prefer "all the bad stuff that happens" (famine, hurricanes, old age and death, ignorance, etc.) And the relationship between the members of a faith and the origins of evil in that faith vary greatly. There can be a Judeochristian thing going, in which case good and evil are opposed to each other and mortals must side with the good and fight the bad. Or there can be other takes, like in a polytheistic faith where the faithful will sacrifice to the wrathful and capricious god of storms in order to appease him. And when evil and the like are attributed elsewhere than supernatural entities things can get more complicated but I'm losing my original point.
Anyway, I know we don't like good/evil value judgements here, but when it comes to supernatural entities representing facets of the world, I don't see why something can't exist for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and hardship (or at least doing something that will result in pain and hardship). And if such a thing exists, there will be those who try and fight it, those who try not to step on its toes, and those sick bastards who want to help it out (or more realistically want its help and power to do things they couldn't do otherwise). And the last category might be somewhat inflated by the fact that I play in a fantasy game.
As to the exclusivity of religion, that also varies. Some churches want to be everywhere, some want to run things from the top and don't care if the majority on the bottom buy in, some are mystery cults... it all depends on context. I've heard the Muslims early on colonised new areas for the sake of monetary gain. They didn't convert people by the sword, but Muslims were exempt from the taxes on the area, and converts counted. I know that's not the case across the board but... food for thought.
So far, the difference in my setting between religious and secular mages is simply one of politics and tradition and such.
Quote from: Cap. Karnaugh (aka gnola14)I get your point, but what I meant was that, though popular, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Being fantasy, we don't have to be attached to how usually church and pagans religions worked in the real world.
Oh, I misunderstood; I thought you meant you were unfamiliar with the concept, or thought it was uncommon :)
Quote from: LordVreegGood Gods? Evil Gods?
I have some religions that are more benovolent, and some that have a malevolent side, but 'EVIL theocracy'?? I have trouble with EEEEVIL religions being worshipped at all in mainstream society.
Why not? It would, in essence, be like a modern day dictatorship that has a cult of personality. Why settle for a mere mortal when you can have a GOD?
[blockquote=E_E][blockquote=LV]Good Gods? Evil Gods?
I have some religions that are more benovolent, and some that have a malevolent side, but 'EVIL theocracy'?? I have trouble with EEEEVIL religions being worshipped at all in mainstream society. [/blockquote]
Why not? It would, in essence, be like a modern day dictatorship that has a cult of personality. Why settle for a mere mortal when you can have a GOD? [/blockquote]
First off, people belong to relgions, not Gods. They may worship a god of a certain religion, and the amount of truth involved between what a God is and how he is portrayed is another, very important conversation, as is the level of direct influence deities have in a world. I thought long and hard before I put the Planars out of reach in Celtricia, so that I could bring back the human elements and the elements of faith back into the world.
And one of the myriad problems is exactly because it is like a cult of personality. Read biographies from Germans or Italy or Stalinist Russia in WW2. People blinded themselves to the evil that was being committed, and it is only with 20/20 hindsight we see the evil perpetrated.
Even the ancient cultures of God-emperors (Rome, Mayan, Assyria, Egypt+) had to put a benevolent face to their subjects; as any culture that rises to the level of cooperation necessary to form a stable ruling class develops mores/ethos/values that look down on selfish/evil acts. These are called 'Cultural Universals'. I don't care how strange the psychology, creating a culture requires cooperation and some level of Altruism, which forms these 'Cultural Universals'.
A cult of personality, a dictatorship, even one with a God, has to wear a fair face to maintian followers/worshippers.
You could (and I do) have Gods that have different aspects, some of them evil, hiding themselves in a religion that does not emphasize the Evil side of the God. And I am not saying the mystery cults (which I love, there are like 40 in Celtricia already) and secret societies cannot exist with small groups of worshippers trying to get ahead any way they can. You could have a powerful priest caste force lip-service for a generation, maybe.
And you may have a balancing small worship in a Pantheon, A god that fills a role as part of a placeholder.
But an outright EVIL religion existing in mainstream society, as a primary religion? I'm not saying that some of our big Brains may not be able to get around it, but this has always been, to me, a red flag if I see it in a campaign setting.
Good lord. Really glad to see this thread take off.
Quote from: LordVreegFirst off, people belong to relgions, not Gods. They may worship a god of a certain religion, and the amount of truth involved between what a God is and how he is portrayed is another, very important conversation, as is the level of direct influence deities have in a world. I thought long and hard before I put the Planars out of reach in Celtricia, so that I could bring back the human elements and the elements of faith back into the world.
And one of the myriad problems is exactly because it is like a cult of personality. Read biographies from Germans or Italy or Stalinist Russia in WW2. People blinded themselves to the evil that was being committed, and it is only with 20/20 hindsight we see the evil perpetrated.
Even the ancient cultures of God-emperors (Rome, Mayan, Assyria, Egypt+) had to put a benevolent face to their subjects; as any culture that rises to the level of cooperation necessary to form a stable ruling class develops mores/ethos/values that look down on selfish/evil acts. These are called 'Cultural Universals'. I don't care how strange the psychology, creating a culture requires cooperation and some level of Altruism, which forms these 'Cultural Universals'.
A cult of personality, a dictatorship, even one with a God, has to wear a fair face to maintian followers/worshippers.[/quote]You could (and I do) have Gods that have different aspects, some of them evil, hiding themselves in a religion that does not emphasize the Evil side of the God. And I am not saying the mystery cults (which I love, there are like 40 in Celtricia already) and secret societies cannot exist with small groups of worshippers trying to get ahead any way they can. You could have a powerful priest caste force lip-service for a generation, maybe.
And you may have a balancing small worship in a Pantheon, A god that fills a role as part of a placeholder.
But an outright EVIL religion existing in mainstream society, as a primary religion? I'm not saying that some of our big Brains may not be able to get around it, but this has always been, to me, a red flag if I see it in a campaign setting.[/quote]
Maybe the problem is calling it an evil religion. Would you accept a religion that wages holy wars, executes anyone accused of being a heretic without fair trial, practices periodic human sacrifice, endorses slavery, and is run by a guy who can rule with an iron fist because his buddy is a god of war? As opposed to one that proposes killing, stealing, and rape as its virtues and kindness, love, and selflessness as its vices?
[blockquote=Beejazz]And that's why you'll find evil, religion, and persecution of arcane magic hanging out together in many fantasy settings. 'Cause it works.[/blockquote]
Sure, didn't mention any of those as a problem. My problem is Evil mainstream religions.
[blockquote=Beejazz]Maybe the problem is calling it an evil religion. Would you accept a religion that wages holy wars, executes anyone accused of being a heretic without fair trial, practices periodic human sacrifice, endorses slavery, and is run by a guy who can rule with an iron fist because his buddy is a god of war? As opposed to one that proposes killing, stealing, and rape as its virtues and kindness, love, and selflessness as its vices?[/blockquote]
You hit the nail on the head, or at least the right board.
The problem is worship/adherence to a credo/faith. I don't merely accept said conditions as above, I expect them. I personally think organized religion has caused more harm than good in our real history than almost anything. I'm certainly not defending organized religion.
I'm defending psychology of worship and self-image. As I mentioned above with the dictators and the ancient god-kings, they present a fair face, controlling as much as they can of their image. There is also the question of alternatives. I have a little less problem with people working against cultural imperative psychology if they know nothing else. It gets really stupid if you expect people to worship the god of rape and pain over the god of health and help, except for a few really desperate individuals.
I suppose it depends how well the priests of pain and rape have convinced them that pain and rape are the true essence of holiness. I mean, there his been plenty of spiritual movements towards the rejection of luxury as a path to enlightenment, so why not take that a (huge) step further and say that only by enduring the very worst of hardships can one achieve true self-knowledge and ascend into a state of true spirituality.
Verily this thread has drifted away from it's original subject. It now seems to be about the viability of exclusivist and "evil" religions.
Regarding exclusiveness in religion: It is not at all fair to assume that any and all major religions should be unexclusive or expansionistic. Judaism and Hinduism for example don't actively seek converts. People generally become "members" by being born to a family that adheres to the religion.
We should acknowledge, too, that religion can be a lot more than just faith. It can be intimately (even inseparably) tied to ethnic/tribal identity. If tribe X make service to god Y because "god Y is the god of tribe X, as has always been", then being part of the religion can be seen as the same thing as being part of the tribe - an outsider might not be accepted to be of that religion no matter how much he may believe and mimic the rituals.
Regarding viability of "evil" religions: Firstly, there should be made no such assumption that religion in general (and deities in particular) must always promote specific sets of moral norms. They can simply be models exploring/explaining the workings of the universe to find the means to a better life. If a religion says that by acting in a certain way, you will find greater prosperity and safety, then that is not a moral statement. It's not telling you what is right and wrong, rather what is advantageous and disadvantageous. A religion that encourages particular actions by promising mundane or spiritual rewards isn't necessarily stating that these actions are morally good.
It's also worth considering whether entities found within a religion that are identified as "evil" (whether stated to be so by the religion, or interpreted as such by its adherents) are viewed as things to which the believer must form a meaningful relationship (ie. actively opposing them, submitting to their domination, etc) or whether they are seen more as forces of nature; something that simply "is" without much rhyme or reason.
A god of rape and pain doesn't necessarily advise/command such actions, or any actions at all, amongst those who worship him. He might simply be the metaphysical origin of rape and pain, causing these things to happen. If by worshiping him one could redirect these things away from oneself/family/people, and toward one's foes, then I could see such a god receiving plenty of followers. He might even be more popular than the god of health and help, if he is believed to be much more influential (ie. turning to the latter is less likely to benefit you than placating the former).