The Campaign Builder's Guild

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: Ghostman

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.

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: sparkletwist

Quote from: Ghostman

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.

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