Theology and Philosophy in Homebrew

[Gwenfloor]

Does anyone have any recommendations on how to design believable religions and philosophies when making one's own campaign setting?  I made several up and designed their core tenets and history.  I was wondering if you guys could help.
I will show my work so far to give a hint of my style:

You may recognize several names from my Ausherland campaign setting.  As magic is neither arcane nor divine in my campaign, the deities and philosophies do not possess domains or alignment.

Ziotchism
Founded- 20 B.G.E
Number of members- Estimated 328,000 strong
Ziotchism is a philosophy that believes that enlightenment and happiness can be achieved by being in control of oneâ,¬,,¢s body, mind, and spirit.  Ziotchism discourages reliance and subservience to noble and religious groups, due to the belief that corrupt authorities tend to abuse their power.  Ziotchism also professes that science, literacy, and other academic pursuits should not be with-held from certain groups, as everyone has a right to knowledge, sometimes described as a right to the truth.  After Ziotch died, a scholar and friend of Ziotch named Ordin took up the mantle of spreading the philosophy.  Ordin added his own views and values to Ziotchism, claiming that they were the original words of Ziotch in order to enforce his world-view.  Such views included the discourage of alcohol, hallucinogens, and other drugs that could take away a personâ,¬,,¢s self-control, plus mandating avoidance of Elves, believing that the Fey are inherently tricksters, and their magic can fragment and damage humanâ,¬,,¢s self-control of oneself.

Rulidost
Founded- 378 B.G.E
Rulidost is the religion of the Rulidostian Humans.  The history of the religion is intertwined with the religion of the Rulidostians, and the religion worships Gyenod, a deity that is said to have laired deep in the earth.  Gyenod is said to have created the world out of the Nothing, a featureless void devoid of all life and meaning.  Gyenod desired to have meaning and existence, and created the world out of himself.  The earth is said to be his skin, the lakes, rivers, and oceans his blood.  Gyenodâ,¬,,¢s face is said to be located in the Kradei mountain range, the homeland of the Rulidostians.  The Rulidostians have a cultural taboo against mining, due to the belief that such acts are violating the skin of their God.  Rulidostians are not a nomadic group, but their people have traveled far and acquired cereal, crops, and books to take back to their homeland to bring the knowledge of far-away lands to their people.  Due to this, the city of Orgaruin possesses one of the most impressive libraries of Mulidor.  The Rulidostians migrate to Orgaruin when their native countries are engulfed by plague, famine, and wars in order to report the unfortunate events to Gyenod.  Orgaruin is located on the lips of Gyenod in order to hear their Creator speak.
The core tenets of Rulidost promote peace, love, and education, along with discouraging slavery and spreading their religion by the sword and spear, but due to human nature, the religion has been altered and interpreted differently by humans, which inevitably causes tension and violence.  While the Rulidostians shun open warfare, several aristocrats and generals have rationalized atrocities that what they are doing is right.

[Bill Volk]

I've tackled this issue a little, particularly in my last post for  Chiaros. I won't claim to have the answers, but I can offer commentary on the questions I asked myself.

There seems to be a couple of balancing acts involved. One is balancing complexity with clarity. On the one hand, super-complicated histories and tenets might go right over the players' heads, and the players won't intuitively understand the system as a whole, dooming the system to be nothing more than a DM-wank. On the other hand, simple and "compact" belief systems tend toward cliches and don't do justice to the complicated way that belief systems grow and mutate.

The other balancing act is that of the DM's emotional detachment from the system that's being created. I imagine that a lot of DMs invent fictional belief systems based on their own beliefs or outlook on life. If this is taken to excess, the campaign world can become boring or even offensive to the players. If the campaign world is divided philosophically between the "good cultures that agree with the DM" and the "evil cultures that disagree with the DM," it can feel more like an editorial than a game. Personally, I hate when this happens in fiction, too, which is why I can't read C.S. Lewis without retching.
On the other hand, a DM can intentionally give a belief system contradictions (or, if it's a religion, "paradoxes" or "sacred mysteries") and he can purposely create a system with which he doesn't agree. This is a great mental exercise, and it adds important verisimilitude to a belief system. However, this can be taken to excess, too. A fictional belief system that's riddled with too many contradictions and absurdities becomes a parody that strains suspension of disbelief in the game world (but if your players love Scott Adams or Terry Pratchett, this might be just what the doctor ordered :) )

[Gwenfloor]

I prefer to avoid the "evil cult" cliche.  I try to make the theologies and philosophies have a mixture of the good and bad parts, what they get right and what they get wrong.  For example, in the Inhejoy archipelago, there lived a great painter and warrior named Rakelton, who was born with only one arm.  He was a wise man, who taught the people to live in harmony, telling of the horrors of war and the virtues of love and peace.  Rakelton was a warrior, and he knew the tragedies of war better than anyone else.  The people in the Inhejoy region gathered together under one banner.  Rakelton brought succor to a wounded realm, and his teachings taught people many virtues important lessons, to avoid violence and try to act reasonably instead of letting your emotions take control of oneself.
Many generations later, several parents of the aristocracy wanted their progeny to be as glorious as Rakelton himself.  They ordered their newborn son's right arms cut off at birth, and they were to be taught the pursuits of fencing and artistry.  This has been practiced for so long that it has become a tradition, and whether the sons wanted to be one-armed warriors and painters was irrelevant, as to pursue another path was considered disrespectful to Rakelton and the Inhejoy culture.

[Wensleydale]

*nods*

Such is true with the Hariij Cult of the Dragon in my new setting, for example. They worship -all- dragonkin, be they good or bad, with a powerful fervour, and provided the dragonkin doesn't DIRECTLY show that they have something completely opposite to their worshippers' interests in mind, the Cult can be easily manipulated. Which is good, because those who set it up just happen to be dragonkin. :P

[DeeL]

@Bill Volk:  Have you ever read Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay?  

My own effort in this regard is terribly simple, for the obvious reason that players don't really want to talk philosophy, they want to play the game.  ("Yeah, yeah, yeah, my character is Lawful Good - so what's his starting gold?")  But I do like to provide everyone with an opportunity to deepen their character's portrayal, so I basically gave each alignment it's own philosophy.  I couldn't just call them 'good' or 'evil' because of course everyone is a good guy to his dog, so I gave them names that would actually permit the players to amplify on the various concepts involved -

Lawful Good - The Divine Philosophy of the Accord
Chaotic Good - The Unspoken Accord
Lawful Neutral - The Philosophy of the Divine Ordinance
True Neutral - The Even Road
Chaotic Neutral - The Uncertain Balance
Lawful Evil - The Philosophy of Wise Expression
Neutral Evil - The Vision of Clear Truth

Neutral Good I omitted because I figured that a NG char could subscribe to almost any of the non-evil philosophies, but be Neutral Good in their behavior, thus reducing the complexity of character development.  Of course, that's true of any of the philosophies, a potential that might *add* complexity where it might be needed.

I omitted Chaotic Evil because it seems that CE chars philosophies are idiosyncratic - they might start a cult based thereon, but the resultant philosophy itself probably wouldn't spread far past it's own members.  

All this is a bow to the fact that the rules as written reinforce the idea of an objectively definable good and evil.  I just wanted to include holy swords and the various protection from spells without having to seriously rewrite anything.

[Hibou]

I think that a problem with this is, especially if you're a fan/student of Plato's Republic, you know that it's hard for religions and belief systems not to have contradictions. That's because humans (and perhaps all but the most outsidery of outsiders, depending on how far you want to go) can't see and exemplify the ideals of a certain outlook.

That being said, to create realistic religion, it's easiest look atreal religion. I'm not talking general Christianity vs. Buddhism vs Muslim vs Shinto, etc. Look at everything. Try indigenous tribes of Africa, the peoples of North America, pre-Christian beliefs in Europe, and hell, look at a bunch of stuff that aren't exactly religions but rather are subdivisions of personal outlook. Combine stuff you like if it fits, and if it doesn't, modify it.

If you really want to try something "new", I suggest only creating one or two "new" belief systems and spend a lot of time looking at how a firm believer in such a system would react to various things. Questions of untruth, opposing opinions, thoughts about slight changes to the current system, etc. Look at how the system REALLY believes. Don't just look at what people believe, either. Look at how and what people do because of their beliefs.

Of course, some people do this subconsciously anyway.

[Gwenfloor]

I think that a problem with this is, especially if you're a fan/student of Plato's Republic, you know that it's hard for religions and belief systems not to have contradictions. That's because humans (and perhaps all but the most outsidery of outsiders, depending on how far you want to go) can't see and exemplify the ideals of a certain outlook.

That being said, to create realistic religion, it's easiest look atreal religion. I'm not talking general Christianity vs. Buddhism vs Muslim vs Shinto, etc. Look at everything. Try indigenous tribes of Africa, the peoples of North America, pre-Christian beliefs in Europe, and hell, look at a bunch of stuff that aren't exactly religions but rather are subdivisions of personal outlook. Combine stuff you like if it fits, and if it doesn't, modify it.

If you really want to try something "new", I suggest only creating one or two "new" belief systems and spend a lot of time looking at how a firm believer in such a system would react to various things. Questions of untruth, opposing opinions, thoughts about slight changes to the current system, etc. Look at how the system REALLY believes. Don't just look at what people believe, either. Look at how and what people do because of their beliefs.

Of course, some people do this subconsciously anyway.

I am also planning on introducing plenty of tribal spirits, small cults, and people that do not worship, but appease their deities.  I plan on making several diverse faiths and philosophies that the PCs can belong to, but not too many as to overwhelm them.

[Bill Volk]

@ DeeL: Sorry, haven't even heard of it. What's it like?

I just realized another inconvenient kink in making belief systems for D&D campaign settings: deities and such are usually indisputably real and active in the world, and divine magic in general makes a right old mess of things. I'm not going to rekindle the eternal debate over alignment, but even something as simple as detect alignment spells makes the nature of belief totally different.
Consider how D&D characters would react to new belief systems. The first thing a commoner is likely to ask about a religious or philosophical sect is how much they charge for healing :) And if the proponent of a new philosophy doesn't even have any power to show for it, who's going to take him seriously?

This reminds me of why I didn't like Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land." That book was supposed to be about peace and love, but it was really about might making right. The accidental moral of his story is "The correct philosophy is the one that gives you telekinetic powers."

Also, my favorite quote from one of my players:
[ic]"Catholic clerics can cast atonement, but they can't cast create water. What's the deal with that?"
"Must be some weird prestige class." [/ic]

[DeeL]

Voyage to Arcturus is...  interesting.  It's a novel in that good old 'normal earthling finds himself in an unknown land and gets to explore it's territory/philosophy/cosmology' tradition.  It's a fascinating book in that it is written with tremendous lyrical beauty but seems dedicated to an almost demoniac underlying philosophy.

And yes, that's the trick to applying new philosophical systems to a game world - if the philosophies don't produce anything under the game rules, or worse are actively contravened by something in the setting, the players aren't going to care and why should they?  

Although, it might be kind of interesting to create a setting wherein the player characters hail from a land in which supernatural powers are viewed as inherently evil, and the authorities had only the power of popular support to fight the demon-empowered healers and life-bringers.  (The Inquisition would have had a rough time if the people they had executed had been as powerful as purported by their accusers.)

[Gwenfloor]

@ DeeL: Sorry, haven't even heard of it. What's it like?

I just realized another inconvenient kink in making belief systems for D&D campaign settings: deities and such are usually indisputably real and active in the world, and divine magic in general makes a right old mess of things. I'm not going to rekindle the eternal debate over alignment, but even something as simple as detect alignment spells makes the nature of belief totally different.
Consider how D&D characters would react to new belief systems. The first thing a commoner is likely to ask about a religious or philosophical sect is how much they charge for healing :) And if the proponent of a new philosophy doesn't even have any power to show for it, who's going to take him seriously?

This reminds me of why I didn't like Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land." That book was supposed to be about peace and love, but it was really about might making right. The accidental moral of his story is "The correct philosophy is the one that gives you telekinetic powers."

Also, my favorite quote from one of my players:
[ic]"Catholic clerics can cast atonement, but they can't cast create water. What's the deal with that?"
"Must be some weird prestige class." [/ic]

I use the Iron Heroes d20 rules, in that either the Gods do not exist, or are so distant that the humans and worshipers determine the values of the religion more so than the deity.  Furthermore, not all clerics and shamans are spell casters; without the use of divine magic, belief takes a larger role.  You cannot simply commune with your deity in order to prove that what you are doing is appropriate conduct for your religion.

[KeshFerrar]

The accidental moral of his story is "The correct philosophy is the one that gives you telekinetic powers."

LOL. I believe the Jedi and the Sith have a similar argument.

On topic:
Key points I've found that help flesh out my religion building (at least regarding established religions):

Most real religion foundations revolve around: sin, salvation, and heaven. They provide a guide to absolve sin, find salvation, and reach heaven. Sin as defined by the religion though.  

Religions provide moral compasses of society. Along with providing a way to absolve sin, they try to provide a guide on how to keep from sin.

Religions explain why. Humans created religion to explain the unexplainable (see animism).

Religions always take a stance on current affairs.

Religions are run much like a government. They have a structure and hierarchy, and politics come into play.

Zealotry. Almost nothing can compare to religion when it comes to instilling a passion within its followers. How do the zealots of the religion manifest, and how are the viewed by outsiders?

Dunno if that helps, but its provides a few morsels for thought.

[beejazz]

I'd like to just say that I do not avoid the evil cult cliche, both because I am mildly disappointed that this stuff doesn't exist in real life and because you just need a counterpart to things like self-righteous nihilism backed by magic. "Evil" that works by the surrendering of the self to another's will seems counterintuitive, but done well, it can work.

That said, evil cults can also be overdone or done poorly, which is problematic.

[Xeviat]

I disagree with religions and philosophies not having an alignment, but I can see the desire to do it that way. As with the D&D gods, I believe that decent followers of a faith can drift a bit from the faith's alignment.

As for giving you ideas on where to draw religions and philosophies within your world, consider that every culture will probably have its own religion, unless your setting is more civilized. A culture's religion may share similarities with others if those cultures grew from the same origin or if those cultures live in close proximity. Large, "mainstream" religions will grow out of movements (look at the growth of the seven major religions of today for examples on how religions grow and spread).

Using my world as an example, there are two major worldspanning religions: the followers of the dragons that most cultures believe created the world, and the followers of the teachings of five humans that saved humans from enslavement by the giants. Other than that, my world is animistic, so faiths will be very regional.

[brainface]

just realized another inconvenient kink in making belief systems for D&D campaign settings: deities and such are usually indisputably real and active in the world, and divine magic in general makes a right old mess of things.

Clerics[/i], yes, but not deities. and sure, they cast divine magic, but wizards don't have to follow any philosophy and they've got magic too, so what's the big deal?

[snakefing]

Actually, it seems to me the biggest potential impact on belief systems comes from certain spells. For example, commune allegedly allows a cleric to contact their deity directly. If true, this would provide pretty direct evidence of the active existence of the deity. And the answers to questions like, "Should we treat (belief X, person Y) as heretical?" would provide pretty direct evidence of the deity's wishes. So much of the religious history of this world is the history of heresy and schism. Spells like that make such things problematic.

Of course, one could imagine a world in which this spell doesn't actually contact the deity (even though people might think it does). Or their might be schism and heresy among the gods or their servants. Not sure what that would even mean. (How can you be heretical against yourself?) But that would be a somewhat non-standard interpretation of standard D&D lore.

Or you could have a world in which such spells don't actually exist. Or one in which divine magic is really just a different philosophy or technique for casting magic, drawing on a character's faith instead of knowledge for power. Lots of variations here that don't necessarily require major changes to mechanics - but any one of which changes the concept in fairly deep ways.