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

[Urdlen's best boy]

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.

Possibly, but it beg the question of why comparing to 1000 BC. Also is it so unrelated when advanced metallurgy requires more advanced furnaces 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.

And FR has Red Wizards & Athas has no gods & Eberron has railways... etc. So every D&D setting of note has basically room for empiricists/atheists, etc baked into the setting.
Esp when factoring adventurers typically are hotheads & marginals.

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.

That's somewhat true but also not totally. For starters we'd expect there to have always been contrarians & skeptics, which are really the only things needed to qualify and go towards empiricism.
eg emperor Whatever the Vth says he's a god. You don't need an elaborate scientific understanding to say "no he's not"

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.

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.

My point is merely that there's always been skeptics, and yes how many etc depends on materiial conditions, institutions etc

& the counterpart is that likewise blind & total faith in miracle healing etc wasn't that monolithic in the past. If anything, from synchretism to developpment of science & medicine, & study of hardliner movements (eg Savonarol, or fundamentalist mvts in the Ottoman Empire, etc) is that it's not possible to extrapolate that everyone believed in miraculous healing by clergy in the past. What's more likely is that most people did kinda believed while cherry picking, with some outright rejecting & others being hardliners/fundamentalists/etc.

Because returning to the crux, that's the nature of the real world, all you need to do to reject a (non demonstrable) idea is not believing in it. What you have to believe and disbelieve is fundamentally different in a world where deities are materially tangible. Though, you are right that these things might take a different form given the other variables (arcane magic), but those would make disbelief* more likely.

*edit: rejection despite knowledge, here

And on the concept of Renaissance: is it multiple renaissances if it happens constantly? Really, it's cultural exchange & diffusion, which follows developpment of States & trade, with the centermass(es) of exchange varying through time - indeed based on material, institutional, etc change. Expressions of disbelief are recorded there because that's where all expressions are more likely (due to paper, education, etc) and they're more likely to become more "liberal" (in the old meaning) due to trade & the multiethnic nature of empires - and thus make it possible to say things which would be harder to say in a more tight-knit community, as well as record them.

In conclusion I don't think it's true that all people in the past accepted all faith claim in the absence of science (so to speak) and I also think even if it was, the comparison would be limited because it's a fundamentally different situation.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

You keep saying that but offer no support as to how society knows magic is Magic. You keep stating your answer as if it is self-evident, but it is not.

Does magic manifest as a version of Superman with superpowers? That has its own consequences.

Does magic manifest as one learns some body of knowledge, whereas doing X, Y, and Z leads to some reproducible results? That also has its own consequences.

My answer assumes magic is knowledge gained through either study or faith. My answers are irrelevant in a world where magic manifests as innate superpowers.

My point of view is that settings where Magic are superpowers are uninteresting to discuss. Our world's history has little to offer to what consequences would exist in such worlds. So the author of the setting is free to make up whatever makes sense to them.

In most fantasy settings, magic is depicted as some type of knowledge. Historically various forms of magic were also considered a form of knowledge. I.E. something to learn and to master through ritual and practice.

Discussions about what would and wouldn't change are interesting, at least to me, as we can draw on real-world parallels for inspiration and support. But despite magic being a form of knowledge, the exact consequences are highly dependent on the nature of magic. So when speaking about "How things will go", you have also explain how magic works as well.

 

[ExCrusader]

Umm, so I'm embarrassed and need to apologize. I don't check the forums as much as I used to, and didn't receive any email notifications that there were replies, so I had no idea that this thread got any traction at all. I thought it was ignored. Now I'm seeing that there was enough back and forth to receive a mod warning! I'm definitely not a drive by trouble maker and I started the thread in good faith just based on random thoughts I had one day.

I'm writing all of this before I have read through the thread, so thank you in advance for any posts that were made, and I sincerely hope that nothing got too spicy or personal or out of hand. I only wish I was here to reply as the thread was ongoing!

 

[ExCrusader]

I'd also like to note before I dig in that I was really only thinking about default, presented by the core books, D&D religion, as some sort of polytheistic, Christian-trappings, mashup kinda thing. At least how I've always read it in many different editions. I was never about denigrating anything or anyone in the real world, just trying to justify game rules in my own head canon, or come up with something that made more sense to me.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'd also like to note before I dig in that I was really only thinking about default, presented by the core books, D&D religion, as some sort of polytheistic, Christian-trappings, mashup kinda thing. At least how I've always read it in many different editions. I was never about denigrating anything or anyone in the real world, just trying to justify game rules in my own head canon, or come up with something that made more sense to me.

speaking for the mods, there wasn't any discussion on you having any blame for the thread, it just turned out to be a somewhat volatile subject. But since the mod intervention it's been perfectly fine.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think there should be any question that medieval and older societies had a sense of magic and the supernatural. Of course they did and it had nothing to do with superman.

 

[Edgewise]

I get how divine magic seems a lot more certain than "miracles" in the real world. However, I think there's still a role for doubt in fantasy worlds with divine magic. Specifically when it comes to scripture. They can't all be the creators of the universe, can they? If fantasy mythologies mirror real world mythologies, they are making a lot of competing cosmological claims that are mutually exclusive. One might even encounter two Lawful religions that demonize each other, each claiming that the other actually worships lying devils instead of gods.

It's one thing to say that you have access to power, but another to establish the moral and cosmological centrality of this power.

 

[Vargold]

We have flat-earthers.

And a Hulk!

 

[ExCrusader]

Whew! Just read the whole thread. Some great ideas being thrown around. Lots of good suggestions for interpretations and settings to work with. I'll keep on reading.

 

[ExCrusader]

[information]
speaking for the mods, there wasn't any discussion on you having any blame for the thread, it just turned out to be a somewhat volatile subject. But since the mod intervention it's been perfectly fine. [/information]

Great. I didn't want anyone to think I started this in bad faith because of how I disappeared. I'm not the type to open a door and throw in a (holy) hand grenade.

Ultimately I'll keep on keeping on with D&D, because I've always been a premise acceptor at heart, and I game for fun.

 

[Acmegamer]

Great. I didn't want anyone to think I started this in bad faith because of how I disappeared. I'm not the type to open a door and throw in a (holy) hand grenade.

Ultimately I'll keep on keeping on with D&D, because I've always been a premise acceptor at heart, and I game for fun.

 

[Alai]

I get how divine magic seems a lot more certain than "miracles" in the real world. However, I think there's still a role for doubt in fantasy worlds with divine magic. Specifically when it comes to scripture. They can't all be the creators of the universe, can they? If fantasy mythologies mirror real world mythologies, they are making a lot of competing cosmological claims that are mutually exclusive. One might even encounter two Lawful religions that demonize each other, each claiming that the other actually worships lying devils instead of gods.

And of course, for disagreements on the morality of certain forms of magic and religion themselves, even where it unambiguously exists.

 

[TristramEvans]

Anyone else here watch Esoterica on Youtube?

 

[Acmegamer]

Anyone else here watch Esoterica on Youtube?

Nope, but you've got my attention.

 

[CRKrueger]

You keep saying that but offer no support as to how society knows magic is Magic. You keep stating your answer as if it is self-evident, but it is not.

Does magic manifest as a version of Superman with superpowers? That has its own consequences.

Does magic manifest as one learns some body of knowledge, whereas doing X, Y, and Z leads to some reproducible results? That also has its own consequences.

My answer assumes magic is knowledge gained through either study or faith. My answers are irrelevant in a world where magic manifests as innate superpowers.

My point of view is that settings where Magic are superpowers are uninteresting to discuss. Our world's history has little to offer to what consequences would exist in such worlds. So the author of the setting is free to make up whatever makes sense to them.

In most fantasy settings, magic is depicted as some type of knowledge. Historically various forms of magic were also considered a form of knowledge. I.E. something to learn and to master through ritual and practice.

Discussions about what would and wouldn't change are interesting, at least to me, as we can draw on real-world parallels for inspiration and support. But despite magic being a form of knowledge, the exact consequences are highly dependent on the nature of magic. So when speaking about "How things will go", you have also explain how magic works as well.

Jesus Dude.
People who pray for months that their family member gets better **BELIEVE** that the prayer worked if the person gets better. There's no actual proof one way or another, "God works in mysterious ways."

People who watch a priest Lay on Hands on a family member and watch that family member get up and start dancing **KNOW** that the actions of the priest are the direct causation of their family member being healed. There's no doubt possible.

The first does not give a good model as to what will occur if the second happens. Period.

No idea what you're on about with the superpowers, total non-sequitur.

 

[TristramEvans]

Nope, but you've got my attention.

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

 

[Acmegamer]

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

Definitely bookmarked for later viewing. Heading off to bed in a couple.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think the biggest problem with the "but they can see that the priest did miracles!" thing is that unless divine magic is the only magic in the entire world, miracles aren't just restricted to priests/their followers.

What makes a priest curing you of illness any different than a wizard calling up rain during a drought. Or an alchemist mixing up a potion that cures a poison. Etc. etc.

Priests may be curing wounds/healing illnesses, but if there are other people who can do similar miracles without divine intervention, then it is reasonable to think that there is at least some faith involved in believing that the "god" that the priest says exists actually 1. Exists, and 2. Is actually a god and not just an incredibly powerful creature.

 

[Baulderstone]

I think the biggest problem with the "but they can see that the priest did miracles!" thing is that unless divine magic is the only magic in the entire world, miracles aren't just restricted to priests/their followers.

What makes a priest curing you of illness any different than a wizard calling up rain during a drought. Or an alchemist mixing up a potion that cures a poison. Etc. etc.

Priests may be curing wounds/healing illnesses, but if there are other people who can do similar miracles without divine intervention, then it is reasonable to think that there is at least some faith involved in believing that the "god" that the priest says exists actually 1. Exists, and 2. Is actually a god and not just an incredibly powerful creature.

Yes. Is Cthulhu a god or just a giant, psychic alien?

 

[CRKrueger]

I think the biggest problem with the "but they can see that the priest did miracles!" thing is that unless divine magic is the only magic in the entire world, miracles aren't just restricted to priests/their followers.

What makes a priest curing you of illness any different than a wizard calling up rain during a drought. Or an alchemist mixing up a potion that cures a poison. Etc. etc.

Priests may be curing wounds/healing illnesses, but if there are other people who can do similar miracles without divine intervention, then it is reasonable to think that there is at least some faith involved in believing that the "god" that the priest says exists actually 1. Exists, and 2. Is actually a god and not just an incredibly powerful creature.

Well, my point isn't that you can determine by glance whether the "Magic" is Wizardry/Alchemy/Sorcery/Thaumaturgy/Theurgy/Necromancy/Deism/Druidism/Mysticism/Shamanism or whatever the hell.

My point is...using the real world where the only "proof" comes via belief isn't the best reference point for a world where there is no belief necessary because the proof just regrew your sister's leg.

In these discussions "But the X people really believed this!" always comes up as if looking to historical societies about how people respond to magic is the beginning and end of the discussion even though historically...there's no actual proof of magic at all.

I think the paradigm is likely to be completely different. Here's an example...

Medieval people feared all kinds of ghosts, goblins, and great bogies, because they didn't exist and it was all in their heads. In the real world these same humans all over the world hunted creatures to extinction that would kill them with a single blow. If Manticores existed in medieval times, some kings would give it's weight in gold to people who could bring one in alive and people would do it.

There's the old cliche of someone setting up a butcher's shop at the site of a dragon kill, and frankly that's a helluva lot more believable than using Dark Ages Christianity as the primary means of informing your Church of Hieroneous.

 

[CRKrueger]

Yes. Is Cthulhu a god or just a giant, psychic alien?

1d4 Investigators per round aren't sure it matters.

 

[CRKrueger]

I understand no one wants to do a deep dive in cosmology and societies and religion for a game of D&D. But...that doesn't mean we should just cut and paste because the academics say so and we nod our head and say "It is known".

 

[CRKrueger]

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

For some reason, Rabbis and Jesuits always seem to be the most interesting people to talk to about this stuff.

 

[Acmegamer]

For some reason, Rabbis and Jesuits always seem to be the most interesting people to talk to about this stuff.

It is known.

 

[CRKrueger]

It is known.

Touché . I'm sure though if I had access to them, a Taoist Monk and a Sufi Ascetic would have been awesome too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

People who watch a priest Lay on Hands on a family member and watch that family member get up and start dancing **KNOW** that the actions of the priest are the direct causation of their family member being healed. There's no doubt possible.

What fell sorcery is this?

 

[Acmegamer]

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

Antonio obviously had a wish to die... painfully. Fascinating video, decided to sub to the guy.

 

[CRKrueger]

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

This guy's a real find.

 

[CRKrueger]

He's a Rabbi I think? who does deep dives of historical magical texts, several without English translations yet. Besides being very personable with an especially dry sense of humour, he does a good job of putting the texts in the contexts of the society they came from and the general ideas and conceptions of Magic at the time. If someone wanted to do an "authentic" representation of magic (which is interwined with religious and cosmological beliefs of the time period), it seems like he'd be a good introduction.

Heh, he's talking about this system making a good game mechanic for magic.

Did some digging, he's a D&D GM.

 

[Acmegamer]

Heh, he's talking about this system making a good game mechanic for magic.

Did some digging, he's a D&D GM.

Yeah I caught that and wondered if he was a ttrpg gamer. Nice digging.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Heh, he's talking about this system making a good game mechanic for magic.

Did some digging, he's a D&D GM.

He also was a personal victim of the Satanic Panic:

 

[TristramEvans]

Heh, he's talking about this system making a good game mechanic for magic.

Did some digging, he's a D&D GM.

yeah I could tell he was a gamer, he's made numerous side references in his videos

 

[TristramEvans]

This guy's a real find.

one of my fav Youtube channels these days

 

[Marshal Lucky]

Yes. Is Cthulhu a god or just a giant, psychic alien?

According to Edmund Wilson, he's "an invisible whistling octopus".

 

[Alai]

I understand no one wants to do a deep dive in cosmology and societies and religion for a game of D&D. But...that doesn't mean we should just cut and paste because the academics say so and we nod our head and say "It is known".

Thing is, academics by their nature -- and the economic structure of their professional existence -- can be had to say "so" in any number of different ways. Question is really, how much of deep dive and take-shopping before the GM or worldbuilder starts to bore themself. And more importantly, everyone else!

 

[Black Vulmea]

What fell sorcery is this?

That's doubt about the origins of the power, not that such sorcery exists.

Gotta say, I'm with CRKrueger on this: to the extent that the laity sees divine magic in action, belief isn't a factor in the existence of miracles.

Where belief may come into play, especially in a world with both arcane and divine magical power, is, Do I believe the deity or power this priest claims to represent is responsible for this miracle? A fiend's powers may be used to create a semblance of arcane or divine magic, frex - in fact, fiends with the ability to cure or heal would be an interesting wrinkle, one I don't recall seeing in D&D.

A deity of Chaos might laugh their ass off when their clerics are out there representing themselves as serving a deity of Law. Communicating in the faithful's alignment language becomes a means for a priest to establish their bona fides, at least in part.

I believe robertsconley is correct in noting that many in the laity may never be exposed to the more powerful forms of divine magic-slash-miracles, so there is an element of faith required in raise dead, frex, until or unless someone witnesses it first-hand and accepts it as divine power instead of something sorcerous or otherwise inherently untrustworthy.

If your setting is lousy with clerics and organized religion has a strong foothold, then widespread acceptance of simple miracles seems likely: "Uncle Conan fell off the roof and broke his arm and his ribs, but the priest came and healed him so we're going to the temple to make an offering of thanks," wouldn't lead anyone to bat an eye in this instance. On the other hand, if spellcaster clerics are rare, if there are more lay ministers who lead ceremonies but are not inculcated in the mysteries necessary to perform miracles on behalf of their deity or pantheon, then divine magic may seem much more miraculous indeed.

I also strongly agree with Vargold that the laity will be much more likely to worship a pantheon than a deity - a Lawful merchant will still propitiate and beg the intercession of the Chaotic deity of storms to give the merchant's ships safe passage to their destination. Few would be so devoted to a single deity that they'd risk incurring the wrath of the others - even clerics or paladins, at a minimum, should give regular offerings to those deities in the pantheon allied or sympathetic to the deity they serve directly.

This gets really fun when the priesthoods of competing pantheons both have an active, established presence in a community or region. Sure, that same merchant's family always made offerings to Mannanan Mac Lir, but now there's a temple of Poseidon in town, too?! That merchant's watching profit margins shrink to sacrifice a bull to this strange new deity of the sea . . .

 

[Acmegamer]

That's doubt about the origins of the power, not that such sorcery exists.

Gotta say, I'm with CRKrueger on this: to the extent that the laity sees divine magic in action, belief isn't a factor in the existence of miracles.

Where belief may come into play, especially in a world with both arcane and divine magical power, is, Do I believe the deity or power this priest claims to represent is responsible for this miracle? A fiend's powers may be used to create a semblance of arcane or divine magic, frex - in fact, fiends with the ability to cure or heal would be an interesting wrinkle, one I don't recall seeing in D&D.

A deity of Chaos might laugh their ass off when their clerics are out there representing themselves as serving a deity of Law. Communicating in the faithful's alignment language becomes a means for a priest to establish their bona fides, at least in part.

I believe robertsconley is correct in noting that many in the laity may never be exposed to the more powerful forms of divine magic-slash-miracles, so there is an element of faith required in raise dead, frex, until or unless someone witnesses it first-hand and accepts it as divine power instead of something sorcerous or otherwise inherently untrustworthy.

If your setting is lousy with clerics and organized religion has a strong foothold, then widespread acceptance of simple miracles seems likely: "Uncle Conan fell off the roof and broke his arm and his ribs, but the priest came and healed him so we're going to the temple to make an offering of thanks," wouldn't lead anyone to bat an eye in this instance. On the other hand, if spellcaster clerics are rare, if there are more lay ministers who lead ceremonies but are not inculcated in the mysteries necessary to perform miracles on behalf of their deity or pantheon, then divine magic may seem much more miraculous indeed.

I also strongly agree with Vargold that the laity will be much more likely to worship a pantheon than a deity - a Lawful merchant will still propitiate and beg the intercession of the Chaotic deity of storms to give the merchant's ships safe passage to their destination. Few would be so devoted to a single deity that they'd risk incurring the wrath of the others - even clerics or paladins, at a minimum, should give regular offerings to those deities in the pantheon allied or sympathetic to the deity they serve directly.

This gets really fun when the priesthoods of competing pantheons both have an active, established presence in a community or region. Sure, that same merchant's family always made offerings to Mannanan Mac Lir, but now there's a temple of Poseidon in town, too?! That merchant's watching profit margins shrink to sacrifice a bull to this strange new deity of the sea . . .

Which is why I always appreciated the Street of Gods in Lankhmar. Actually the whole world and how Leiber represented the gods in his world amused me to no end.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's doubt about the origins of the power, not that such sorcery exists.

Gotta say, I'm with CRKrueger on this: to the extent that the laity sees divine magic in action, belief isn't a factor in the existence of miracles.

Where belief may come into play, especially in a world with both arcane and divine magical power, is, Do I believe the deity or power this priest claims to represent is responsible for this miracle? A fiend's powers may be used to create a semblance of arcane or divine magic, frex - in fact, fiends with the ability to cure or heal would be an interesting wrinkle, one I don't recall seeing in D&D.

A deity of Chaos might laugh their ass off when their clerics are out there representing themselves as serving a deity of Law. Communicating in the faithful's alignment language becomes a means for a priest to establish their bona fides, at least in part.

I believe robertsconley is correct in noting that many in the laity may never be exposed to the more powerful forms of divine magic-slash-miracles, so there is an element of faith required in raise dead, frex, until or unless someone witnesses it first-hand and accepts it as divine power instead of something sorcerous or otherwise inherently untrustworthy.

If your setting is lousy with clerics and organized religion has a strong foothold, then widespread acceptance of simple miracles seems likely: "Uncle Conan fell off the roof and broke his arm and his ribs, but the priest came and healed him so we're going to the temple to make an offering of thanks," wouldn't lead anyone to bat an eye in this instance. On the other hand, if spellcaster clerics are rare, if there are more lay ministers who lead ceremonies but are not inculcated in the mysteries necessary to perform miracles on behalf of their deity or pantheon, then divine magic may seem much more miraculous indeed.

I also strongly agree with Vargold that the laity will be much more likely to worship a pantheon than a deity - a Lawful merchant will still propitiate and beg the intercession of the Chaotic deity of storms to give the merchant's ships safe passage to their destination. Few would be so devoted to a single deity that they'd risk incurring the wrath of the others - even clerics or paladins, at a minimum, should give regular offerings to those deities in the pantheon allied or sympathetic to the deity they serve directly.

This gets really fun when the priesthoods of competing pantheons both have an active, established presence in a community or region. Sure, that same merchant's family always made offerings to Mannanan Mac Lir, but now there's a temple of Poseidon in town, too?! That merchant's watching profit margins shrink to sacrifice a bull to this strange new deity of the sea . . .

I think the origin of whatever power is being witnessed… the source of the miracles, as it were… would be a significant point of contention.

I also think that, generally speaking, a monolithic view of how people would react vastly underestimates the ability of humans to ignore mounds of evidence in favor of doubt or disbelief.

 

[Black Vulmea]

Which is why I always appreciated the Street of Gods in Lankhmar. Actually the whole world and how Leiber represented the gods in his world amused me to no end.

I like the rule in 1e AD&D that clerics may cast first and second level spells on knowledge and faith alone. That's the perfect rule to allow and justify street preachers in slums or hermits in the hills with just a smattering of divine power. It lends itself to a similar atmosphere.

I think the origin of whatever power is being witnessed… the source of the miracles, as it were… would be a significant point of contention.

Agreed. With the rumored and perhaps personally experienced powers of illusion, shapeshifting, and possession inherent in the implied and/or explicit setting of many fantasy worlds, doubt and fear of divine power may be entirely warranted, particularly when such power appears in the form of, say, travelling priests who show up as part of armed bands, perhaps in company with sorcerers or barbarians or cutpurses - sound familiar?

Established religions have a leg up here, but the community that knows its priest well through long and faithful service, whose acolyte comes from their community directly - "Him in the robe? 'e's Snarg, the blacksmith's son!" - would be the gold standard for unreserved devotion.

I also think that, generally speaking, a monolithic view of how people would react vastly underestimates the ability of humans to ignore mounds of evidence in favor of doubt or disbelief.

One can seldom go wrong overstating the twin powers of ignorance and superstition.

 

[CT_Phipps]

I guess that’s the problem, right.

We have no evidence of any magic or religion that was or is real in any sense. Not a single iota of proof that would overnight turn the measures of religion on their heads.

Neither do we have any basis on how we would react if we shared this world (in any meaningful way) with another sapient race.

So in fiction we dream about gods and magic and elves and dragons as if they were real but really we have no idea.

Again, I think part of the problem is that plenty of people in the world believe there is objective evidence for gods.

They believe in miracles. Not as a, "We have faith in them."

They're like, "Yeah, Dude got healed because he prayed for it."

The people who are skeptical are only assumed to be right if you, well, have a skeptical mindset. Explaining this to people sometimes feel like they don't believe me.