Mod+ How does religion make sense in a D&D-like setting?

[T. Foster]

Just pulled out my 1E Deities & Demigods (the first printing). What I describe is not there. There is only a repeat of the alignment coded planes of existence, different afterlife planes, and this weird nested geography and alignment coded circle of planes, but never used that.

The concept that how you live determines where you go when you die...pretty sure knew that from other sources besides D&D and didn't need D&D to say different deities pantheons may have different places Now the alignment alignment, that's D&D but never cared for alignment and pretty much ditched how the DMG told you to use it like 2 sessions after trying that out.

EDIT: Also just pulled out my Supplement IV "God's Demi-Gods, & Heroes" (alas only a 7th printing) it's not there either in any way shape or form.

I was thinking of this brief passage on page 11:

“There is a time lag between death and arrival at the plane of destination. Although time is meaningless to the soul or spirit, the long journey to the proper plane can take 3-30 days of time relative to those in the Prime Material Plane. Thus the rationale for the progressive time limit on the raise dead spell becomes clear: the farther the soul has travelled on its way to its destination plane, the more powerful the cleric needed to summon the soul back to its mortal coil. The road through the Astral Plane to their destination is clearly marked for the dead, but it is not free of peril. Some monsters roam the ethereal and astral planes at will, which is why burial chambers often include weapons, treasure, and even bodyguards to protect the soul on its journey.”

They never did anything with that concept, and AFAIK never even mentioned it again, but the idea was there at least embryonically.

 

[xanther]

I was thinking of this brief passage on page 11:

“There is a time lag between death and arrival at the plane of destination. Although time is meaningless to the soul or spirit, the long journey to the proper plane can take 3-30 days of time relative to those in the Prime Material Plane. Thus the rationale for the progressive time limit on the raise dead spell becomes clear: the farther the soul has travelled on its way to its destination plane, the more powerful the cleric needed to summon the soul back to its mortal coil. The road through the Astral Plane to their destination is clearly marked for the dead, but it is not free of peril. Some monsters roam the ethereal and astral planes at will, which is why burial chambers often include weapons, treasure, and even bodyguards to protect the soul on its journey.”

They never did anything with that concept, and AFAIK never even mentioned it again, but the idea was there at least embryonically.

This is just a rehash of pre-existing mythology and extant archeological interpretations of grave sites. We have extant writings on it from the ancient Egyptians with how-to manuals on this, and the practice of grave goods and servant for ones journey, in fact the idea that you can "take it with you" at least in some sense is ancient, common in all the pantheons in Deities & Demigods and continuous. Anyone who read any kind of mythology knew this stuff long before D&D. So duh.

The 3-30 days, well yes that is D&D, and so D&D they need to defend the Raise Dead spell logic, but that is not what I am talking about.

My concept for how hard it is to get back once your soul gets to it's afterlife is more from the myth of Orpheus, Dante, and inspiration from Zelazny. In fact, if you get to your preferred afterlife, it is easier to get you back not harder. My concepts have nothing to do with "distance", more if you soul is "captured" by a deity opposed to yours, they are not likely to just let it go.

To suggest that D&D originated or brought to light these concepts or they were part of it, except for some passing reference, is just not accurate.

 

[T. Foster]

You’re very hostile. Bye!

 

[Armchair Gamer]

BECMI got afterlife rules in "The Voyage of the Princess Ark" in DRAGON #180, complete with "Ancient Egyptian Nithian prayers are most effective at guiding the soul back to the body or to its proper rest."

 

[Voros]

It was mentioned in 1E Deities & Demigods (1980) but never developed and detailed, and seemingly completely ignored by everything that came later (presumably because TSR was scared of the parental backlash of going into too much detail about “this is how the afterlife REALLY works, kids”).

Maybe but 2e had an insanely detailed breakdown of the afterlife, cosmology, etc. in Legends and Lore, Complete Priest, the numerous Planescape boxsets and even the later, cool 3e Ghostwalk supplement.

 

[Baulderstone]

My thoughts on D&D religion are similar to my thoughts on D&D combat. First and foremost, Gygax was making a game about adventurers delving into dungeons and exploring wilderness. Old school D&D combat (excluding AD&D, which was what Gygax thought other people wanted, not how he ran the game), is abstract and simple. That means it moves quickly and doesn't bog down the pacing. It's not simulationist in the least. It's abstract nature means to more you attempt to make it "realistic" never work out.

I feel the same about D&D religion. Clerics are a character class that provides support to a D&D party. They work well in the context of D&D as it was designed to be played. Once you start thinking deeply about the world-building ramifications of having clerics everywhere who can perform miracles on demand, things fall apart, much like they do when you think about D&D combat too much.

D&D religion does the job it is supposed to do in the game. If you want a game where religion is more central and realistic, you are probably better going with almost any other game that has religion as an element (Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc.).

 

[sharps54]

My thoughts on D&D religion are similar to my thoughts on D&D combat. First and foremost, Gygax was making a game about adventurers delving into dungeons and exploring wilderness. Old school D&D combat (excluding AD&D, which was what Gygax thought other people wanted, not how he ran the game), is abstract and simple. That means it moves quickly and doesn't bog down the pacing. It's not simulationist in the least. It's abstract nature means to more you attempt to make it "realistic" never work out.

I feel the same about D&D religion. Clerics are a character class that provides support to a D&D party. They work well in the context of D&D as it was designed to be played. Once you start thinking deeply about the world-building ramifications of having clerics everywhere who can perform miracles on demand, things fall apart, much like they do when you think about D&D combat too much.

D&D religion does the job it is supposed to do in the game. If you want a game where religion is more central and realistic, you are probably better going with almost any other game that has religion as an element (Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc.).

 

[AsenRG]

My thoughts on D&D religion are similar to my thoughts on D&D combat. First and foremost, Gygax was making a game about adventurers delving into dungeons and exploring wilderness. Old school D&D combat (excluding AD&D, which was what Gygax thought other people wanted, not how he ran the game), is abstract and simple. That means it moves quickly and doesn't bog down the pacing. It's not simulationist in the least. It's abstract nature means to more you attempt to make it "realistic" never work out.

I feel the same about D&D religion. Clerics are a character class that provides support to a D&D party. They work well in the context of D&D as it was designed to be played. Once you start thinking deeply about the world-building ramifications of having clerics everywhere who can perform miracles on demand, things fall apart, much like they do when you think about D&D combat too much.

D&D religion does the job it is supposed to do in the game. If you want a game where religion is more central and realistic, you are probably better going with almost any other game that has religion as an element (Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc.).

View attachment 79377

And for a change, we're on the same opinion...

 

[CRKrueger]

Except there is. It's called Cure Cancer.

Miracles are still a thing nowadays as it ever was, for those who believe in them.

Yeah, every once in a while, someone recovers from something medical and the Doctors can't figure out how. Someone deathly ill has people praying for them, therefore they think the prayer worked.

That is NOT a Priest walking into the room, laying on hands and saying "Rise and be healed!" and the person gets up, fully cured.

Random shit happening that we don't understand is NOT the basis of religion in a world where the gods are objectively real and the priests objectively wield their power.

 

[arjunstc]

Random shit happening that we don't understand is NOT the basis of religion

That sounds like it should have been a Monty Python quote

 

[robertsconley]

Random shit happening that we don't understand is NOT the basis of religion in a world where the gods are objectively real and the priests objectively wield their power.

Except for someone living circa 1,000 BC in our world, it wasn't random shit that they didn't understand. It made sense in terms of how they viewed the world working.

From our modern viewpoint, it just looks like an elaborate rationalization for natural events, but without the benefit of the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and a half dozen Renaissances from across the world, it made sense to those who lived in 1,000 BC and it what worked despite how imperfect it was compared to our modern methods.

 

[James Gillen]

That sounds like it should have been a Monty Python quote

I thought we weren't letting this drift into politics?

JG

 

[Lessa]

Except for someone living circa 1,000 BC in our world, it wasn't random shit that they didn't understand. It made sense in terms of how they viewed the world working.

From our modern viewpoint, it just looks like an elaborate rationalization for natural events, but without the benefit of the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and a half dozen Renaissances from across the world, it made sense to those who lived in 1,000 BC and it what worked despite how imperfect it was compared to our modern methods.

Great post.

 

[CRKrueger]

Except for someone living circa 1,000 BC in our world, it wasn't random shit that they didn't understand. It made sense in terms of how they viewed the world working.

From our modern viewpoint, it just looks like an elaborate rationalization for natural events, but without the benefit of the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, and a half dozen Renaissances from across the world, it made sense to those who lived in 1,000 BC and it what worked despite how imperfect it was compared to our modern methods.

Except when it doesn’t work the next time, so “the gods must be angry”.

When you go to the Temple of Shallya, the Priestess invoke’s Shallyas’ name, lays on hands, and your compound fracture heals before your very eyes, there’s no need to rely on Cognitive Dissonance or Rationalization for the brain to construct how you think the world works. You know how it works.

Example after example of how the human mind can make itself believe anything is never going to be an argument against that which requires no belief whatsoever. Real world examples are insufficient.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

I think the difference is huge. D&D priest spells are so reliable they can be economically quantified and stored (scrolls) to easy peasy pop off miracles whenever tactically relevant.

And as for how much historical people thought divine intervention was reliable, just look at ill sovereigns and the dumb stuff doctors put them through. Would you let some weirdo cover you in leeches if you thought 100% the archbishop can Ave Maria the dysentery away?

As an aside, everyone in such a world would be absolutely terrified of pissing off the clergy.

 

[Baulderstone]

Except when it doesn’t work the next time, so “the gods must be angry”.

When you go to the Temple of Shallya, the Priestess invoke’s Shallyas’ name, lays on hands, and your compound fracture heals before your very eyes, there’s no need to rely on Cognitive Dissonance or Rationalization for the brain to construct how you think the world works. You know how it works.

Example after example of how the human mind can make itself believe anything is never going to be an argument against that which requires no belief whatsoever. Real world examples are insufficient.

WFRP isn't the best example as you have priests of Ulric that insist priests of Sigmar are actually just using magic to perform their miracles and maintain the illusion that Sigmar is really a god.

 

[robertsconley]

Except when it doesn’t work the next time, so “the gods must be angry”.

From page 38 of AD&D 1e DMG since we are talking about D&D-like setting.





While not spelled out also makes sense that recipients of clerical spells will also be denied as well. As a result "the gods must be angry" is functionally the same to a resident of Greyhawk circa 576 CY as it would be to a resident of our Earth circa 1,000 BC.

When you go to the Temple of Shallya, the Priestess invoke’s Shallyas’ name, lays on hands, and your compound fracture heals before your very eyes, there’s no need to rely on Cognitive Dissonance or Rationalization for the brain to construct how you think the world works. You know how it works.

Certainly when it comes to trauma D&D style of divine magic is more dramatic and useful than most of the technique we know of that existed around 1,000 B.C. Hence my rule that for the most part life is like in our history but 20% better in terms of health, population, prosperity.

But what we are discussing is a culture's state of mind. What you view as Cognitive Dissonance or Rationalization stems from your living in the 21st century. To people living in 1,000 BC, they were living in a culture with a self-consistent worldview. One that developed through hard-won empirical experience with how the world works. But that experience was built through how that cultured viewed life and the world.

Example after example of how the human mind can make itself believe anything is never going to be an argument against that which requires no belief whatsoever. Real world examples are insufficient.

You are not considering that cultures of 1,000 BC had dozens of technologies that worked. That the "why" behind these technologies was explained by the culture's worldview and religion. While not as dramatic as a cure light wounds spells they were "magic" to these cultures.

Another thing you are not consider is that an edition of D&D describes how the setting works at a particular moment in time. It is rare for any edition to get into the details of how things developed. It either assumed it works like it does on Earth thus was developed like it did on Earth like metallurgy, weapons, and armor. Or it just silent like in the case of magic.

 

[AsenRG]

Except when it doesn’t work the next time, so “the gods must be angry”.

When you go to the Temple of Shallya, the Priestess invoke’s Shallyas’ name, lays on hands, and your compound fracture heals before your very eyes, there’s no need to rely on Cognitive Dissonance or Rationalization for the brain to construct how you think the world works. You know how it works.

Example after example of how the human mind can make itself believe anything is never going to be an argument against that which requires no belief whatsoever. Real world examples are insufficient.

When I said (I think I did?) that the patients of faith healers would disagree, I meant things like "healing sessions" where you literally see "the lame raising to walk again". I'm sure you can find examples on YouTube.

A product of a charlatan's roguish connerie, or the power of self-suggestion, you would (probably) say...but to the first*, I say "not to those present". And those people are the norm in a historical setting, while you're the exception!

You know, there is a reason why Socrates was executed on the charge of atheism...

Bottom line, I'm with robertsconley here (and also with Baulderstone - the standard D&D framework does fall apart if you try and explore it...but then I'm tired repeating that, so I'm focusing on Rob's "how to make it work" argument, instead).

*And to the second, I add "we really should explore the power of suggestion more, scientifically, because anything that can heal you without drugs is obviously an useful tool".

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Been thinkings of ways to make things more murky in such a clear cut system, I believe I found two :

-Predestination vs free will

Meaning, what is the reason some people turn good or evil? Either not knowing or making it based on predestination (people are born with souls turned towards good or evil) might make "atheism" a reasonable position. If some people are born evil or the char believes so, then they might question the whole soul economy

-Favoritism

Meaning a char might question why the Gods, who presumably could change the rules, limit things so only a devout cleric, and one with experience, can channel their power to heal. Seems self-interested, isn't it? Maybe even the char has known someone who died or suffered because no cleric was near in time. Such a char would have good reasons to distrust or even hate the gods.

 

[EmperorNorton]

As a comment on "we can see their powers", that is why in Golarion (the main setting of Pathfinder), Atheism isn't defined in not believing the "Gods" exist, but that it is denying that they are in fact Gods.

They don't deny that these incredibly powerful beings exist. But that they aren't more special than any other being in the multiverse, they are just more powerful. That their power isn't morally correct/a thing to worship any more than a really powerful wizards, it's just a matter of scale.

In the Wrath of the Righteous video game (which takes place in Golarion), there is one of the companions who is an Atheist, and part of the reason is having suffered needlessly at the hands of the followers of even the "good" gods. Which makes her look at the idea of worship of these beings, who have really done nothing to ever try to help her, even when the "God's" followers were persecuting her, a lot differently.

Spoiler

So the thing is, in a world where magic exists, what makes gods... actually gods? Something worth worshipping rather than just another super powerful thing that exists in the universe and seems to be just as morally and ethically broken as any other normal person.

 

[AsenRG]

Been thinkings of ways to make things more murky in such a clear cut system, I believe I found two :

-Predestination vs free will

Meaning, what is the reason some people turn good or evil? Either not knowing or making it based on predestination (people are born with souls turned towards good or evil) might make "atheism" a reasonable position. If some people are born evil or the char believes so, then they might question the whole soul economy

Of course, (in RPGs) predestination only makes sense in heavily railroaded campaigns, so this one is for Clerics of the GM to answer...

 

[Lessa]

As a comment on "we can see their powers", that is why in Golarion (the main setting of Pathfinder), Atheism isn't defined in not believing the "Gods" exist, but that it is denying that they are in fact Gods.

They don't deny that these incredibly powerful beings exist. But that they aren't more special than any other being in the multiverse, they are just more powerful. That their power isn't morally correct/a thing to worship any more than a really powerful wizards, it's just a matter of scale.

Planescape's hub city of Sigil adopts this concept. They call the gods "powers" over there. And the setting's atheist faction, the Athar, pushes that a few steps further by calling them frauds that must be exposed/deposed.

 

[AsenRG]

Planescape hub city of Sigil follows this direction. They even call the gods "powers" over there. And the setting's atheist faction, the Athar, pushes that a few steps further by calling them frauds that must be exposed/deposed.

Please remind me, is the Lady of Pain a leader of the Athar faction?

 

[Lessa]

Please remind me, is the Lady of Pain a leader of the Athar faction?

Nope. She's a bunch of cranium rats on a hood. It is known.

 

[AsenRG]

Nope. She's a bunch of cranium rats on a hood. It is known.

Makes total sense!

 

[CRKrueger]

WFRP isn't the best example as you have priests of Ulric that insist priests of Sigmar are actually just using magic to perform their miracles and maintain the illusion that Sigmar is really a god.

The AndyLawism Heresy!
That's just the first healing god I thought of.

 

[CRKrueger]

When I said (I think I did?) that the patients of faith healers would disagree, I meant things like "healing sessions" where you literally see "the lame raising to walk again". I'm sure you can find examples on YouTube.

A product of a charlatan's roguish connerie, or the power of self-suggestion, you would (probably) say...but to the first*, I say "not to those present". And those people are the norm in a historical setting, while you're the exception!

You know, there is a reason why Socrates was executed on the charge of atheism...

Bottom line, I'm with robertsconley here (and also with Baulderstone - the standard D&D framework does fall apart if you try and explore it...but then I'm tired repeating that, so I'm focusing on Rob's "how to make it work" argument, instead).

*And to the second, I add "we really should explore the power of suggestion more, scientifically, because anything that can heal you without drugs is obviously an useful tool".

Unless a lot of work's been done by the author at the cosmic level, any fantasy setting will fall apart if you dig too deep.

The whole point was that "but people in Medieval Times thought this... about fantastic things that hardly ever happened (if ever)" has reached the Common Wisdom status of "It is known." and that makes a pretty shaky extrapolation when compared to overt, manifest, repeatable proofs of a Deities power. You take that as a given and it's your setting that will fall apart if you look at it too deeply.

 

[Voros]

Unless a lot of work's been done by the author at the cosmic level, any fantasy setting will fall apart if you dig too deep.

The whole point was that "but people in Medieval Times thought this... about fantastic things that hardly ever happened (if ever)" has reached the Common Wisdom status of "It is known." and that makes a pretty shaky extrapolation when compared to overt, manifest, repeatable proofs of a Deities power. You take that as a given and it's your setting that will fall apart if you look at it too deeply.

People often discuss removing Clerics completely from the game but I think a more interesting idea is to have a very theocractic society, like the Kingpriest and Istar in Dragonlance. Perhaps they ban magic and hunt down wizards.

Or think of Clerics/Priests as something like the Spacing Guild in Dune: a very powerful faction in society, maybe wielded by their ability to cure disease and even resurrect?

Fletcher Pratt's underrated fantasy novel The Blue Star has an interesting fantasy setting based on the suppression of magic, with a very loaded metaphor of magic being wielded only by women and being passed from mother to daughter when the daughter loses her virginity!

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D isn't really about any kind of religious viewpoint. It's more of an exploration of Alignment - which is frankly just the designer's mechanical system covering a scope of potential ethics systems. This exists so the player can game them, not discover their "legitimacy". PC clerics are largely good or neutral because the game is about team building to overcome simulated challenges. (Good people work together/conform, bad people follow their own path/reject authority - at least in 3-point OD&D).

Players can choose from a variety of DM offered religious practices and views in a swords & sorcery setting or make their own. These are more humorous than any kind of religious study. From the god of "thwacking numbskulls" (St. Cuthbert) to the deity of bad dice rolls (Ralishaz). Greyhawk has Lady Luck, a 70s rock band of the 4 horseman of the apocalypse, Crom (kord), Isis (wee jas), and a mishmash of unknown deities so the PC can make his or her own without looking out of place.

And that's the real design intent. A cleric invents what moral system they wanted to have the DM test them in, and the DM attempts to assign and convert it to the mechanical game system being run for creature behavior. So the game isn't limited to particular deities, yet it is limited to the alignment system. The DM is running a panorama of multiple moralities he invented for the game for a cleric to explore, follow, and test themselves within. Not some actual self reflection on real religious dogma - which would get really weird really fast.

 

[Alai]

Also on actual tiny scrolls. Thankfully pharmacists are trained in Read Magic.

But not necessarily their assistants. I picked up a prescription and the clerk noticed there was note scrawled on the label. Normally at this point they point to this and read it out, in classic "treat the customer/patient like they're an idiot" manner. On this occasion they asked me if I was able to read it...

 

[AsenRG]

Unless a lot of work's been done by the author at the cosmic level, any fantasy setting will fall apart if you dig too deep.

Yes, but for some, it takes a whole lot more. For most D&D fantasy, "scratching the surface involuntarily" is all it might take...

The whole point was that "but people in Medieval Times thought this... about fantastic things that hardly ever happened (if ever)" has reached the Common Wisdom status of "It is known." and that makes a pretty shaky extrapolation when compared to overt, manifest, repeatable proofs of a Deities power. You take that as a given and it's your setting that will fall apart if you look at it too deeply.

No, it won't...I mean, dude, I've had people asserting to me that their* priests can perform overt, manifest, repeatable acts of faith healing!

There are clearly people who believe that today. Just think how many of those there would be in a pre-industrial setting!


And it doesn't matter how much more substantiated by proof some faiths would be in a fantasy setting! People will still act based on what they believe the truth to be, not based on what the truth actually is...

I mean, we have whole "movements" of such people acting in contradiction to the actual proofs they're being presented with. Do you need me touting the examples?


*Someone attempting to convert me to protestantism, maybe Seventh-day adventism? I've forgotten, as I didn't care back then, either.

But not necessarily their assistants. I picked up a prescription and the clerk noticed there was note scrawled on the label. Normally at this point they point to this and read it out, in classic "treat the customer/patient like they're an idiot" manner. On this occasion they asked me if I was able to read it...

Well, the customers wanted more respect, now you have more respect!

 

[Alai]

Given the lack of evidence supporting the existence of gods in our world combined with the preponderance of religion, I can only imagine that the human reaction to proof of the divine would be significant denial.

On paper this would be true according to their own account! Imagine if a bunch of deities showed up, whether in MCU, D&D, or the slightly more low-key Gloranthan manner. (i.e. not much in the way of showing up places with bazillions of hitpoints, but providing dependable, overt magic.) That's basically the stuff of Revelations...

Worth noting that one of Leiber's criticism of Middle Earth was the absence of religion.

In a way this is especially odd in the context of the wider "Legendarium", where we do see religion... but it's all bad! Or indeed, 'evil', as it's Morgoth-worship. Maybe the (other) Valar actively reject being worshipped. Dunno why there's no religion of Eru.

Of course I think I know the meta reason for this. Look at Tolkien's gitchy allergic reaction to Narnia...

 

[CRKrueger]

Yes, but for some, it takes a whole lot more. For most D&D fantasy, "scratching the surface involuntarily" is all it might take...


No, it won't...I mean, dude, I've had people asserting to me that their* priests can perform overt, manifest, repeatable acts of faith healing!

There are clearly people who believe that today. Just think how many of those there would be in a pre-industrial setting!


And it doesn't matter how much more substantiated by proof some faiths would be in a fantasy setting! People will still act based on what they believe the truth to be, not based on what the truth actually is...

I mean, we have whole "movements" of such people acting in contradiction to the actual proofs they're being presented with. Do you need me touting the examples?


*Someone attempting to convert me to protestantism, maybe Seventh-day adventism? I've forgotten, as I didn't care back then, either.

Except if when the Protestants came to the door they could make it rain on your crops, raise your dead child and cure your Grandma of cancer, you might think twice about saying no.

People only need to believe and have faith in things that they have no proof or evidence of. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. Well in a fantasy world, everyone’s seen, so their ability to believe in something they haven’t seen is immaterial.

 

[AsenRG]

Except if when the Protestants came to the door they could make it rain on your crops, raise your dead child and cure your Grandma of cancer, you might think twice about saying no.

Dude, you're distorting the comparison in order to avoid losing the argument. Even in D&D those are 5th level spells!

Nobody 9th level and above is walking door to door to attract lay followers. No, what such people would be doing is akin to what those Protestants were doing: sitting in a temple somewhere, tending to his religion's faithful, and acting as a magnet for would-be believers, like me.

BTW, what they failed to demonstrate to me-at-the-time was not being actual devil worshippers. It's not priests of certified religions that might be peddling their miracles, it's those serving the Dukes of Hell* that would be even more likely, my logic said even back then!


*I didn't know about HPL's cultists back then!

People only need to believe and have faith in things that they have no proof or evidence of. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. Well in a fantasy world, everyone’s seen, so their ability to believe in something they haven’t seen is immaterial.

That's, however, setting-specific. In some settings, actual clerics with PC class abilities might be few and far between. Not everyone who prays in a temple is guaranteed to be blessed, it just gives a higher likelihood. But them gods can still be fickle as hell...well, maybe not as Hell, but you get the idea!

So Sir Prays-A-Lot might not be blessed, while a hard-headed goat-tender might be.

And, again, there's more than one source for such powers...

 

[robertsconley]

Except if when the Protestants came to the door they could make it rain on your crops, raise your dead child and cure your Grandma of cancer, you might think twice about saying no.

People only need to believe and have faith in things that they have no proof or evidence of. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed. Well in a fantasy world, everyone’s seen, so their ability to believe in something they haven’t seen is immaterial.

Again, you forget that religious hierarchies and communities are often too able to teach and offer skills and practical knowledge not generally available. In the 21st century, we know that knowledge works because it was developed empirically based on how the physical world works. To the religious, it seems as if it was a gift from God.

The Protestants and other religions across the world have variants of this, but the upshot is that the religious hierarchy or communities live healthier, longer lives and are able to create and use practical knowledge more adeptly than society as a whole. By the time of the Protestants, long-term changes, starting with the Greek philosophers, meant that many competing sources of knowledge were created alternative approaches that eventually led to movements like the Enlightenment and the development of modern science.

But most of those didn't exist in the world of 1,000 BC. So, your local religious hierarchy or community was the leader in the realm of practical knowledge. All of this was viewed as a gift from the gods, consistent with that cultural worldview of how things worked.
Magic in most fantasy RPGs is depicted as another form of knowledge. The societal changes it would cause compared to our world would be limited as its practice would first arise among the religious hierarchy. As they would be the only organization with the resources to explore this type of knowledge. It would be one option among the others that are similar to our world like herbs.

The changes would slowly mount up over time but wouldn't have a huge impact until we reach a point in our world where independent sources of knowledge have developed. For example, when that world developed the conditions that led to the Greek Philosophers. From there, changes would pile up to the point where that world's version of the various Renaissances (Islamic, European, etc.) and the Enlightenment would be very different or stillborn. The exact trajectory would depend on the nature of magic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We have flat-earthers.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

But most of those didn't exist in the world of 1,000 BC.

But D&D is clearly more 1,200 AD, they have transitional armor. Even institutionally, Oerth has magica universities etc.

More to the point though, it's less clear how much and to what extent, given the sparsity and biais of remaining sources but there have been people who dissent with the clergical hierarchies etc since at least socrates

Protestantism insnt the first christian "heresy" to question the authority of the church/state either. In 380 we have the first traces of the newly converted Roman Empire taking edicts against opposed religious doctrines within christianity. In european history the "dark age" period was more characterized by christianization of the pagans but from the 10th century onwards there are many heresies from within the faith. The Bogomils refused to build churches, the Albigensians they inspired also rejected the catholic sacraments, or later the proto-protestant hussites who organized an armed revolt against church and state.

Likewise, the history of science is older than the Enlightenment. For starters, there are the greeks, whose writings were expanded upon in muslim universities to the point of developping proto robotics by the 12th cent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_al-Jazari

These start to tricle back to europe as italian universities start to form (the Bologna university is founded in 1080) and during the whole renaissance, way before the Enlightenment.

And even if we restrain it to materialist empiricism, the Charvakas did it back in the 6th century BC
A set of idea which persisted and could be found in many places. For exemple, there were also atheist during the Islamic Golden Age

to quote early al-Ma'arri (born 937) :

"The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains."

Legend says, he tiped his turban after writing it

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, most D&D is at least in some part well past the local faith of the early medieval in pretty much every respect. The different flavours of Christianity are also so different from most anything presented as religion in D&D as to make it next to useless for comparative purposes except at the broadest and most general level. Even the polytheism of the Romans and Greeks is significantly different IMO, although more similar and perhaps more useful for comparative purposes. The Roman period espeically I think resembles your average D&D setting on terms of being cosmopolitan than the early medieval as well.

That said, your average peasant isn't travelling in any of these examples, so concerns about local faith do still play in if that's the sort of place a character is from, or the sort of place they end up visiting.

 

[robertsconley]

But D&D is clearly more 1,200 AD, they have transitional armor.

The advancement of Weapon and Armor technology has little to do with the advancement of science as a philosophy. The changes that drove a culture to the point where they were using transitional armor couple have developed independently.

Even institutionally, Oerth has magica universities etc.

D&D has both divine and arcane magic. Despite the existence of divine activity, there was enough time in Oerth's history to give rise to an independent source of knowledge centered around the study of arcane magic. If I had to guess the philosophy behind it specific to Oerth, it is probably the realization by a few that "the divine" is, in some ways, just folks with immense powers but also with agendas that can be exploited to gain a measure of independence.

Oerth's version of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment would likely be ignited when this idea gained critical mass among the dominant cultures of Oerth. And it will be very messy.

More to the point though, it's less clear how much and to what extent, given the sparsity and biais of remaining sources but there have been people who dissent with the clergical hierarchies etc since at least socrates

We don't have the details for Oerth and many other setting. But in the Majestic Wilderlands, it occurred in the wake of the collapse of the Ghinorian Empire, the largest empire my setting had in its history. The Ghinorians believed themselves to be the chosen people of the goddess of justice, Mitra. As a result the Church of Mitra dominated Ghinorian cultures. While the Empire wasn't a theocracy, the Imperial Prince (the emperor) was considered Mitra's hand within the world charged with the physical protection of Mitra's chosen people. The Empire collapses over the question of who a Ghinorian is. Namely whether you had to be born Ghinorian. Or could you become Ghinorian by worshipping Mitra.

Divine magic was used by the Church of Mitra, but also the church studied many other forms of knowledge including arcane magic. While there were hedge practitioners of magic there was no independent study of arcane magic outside of the church. But in the wake of the empire's collapse, the church was shattered, the hierarchy survived in some region, and was wiped out in others. Keep in mind while the divine presence of Mitra was real, there are other divine powers in the world as well.

In the chaos of the collapse, some who had a high level of skill with arcane magic survived. They got lucky and, over the next few centuries, established an independent tradition of arcane magic. When a measure of stability returned, the various religions now found themselves dealing with these "magic users". And because everybody has an agenda the magic users were able to keep their independence and develop on their own.

The impact of the empire collapse wasn't limited to arcane spell casters either many other areas of philosophy and knowledge started developing independently of the church after this time period.

Further to the north, there is a family of cultures humans and demi-human dominated by the Elves. Sylvan cultures. Not militarily but definitely culturally (think Middle Earth). Elves are immortal in my setting and there are a few with living memories of having dealt with divine powers as people. Divine powers are respected by the Elves as mentors and teachers but not worshipped. Cultures allied with the Elves have religions particularly human cultures. But more about a philosophy of life than fervent faith.

As a result, there are independent sources of knowledge in the Sylvan cultures but heavily influenced by elvish conservatives. So it is very static compared to what happened after the collapse of the Ghinorian Empire.

More recently, are the changes caused by the collapse of the Empire of Viridistan. The Viridian were a race of demons that escaped the Abyss and carved out an empire in the region of the Wilderlands. Demons are not a form of divine power but reject all divine power. Throughout the empire's existence, it suppressed all religions in favor of a demonic Imperial Cult. But over the centuries the Viridians slaughtered themselves until the Empire was mostly ruled by mortal races like humans and goblins. Finally, the last of them was killed, and the empire collapsed into civil war. Something that PCs caused in my early campaigns in the 1980s. Only now after nearly a century of in-game time that the civil war burned itself out. While various religions are making inroads, culturally, the whole region is in a ferment of change.

The point is that circumstances can lead to independent traditions even when divine powers are real and active. The main thing I observed about history is that over time, new ideas and possibilities are developed. Humanity slowly, over time, collects a recipe book of ideas that exist both independently and interact with each other. Eventually, given the right circumstances, they will combine into new possibilities that muddle things up even further and in unexpected ways.

I am not saying that there is some grand scheme of progress. Only that things turn out the way they do because of what folks had in their recipe books at the time. That book at that time was dependent on how older recipe books were set up, which was dependent on even older books going all the way back when folks were trying to survive in the African savannas and make sense of their world.

Protestantism insnt the first christian "heresy" to question the authority of the church/state either. In 380 we have the first traces of the newly converted Roman Empire taking edicts against opposed religious doctrines within christianity. In european history the "dark age" period was more characterized by christianization of the pagans but from the 10th century onwards there are many heresies from within the faith. The Bogomils refused to build churches, the Albigensians they inspired also rejected the catholic sacraments, or later the proto-protestant hussites who organized an armed revolt against church and state.

Likewise, the history of science is older than the Enlightenment. For starters, there are the greeks, whose writings were expanded upon in muslim universities to the point of developping proto robotics by the 12th cent : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_al-Jazari

I am aware of these, and I apologize for not being able to compress the entire history of religious and scientific evolution into a one or two paragraph answer.

These start to tricle back to europe as italian universities start to form (the Bologna university is founded in 1080) and during the whole renaissance, way before the Enlightenment.

And even if we restrain it to materialist empiricism, the Charvakas did it back in the 6th century BC
A set of idea which persisted and could be found in many places. For exemple, there were also atheist during the Islamic Golden Age

to quote early al-Ma'arri (born 937) :

Hence my mention of multiple Renaissances throughout history and across the world.

I will say that across the world, the 6th to 4th century BC seemed to be a time when many cultures gained a lot of new ideas and philosophies in a short amount of time. I am sure this stuff happened before, and we just don't know about it. Also, given the length of human history, random circumstances mean that there will be some time periods where multiple things are happening side by side across many regions, even if they start out unconnected.

 

[CRKrueger]

Again, you forget that religious hierarchies and communities are often too able to teach and offer skills and practical knowledge not generally available. In the 21st century, we know that knowledge works because it was developed empirically based on how the physical world works. To the religious, it seems as if it was a gift from God.

The Protestants and other religions across the world have variants of this, but the upshot is that the religious hierarchy or communities live healthier, longer lives and are able to create and use practical knowledge more adeptly than society as a whole. By the time of the Protestants, long-term changes, starting with the Greek philosophers, meant that many competing sources of knowledge were created alternative approaches that eventually led to movements like the Enlightenment and the development of modern science.

But most of those didn't exist in the world of 1,000 BC. So, your local religious hierarchy or community was the leader in the realm of practical knowledge. All of this was viewed as a gift from the gods, consistent with that cultural worldview of how things worked.
Magic in most fantasy RPGs is depicted as another form of knowledge. The societal changes it would cause compared to our world would be limited as its practice would first arise among the religious hierarchy. As they would be the only organization with the resources to explore this type of knowledge. It would be one option among the others that are similar to our world like herbs.

The changes would slowly mount up over time but wouldn't have a huge impact until we reach a point in our world where independent sources of knowledge have developed. For example, when that world developed the conditions that led to the Greek Philosophers. From there, changes would pile up to the point where that world's version of the various Renaissances (Islamic, European, etc.) and the Enlightenment would be very different or stillborn. The exact trajectory would depend on the nature of magic.

You essentially keep echoing Arthur C. Clarke. Which is fine, but a society that doesn’t know enough to not know science isn’t magic is not a good basis for comparison to a society that knows magic is Magic.