[ooc]This is a pretty messed up tangle of words I've written, so my apologies if it's hard to follow. Hopefully some bits of wisdom can be gleaned from it.[/ooc]
We just had some interesting ideas about religion brought up over at the Arcane vs Divine magic thread. I figured that time is right to start a new thread to discuss these matters more. Let's start with a quote by CC from the Cliches thread:
[blockquote=Cataclysmic Crow]- Proven Gods (many of you may have heard me rant along with others on this subject before)[/blockquote]
This comment led me to think about it's implications on my own setting. The longer I thought about it, the less and less workable the concept seemed. For example, Argyrian religion lacks a true distinction between 'god' and 'spirit', both being essentially similar entities (let's call them
deities), and in addition also other types of divinities, such as deified heroes and ancestors. There is an extreme diversity of these beings, ranging from the fairly abstract and probably unprovable Fates, down to common nature spirits of flesh-and-blood forms such as Nymphs. Against this background, the idea of avoiding proven gods seemed to make little sense. Trying to enforce such a principle would essentially mean that characters would never find themselves face to face with minor spirits, daemons and the like.
Through my brainstorming I realized that CC's comment essentially assumes that there exists a clear-cut, black and white distinction between 'god' and 'non-god' entities. This raises a very interesting question:
What, if anything, makes a god to be a god? In the context of the Savage Age setting there is no objective answer; deities are deities simply because people call then that. What passes as a deity to one person may not be that to another.
Let's explore this matter from the perspective of setting design.
A
deity can be broadly defined as any being or entity that is accorded religious significance. They don't need to be venerated or worshiped - they could instead be feared, or simply acknowledged. In real religions deities appear in incredibly varied forms: All-encompassing universe gods, abstract unseen forces, physical manifestations as idols, animals, humans or monsters, all-powerful creators and destroyers, little midgets that live under your stove, ghosts of the dead, god-kings and pharaohs.
A fantasy setting might feature any or all of the above, and yet stranger forms of divinities. But where should you draw the line? Is there such a thing as an objective "godhood", and if so, how do you define it?
QuoteSuppose, for example, that we have a big fat dragon. Let's call him Bahamut for kicks. Bahamut is a god; he's got his own temples, clergy, teachings and faithful worshipers. Now let's say that a new religion arises, which states that Bahamut is no god, simply a dragon. The old religion continues to state that he is indeed a god. So, is he?
What is
divinity but an OOC mechanic/descriptor? To a character living within a setting, should there be any way to tell the difference between a genuine deity and some powerful magical dude?
Could there be any way? And if not, would it matter?
QuoteSuppose that we have a mighty Pharaoh, the son of a great god and a god in his own right. Suppose that he has magical powers, too. Is he really a deity or is he just a sorcerer? How can you tell?
I think someone somewhere wrote that atheism in a fantasy setting with active gods doesn't make sense. This is an interesting statement, and not at all as obvious as it might seem. After all, it's true that there is little point refuting the existence of the big fat dragon Bahamut when he's sitting right in front of your eyes - but you could still refute his godhood. (Though it might be wise to not do so to his face...) And if you can refute the godhood of a big fat dragon, why couldn't you refute the godhood of
anything all the same?
QuoteA fantasy setting might feature any or all of the above, and yet stranger forms of divinities. But where should you draw the line? Is there such a thing as an objective "godhood", and if so, how do you define it?
After all, it's true that there is little point refuting the existence of the big fat dragon Bahamut when he's sitting right in front of your eyes - but you could still refute his godhood. (Though it might be wise to not do so to his face...)[/quote]one[/i] person can heal with a touch, that person might be worshiped as a god. In a high-magic world where many people can do the same thing, the standards are probably much higher.
In that vein, consider:
QuoteSuppose that we have a mighty Pharaoh, the son of a great god and a god in his own right. Suppose that he has magical powers, too. Is he really a deity or is he just a sorcerer? How can you tell?
I'd say that depends entirely on how others react to him.
Well there we have one method: letting people decide what deities are. So basically gods don't define religions, but religions define godhood. This results in a culture-specific, rather than setting-specific definition, since religions within the same setting can define divinity differently.
I would argue that what's considered religion in most RP settings is actually much more akin to a cult. Most fantasy religions focus on deities that are proven to exist (standard DnD, for instance). Religion, in my opinion, is based upon faith in a higher power, and you really can't have faith in something that is proven to exist. For instance, I cannot have faith that cookies exist, because they do. This is why RP religions are more like cults - people following a strong leader figure.
Do you mean cults of personality? The word cult as such doesn't mean belief in something mundade or provable. In historical context it can refer to the worship of deities from European and Middle-Eastern pre-christian and pre-islamic religions, eg. cult of Dionysos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysos), cult of Cybele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele).
Quote from: LeetzFor instance, I cannot have faith that cookies exist, because they do.
Yes you can. Faith isn't belief in an unknowable thing. Faith is belief in the truth of something. Some things of course (like the existence of cookies) are easier to have faith in because you have concrete evidence. For example I might hold an aluminum tin up for you and offer you to open it and enjoy the cookies inside. If you liked cookies you're likely reaction would be to thank me and open the tin and take a cookie. That right there is faith in several things...
1: Faith that cookies are real things
2: Faith that they are delicious
3: Faith that I actually have some in the closed tin (your aforementioned faith in the unknown)
Faith can be something as simple as a belief that when you reach for the bottle of soda sitting on the counter that it won't spontaneously explode in a fireball, this being a faith from experience (soda has never done so before). If you didn't have that faith you would avoid reaching for the soda. It can also be a much less concrete concept like the belief in a supreme being. You might attribute things that happen to you to the being, where others might explain them with science or gods of their own. Each person in this case has a belief that their view of what force controls the cosmos is correct.
A clear cut line between deities and non-deities would be immortality. Deities are, by definition, immortal. They might be able to be killed or destroyed, but they are otherwise immortal.
This is a fundamental part of many stories, especially when you go back to mythology. Thus, I would use it as the line between god and mortal. It's a tenuous line, and one that can be faked, but that adds to some of the drama of a magical world. Heck, in our world people thought (and think) of some people and animals as deities, and that's without incredibly obvious magic (again, debated by believers).
But the idea of recognizing the existence of a god but not the divinity was something that was lost on me for some reason. It is the perfect way to color a polytheistic world. My own setting is similar to Ghostman's, btw, with its use of animism and multitudes of nature spirits, philosophical spirits, ancester spirits, and others.
My, very brief, contribution, is that I think our modern/western concept of what a god or deity is is probably very different from how they were thought of in ancient times. Seeing as many religions in fantasy base themselves on ancient religions, they end up with the sort of problems that we are discussing in this thread, because they are to some degree imposing modern notions of godhood - possibly influenced by the Abrahamic desert faiths - onto somewhat incompatible theological and cosmological models.
Good point Kindling. The system of gods in Forgotten Realms for example gave me the impression that it was trying to be polytheistic and monotheistic at the same time.
My current thoughts are that gods in this case would end up being looked at like forces of nature, or hell, maybe even celebrities - or a combination. Both of these assume that the gods are proven real, and maybe that they weren't there for all time; maybe that they're suddenly or gradually dropped into the world. But having all that power and causing all of that happiness or sorrow would make them globally important.
I think we have to make an important metagame distinction between deification and apotheosis. A god in the roleplaying sense, and the common mythological sense, is one who is afforded godly powers or strength just by way of being a god (which might or might not be a consequence of faith). A deified persona will be nothing more than a common person/pharaoh/dragon but he will be observed as a god.
All the gods I know of where known to possess some kind of supernatural power (that is, powers above what is humanly or dragonly possible).
In the cultural sense, anything worshipped could be a god. Of course, there is a vast difference between a random river spirit and an omnipotent singular God-Creator. So one might wonder whether there is a certain level of power required to be divine. Or possibly it just has something to do with how they react to worship. Spirits are usually viewed as indifferent creatures (I think; please correct me if wrong) until you actually go about attempting to interact with them. Gods are often entities with actual agendas. But this might again just be a side-effect of their anthropomorphization and not something that was inherent when they were first envisioned. Or maybe the distinction is something about how the spirits are local while the gods are global?
As to the immortality point, Pharaohs were considered gods in their own time but they were known to die. Of course, their spirit lived on, but I'd still consider that a tiny, tiny hole in the theory.
And I'm honored to have an (almost) entire thread built up around a thing i said :D even if it was because of a possible flaw in said comment. To clarify, when I talk about Proven Gods I mostly think about gods in the Faerunian sense, where they are both proven, active, and very powerful.
Also, I'd consider faith to be an extension of trust. We trust in the existence of an omnibenevolent entity or we trust that a cookie is as delicious as last time. This is also in accordance with some of the philosopher Hume's thoughts; he told of faith, or actually habit, where we were used to having the sun rise and set and therefore assumed, trusted, that it would always be so, but he argued that there was nothing really keeping it from not rising. We had just concluded it would from our observations. We can never observe the cause, only the effect. This might be a slight-to-completely-inconsequent digression.
Getting to the meat of the OP, one might want to seperate the GM/OOC definition and what is worshipped in-game.
And as to the second definition, there are differences between worshipping a religion and worshipping a god. This can also affect the first definition, as a human religion that includes worshipping a god may or may not have much of a grip what they are worhipping.
Such is often the case in Celtricia, where the religions are created by mortals, and almost never include a true understanding of the deity or deities in question. Many of the churches venerate saints, pious, past worshippers that in most cases are beyond the pale of hearing or caring.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowA god in the roleplaying sense, and the common mythological sense, is one who is afforded godly powers or strength just by way of being a god
This could be a chicken and the egg type of dilemma. Are they gods because they have godlike powers, or do they have godlike powers because they are gods?
Mythologies certainly have examples of ordinary mortals becoming gods. And even of gods becoming mortals.
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowOr maybe the distinction is something about how the spirits are local while the gods are global?
That could be applicable to some settings, but not all. Gods certainly don't
have to be global (universal).
Quote from: Cataclysmic CrowAs to the immortality point, Pharaohs were considered gods in their own time but they were known to die. Of course, their spirit lived on, but I'd still consider that a tiny, tiny hole in the theory.
In Egyptian mythology gods could die too. The sun-god Re himself would die at the end of every day and go through the underworld, only to be reincarnated at each dawn.
Quote from: GhostmanThe system of gods in Forgotten Realms for example gave me the impression that it was trying to be polytheistic and monotheistic at the same time.
I think this is a phenomenon of most D&D in general, which would rather be polytheistic, but also draws its inspiration from a culture (medieval Europe) that was dominated by a powerful monotheistic church and elements of that monotheism affected the culture to the point that they had to be included as well.
Quote from: GhostmanAre they gods because they have godlike powers, or do they have godlike powers because they are gods?
require[/i] any of them.
Quote from: GhostmanWhat is divinity but an OOC mechanic/descriptor? To a character living within a setting, should there be any way to tell the difference between a genuine deity and some powerful magical dude? Could there be any way? And if not, would it matter?
I'm only going from a dnd perspective here, but it's a god if your belief in grants you spells as a cleric. belief in cookies will not grant you access to the delicious pecan butter and choc-chip domains, while belief in big ole' bahamut will give you sth like valour domain and stuff. :)
my personal taste (i, too, have ranted on this^^) is to have distant or at least covert gods, not FR style pop-stars, but the concept of apotheosis is intrigueing. one the one hand it proves the existence of gods (you just made another), on the other it disproves their "divinity". if anyone can become a god, there's no real "divine mandate", they are just a bunch of powerful dicks who like to get adored and grant you spells for it.
for the relationship between deity and belief, i am a total fan of gaiman's american gods and the way he represents the life cycle of gods (it's also in sandman, especially when dream visits basset).
so, yeah. post kinda random, i guess. :)
My preference has always been for unprovable gods. It's more interesting when you have loads of different religions with all their various gods, none of which are provable. It's even more fun when you throw in special artifacts and powers that some attribute to gods while others attribute to science (and others to sorcerers). Nobody knows for sure what it really is, and the player is free to view it in whatever way they like.
More really good points here. Some other things "real gods" would need to be able to do:
-Most gods are seen as omnipotent.
-They can hear your prayers wherever you are.
-They can perform miracles without being there to physically do it.
Now, those work with the more western concept of gods. In an animistic set up, the only thing that separates gods from mortals is that gods are spirits. You worship them to stave off their wrath, to direct their wrath, or to get blessings.
Quote from: XeviatMost gods are seen as omnipotent.
Are you sure? I mean, I'd hold this to be the case for monotheistic belief systems, which tend to pervade modern Western society, but I'm not sure if this such a broadly true conclusion. A lot of polytheistic pantheons are quite clear on what gods do what, and their limitations as well as their powers.
Xev, I agree with your statement that to assign gods to ancient cultures we should consider the mythological roots of the ideas. However, some of the suppositions I feel the need to question.
Quote from: XeviatA clear cut line between deities and non-deities would be immortality. Deities are, by definition, immortal. They might be able to be killed or destroyed, but they are otherwise immortal.
That's certainly not the case in many mythologies. Celtic deities lived a long time, but were not immortal, at least not in many stories (especially Irish ones). Hindu deities were the same way, although this was sometimes thought to be extended with Soma. Hell, even Norse deities had to eat the divine apples to retain their youth.
Quote from: XeviatMore really good points here. Some other things "real gods" would need to be able to do:
-Most gods are seen as omnipotent.
-They can hear your prayers wherever you are.
-They can perform miracles without being there to physically do it.
Now, those work with the more western concept of gods. In an animistic set up, the only thing that separates gods from mortals is that gods are spirits. You worship them to stave off their wrath, to direct their wrath, or to get blessings.
But very few mythological gods were omnipotent, many were not omniscient, and not all would fit the performing miracles bill. Also "physically present" is an iffy term if we are assuming some gods may be omnipresent as the Judeo-Christian God is often believed to be.
I actually find it ironic that so many people seem to rage against the idea of "close" gods that interfere, but not the monsters or artifacts drawn from those very same myths. Fantasy is the modern descendant of mythology, and most mythologies--certainly most of those that had the strongest influence on modern fantasy, i.e. Greek, Celtic, and Norse--had human-like gods that constantly got involved in human affairs, had affairs with humans, and were far from all powerful or all knowing.
Xev, I agree with your statement that to assign gods to ancient cultures we should consider the mythological roots of the ideas. However, some of the suppositions I feel the need to question.
Quote from: XeviatA clear cut line between deities and non-deities would be immortality. Deities are, by definition, immortal. They might be able to be killed or destroyed, but they are otherwise immortal.
That's certainly not the case in many mythologies. Celtic deities lived a long time, but were not immortal, at least not in many stories (especially Irish ones). Hindu deities were the same way, although this was sometimes thought to be extended with Soma. Hell, even Norse deities had to eat the divine apples to retain their youth.
Quote from: XeviatMore really good points here. Some other things "real gods" would need to be able to do:
-Most gods are seen as omnipotent.
-They can hear your prayers wherever you are.
-They can perform miracles without being there to physically do it.
Now, those work with the more western concept of gods. In an animistic set up, the only thing that separates gods from mortals is that gods are spirits. You worship them to stave off their wrath, to direct their wrath, or to get blessings.
But very few mythological gods were omnipotent, many were not omniscient, and not all would fit the performing miracles bill. Also "physically present" is an iffy term if we are assuming some gods may be omnipresent as the Judeo-Christian God is often believed to be.
I actually find it ironic that so many people seem to rage against the idea of "close" gods that interfere, but not the monsters or artifacts drawn from those very same myths. Fantasy is the modern descendant of mythology, and most mythologies--certainly most of those that had the strongest influence on modern fantasy, i.e. Greek, Celtic, and Norse--had human-like gods that constantly got involved in human affairs, had affairs with humans, and were far from all powerful or all knowing.
I was being a little too broad, but I did say that was more of the western concept of gods. I guess I should have said "modern western concept". It's just in mythology class I understood the separation between mortals and gods is that mortals have to die, and cannot come back from the underworld. Gods operate under different rules.
In a fantasy universe, a sorcerer or wizard of sufficient power might be able to claim they're a god, and with good reason. In other fantasy universes, perhaps worship grants power, and the shear act of being worshiped makes you a god. Or it could be by blood, and only those born gods can become gods.
As Phoenix points out, real world mythologies are so varied that it is very difficult to pin things down by comparing to them. A fantasy setting could have that much variety, but I've always thought a setting should be internally consistent.
Quote from: NomadicIt's even more fun when you throw in special artifacts and powers that some attribute to gods while others attribute to science (and others to sorcerers). Nobody knows for sure what it really is, and the player is free to view it in whatever way they like.
If your gods are proven to exist then most people are going to automatically attribute supernatural things to them. My point being that it's more fun for me when players have no one thing that it's easy to attribute the supernatural to. This is how Mare Eternus does it. There are mystical artifacts and impossible objects but no provable evidence of any gods or beings to attribute them to. One person says God A made this, another that Spirit B did, the third attributes it to some field of science, and the fourth guy blames the cult of the divine pantyhose... you get the point. Mystery excites me as a DM, let's my players form their own opinions on what the truth really is.
Glad to see that this thread has become host to such thought-provoking discussion! :)
Quote from: XeviatIn a fantasy universe, a sorcerer or wizard of sufficient power might be able to claim they're a god, and with good reason. In other fantasy universes, perhaps worship grants power, and the shear act of being worshiped makes you a god. Or it could be by blood, and only those born gods can become gods.
It could also be a matter of location. Deities that are expelled from the heavens (/other dwelling of the gods) might lose their divinity, while mortals that manage to enter that place might become gods.
Quote from: XeviatAs Phoenix points out, real world mythologies are so varied that it is very difficult to pin things down by comparing to them. A fantasy setting could have that much variety, but I've always thought a setting should be internally consistent.
I don't think there's necessarily any inconsistency in having different groups of deities, afterlifes, heavens and hells that operate under entirely different rules. I have no problem with religions that contradict each other yet still feature true divinities.
The apparent lack of consistency can result from erroneous and incomplete mortal interpretation (in which case there is always a veil of mystery cast on the nature of divinity, even if it's actual
existence can be fairly firmly established).
It could also result from a complex and ineffable structure of metaphysics. Why should we assume that the universe in a fantasy setting is a logical and comprehensible system, bound by laws and explainable by reasoning? Perhaps logic is an inherently flawed construct of mortals, a desperate attempt to understand something that their minds simply cannot? It could be something that gives a rough and practical approximation for common everyday life and engineering, but flat out breaks apart when you try to force it upon the esoteric. In a universe that is fundamentally mystical rather than logical, how much sense does it make to complain of inconsistency if one group of people believe in A and another one in B and somehow both would seem to be correct?
Not all peoples of a fantasy setting have to live under the same sky; the same stars need not shine down upon every land.
Quote from: NomadicIf your gods are proven to exist then most people are going to automatically attribute supernatural things to them. My point being that it's more fun for me when players have no one thing that it's easy to attribute the supernatural to. This is how Mare Eternus does it. There are mystical artifacts and impossible objects but no provable evidence of any gods or beings to attribute them to. One person says God A made this, another that Spirit B did, the third attributes it to some field of science, and the fourth guy blames the cult of the divine pantyhose... you get the point. Mystery excites me as a DM, let's my players form their own opinions on what the truth really is.
You can have plenty of mystery despite convincing evidence for the existence of divinities. All those conflicting stories regarding the origin of artifacts that you used as an example could still happen in a setting where deities are known to exist and even interact with mortals. It all comes down to the way in which these entities behave and what their interests are. Gods definitely don't need to ever converse truthfully and comprehensibly with mortals. An actual first-hand encounter with a deity (which might be an incredibly rare occurrence, or even something that never happens) could very well be like a waking dream full of near-maddining visions and cryptic symbolism that ultimately leaves you with more questions than answers.
Just because you know that there are divine powers in the world doesn't mean you'll have the slightest clue as to what (if any) deity might be responsible for that levitating pagoda you stumbled upon in the middle of a barren desert.
Quote from: GhostmanQuote from: NomadicIf your gods are proven to exist then most people are going to automatically attribute supernatural things to them. My point being that it's more fun for me when players have no one thing that it's easy to attribute the supernatural to. This is how Mare Eternus does it. There are mystical artifacts and impossible objects but no provable evidence of any gods or beings to attribute them to. One person says God A made this, another that Spirit B did, the third attributes it to some field of science, and the fourth guy blames the cult of the divine pantyhose... you get the point. Mystery excites me as a DM, let's my players form their own opinions on what the truth really is.
You can have plenty of mystery despite convincing evidence for the existence of divinities. All those conflicting stories regarding the origin of artifacts that you used as an example could still happen in a setting where deities are known to exist and even interact with mortals. It all comes down to the way in which these entities behave and what their interests are. Gods definitely don't need to ever converse truthfully and comprehensibly with mortals. An actual first-hand encounter with a deity (which might be an incredibly rare occurrence, or even something that never happens) could very well be like a waking dream full of near-maddining visions and cryptic symbolism that ultimately leaves you with more questions than answers.
Just because you know that there are divine powers in the world doesn't mean you'll have the slightest clue as to what (if any) deity might be responsible for that levitating pagoda you stumbled upon in the middle of a barren desert.
I agree with Ghostman. In preserving a sense of mystery, all that really matters is ensuring that there are multiple more-or-less equally viable (or at least seemingly viable) explanations. It's more fun for me when there isn't any single thing that works as a catch-all explanation for supernatural things, too. :)
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: GhostmanQuote from: NomadicIf your gods are proven to exist then most people are going to automatically attribute supernatural things to them. My point being that it's more fun for me when players have no one thing that it's easy to attribute the supernatural to. This is how Mare Eternus does it. There are mystical artifacts and impossible objects but no provable evidence of any gods or beings to attribute them to. One person says God A made this, another that Spirit B did, the third attributes it to some field of science, and the fourth guy blames the cult of the divine pantyhose... you get the point. Mystery excites me as a DM, let's my players form their own opinions on what the truth really is.
You can have plenty of mystery despite convincing evidence for the existence of divinities. All those conflicting stories regarding the origin of artifacts that you used as an example could still happen in a setting where deities are known to exist and even interact with mortals. It all comes down to the way in which these entities behave and what their interests are. Gods definitely don't need to ever converse truthfully and comprehensibly with mortals. An actual first-hand encounter with a deity (which might be an incredibly rare occurrence, or even something that never happens) could very well be like a waking dream full of near-maddining visions and cryptic symbolism that ultimately leaves you with more questions than answers.
Just because you know that there are divine powers in the world doesn't mean you'll have the slightest clue as to what (if any) deity might be responsible for that levitating pagoda you stumbled upon in the middle of a barren desert.
I agree with Ghostman. In preserving a sense of mystery, all that really matters is ensuring that there are multiple more-or-less equally viable (or at least seemingly viable) explanations. It's more fun for me when there isn't any single thing that works as a catch-all explanation for supernatural things, too. :)
You guys are missing the point :P
By people I'm talking about players (though this works logically for NPCs as well). I like to toss in lots of conflicting religious beliefs and a fair few conflicting physical theories none of which are proven truth. The result is that the players can go only on faith since the shrine could be "explained" by the gods of 8 different religions or by the application of one of two natural laws. They can have faith their belief is correct but there is no way to be certain any belief is correct since none of them can be proven true. There's always the chance that it's something totally different. I like my mystery extra thick and creamy thank you very much ;)
Quote from: NomadicYou guys are missing the point :P
By people I'm talking about players (though this works logically for NPCs as well). I like to toss in lots of conflicting religious beliefs and a fair few conflicting physical theories none of which are proven truth. The result is that the players can go only on faith since the shrine could be "explained" by the gods of 8 different religions or by the application of one of two natural laws. They can have faith their belief is correct but there is no way to be certain any belief is correct since none of them can be proven true. There's always the chance that it's something totally different. I like my mystery extra thick and creamy thank you very much ;)
No, I get it. I just don't agree with it. None of what you've said is ruled out in a setting where the gods are "real," either. The gods do not have to be (and the Crystalstar gods are not) completely comprehensible beings who hold public Q&A sessions about their latest projects. Like I said, all that really matters is ensuring that there are multiple more-or-less equally viable (or at least seemingly viable) explanations, so the players are left guessing as to what the "real" cause is. Then there is still no definitive proof of the causes of anything the DM wants to remain mysterious, and, as Ghostman said before, any actual encounter with these gods may raise more questions than answers.
Quote from: sparkletwistLike I said, all that really matters is ensuring that there are multiple more-or-less equally viable (or at least seemingly viable) explanations, so the players are left guessing as to what the "real" cause is. Then there is still no definitive proof of the causes of anything the DM wants to remain mysterious, and, as Ghostman said before, any actual encounter with these gods may raise more questions than answers.
I've run games with proven gods, both incomprehensible and otherwise, in them. When I threw out something that defied nature the players always went in concert "looks like that god/wizard's work" or an equivalent to that. That sort of thing grinds me the wrong way. Proven gods take mystery away from the fundamental nature of how things work for me. I don't want to know if they even exist. If I know then it loses something for me. I'll play in a setting with them, I love that. But I won't run one.
Quote from: FREAKINAWESOMESCOTI've run games with proven gods, both incomprehensible and otherwise, in them. When I threw out something that defied nature the players always went in concert "looks like that god/wizard's work" or an equivalent to that.
Ur doin it wrong. ;)
Quote from: sparkletwistUr doin it wrong. ;)
no u