Clerical Corruption - by Arislyn on 12:40 07 Apr 2003
This is a debate the hubby and I got into this weekend while I was trying to come up with a good campaign idea for the new game. Now, I realize that both mine and my husband's opinions in this matter are both vaild - just different. However, I'm curious as to what the rest of you may think.
Let's say that a horrible plague swept through a city, killing hundreds of people. Would the churches necessarily step in and save the people when they know that they have a cure?
My opinion is that it depends solely upon the church's alignment. I'm thinking that a good church would not allow that to happen. Certainly, they may still charge an arm and a leg for the services rendered, but they would most likely work with the people to set up some sort of payment plan to help them achieve this. (After all, these cures do cost money to create. You usually need special ingredients, etc.) Evil churches would keep the cure for their own flock and basically tell the rest of the city to go suck eggs unless they can produce the right amount of gold for "donation." Neutral churches could, obviously, go either way.
My husband is of the opinion that even the good churches would turn away those not of their faith and let them die. After all, the gods are only truly concerned with those people who worship them, the rest of the people are unimportant. So, these are the only people that they clergy would truly be concerned about. He also believes that while the clergy in the field may well want to help people regardless of their faith, that those cardinals, bishops, etc. that are at the top of the church hierarchy would be corrupted by their social/political power and would not care about the people, per se.
Honestly, it could go either way. *smiles* It just depends on how you want to play your clergy and their churches. Both are valid. But, what do you think?
This is a debate the hubby and I got into this weekend while I was trying to come up with a good campaign idea for the new game. Now, I realize that both mine and my husband's opinions in this matter are both vaild - just different. However, I'm curious as to what the rest of you may think.
Let's say that a horrible plague swept through a city, killing hundreds of people. Would the churches necessarily step in and save the people when they know that they have a cure?
My opinion is that it depends solely upon the church's alignment. I'm thinking that a good church would not allow that to happen. Certainly, they may still charge an arm and a leg for the services rendered, but they would most likely work with the people to set up some sort of payment plan to help them achieve this. (After all, these cures do cost money to create. You usually need special ingredients, etc.) Evil churches would keep the cure for their own flock and basically tell the rest of the city to go suck eggs unless they can produce the right amount of gold for "donation." Neutral churches could, obviously, go either way.
My husband is of the opinion that even the good churches would turn away those not of their faith and let them die. After all, the gods are only truly concerned with those people who worship them, the rest of the people are unimportant. So, these are the only people that they clergy would truly be concerned about. He also believes that while the clergy in the field may well want to help people regardless of their faith, that those cardinals, bishops, etc. that are at the top of the church hierarchy would be corrupted by their social/political power and would not care about the people, per se.
Honestly, it could go either way. *smiles* It just depends on how you want to play your clergy and their churches. Both are valid. But, what do you think?
Clerical Corruption - by din on 14:04 07 Apr 2003
my only two imputs vary .. from personal experience ...
1st is dealing with Catholic Charities which is run by the Catholic Church, they are set up to help those in need, most major Christain church denominations have similar organizations. They do not care about religion, church affiliation, and don't ask about it.
The same for the NAACP. An organization originally built to service the rights of a segment of the population, but they do not limit themselves to that and will help anybody in need who is being descrimitated against in anyway.
Does this carry over into a medieval fantasy setting? In our own medieval this sort of thing was hit and miss, at least in the western world under the Latin and Othodox churches. The Latin church did have the Hospitallers and ran Leper colonies (not particularly humane by todays standards but this was 100s of years ago)
Now I think ultimately it would depend on the tenents and scope of the faith, If you were the sole church to have the cure or the ability to cure i would think that you would be the of the god of healing and that would be your job. You would have to, for free, regardless of your cost. Particularly if it was going to be something of plague proportions.
This leads into the other point .. You you want to be the church who healed or let die? how many of the survivors are going to be coming to your services if you didn't try to help? Sure you might save all your current worshippers, and they will be more fervent, but the pickings will be slim after that, cause everybody else is dead.
I also think that the idea we ... or more correctly 'I' being a long time church goer .. about the nature of worship in a multi-god society isn't really what it is/would be like. everybody worshipped all the gods; they didn't just pick one and ignore the others. Pantheons are portayed many times as a family and can also be looked at as a team who watch over the entire flock.
when the hunter goes out he prays to the god of the hunt, if he gets hurt he prays to the healing god, when he goes to bed he prays to the dreaming god etc.
i could go on and on but i think that is the crux of my few points on the matter. i think also that an 'evil' faith, being cute only unto itself would not really care to help the common man. they are usually the black sheeps trying to foul things up anyway.
my only two imputs vary .. from personal experience ...
1st is dealing with Catholic Charities which is run by the Catholic Church, they are set up to help those in need, most major Christain church denominations have similar organizations. They do not care about religion, church affiliation, and don't ask about it.
The same for the NAACP. An organization originally built to service the rights of a segment of the population, but they do not limit themselves to that and will help anybody in need who is being descrimitated against in anyway.
Does this carry over into a medieval fantasy setting? In our own medieval this sort of thing was hit and miss, at least in the western world under the Latin and Othodox churches. The Latin church did have the Hospitallers and ran Leper colonies (not particularly humane by todays standards but this was 100s of years ago)
Now I think ultimately it would depend on the tenents and scope of the faith, If you were the sole church to have the cure or the ability to cure i would think that you would be the of the god of healing and that would be your job. You would have to, for free, regardless of your cost. Particularly if it was going to be something of plague proportions.
This leads into the other point .. You you want to be the church who healed or let die? how many of the survivors are going to be coming to your services if you didn't try to help? Sure you might save all your current worshippers, and they will be more fervent, but the pickings will be slim after that, cause everybody else is dead.
I also think that the idea we ... or more correctly 'I' being a long time church goer .. about the nature of worship in a multi-god society isn't really what it is/would be like. everybody worshipped all the gods; they didn't just pick one and ignore the others. Pantheons are portayed many times as a family and can also be looked at as a team who watch over the entire flock.
when the hunter goes out he prays to the god of the hunt, if he gets hurt he prays to the healing god, when he goes to bed he prays to the dreaming god etc.
i could go on and on but i think that is the crux of my few points on the matter. i think also that an 'evil' faith, being cute only unto itself would not really care to help the common man. they are usually the black sheeps trying to foul things up anyway.
Clerical Corruption - by Arislyn on 14:28 07 Apr 2003
You've got a lot of good points, din. Especially the one about gaining more followers after the plague. Letting people die would sorta be shooting yourself in the foot when it comes recruitment time...."Heck, no! I'm not worshipping Tim!" And, you are absolutely right. If your church deals solely in healing or that is a large part of the faith, then you would be expected to cure the people, free of charge.
My husband was looking at it from the Faerunian perspective where the gods didn't care one whit about people before the Time of Troubles (as was I, actually). They only came to see people as important, or more accurately assetts, after they were forced to use worship to "power" themselves. If you look at the gods not as a team, but as a group of rivals, then you can kind of understand where they may want to let other worshippers die. By doing that, you weaken your rivals and gain yourself a chance to take their portfolio, if you can either kill them or wrest it from their deific hands.
Hmmm...come to think of it, letting others die may not hurt your recruitment. It could actually increase your flock. After all, those who are left would know that should the same thing happen again, they may not be so lucky as to live through it a second time. Everyone at Tim's Church lived, so.....*shrugs and smiles* Yeah, it would definitely be playing on the fears of people, but it could go that way.
You've got a lot of good points, din. Especially the one about gaining more followers after the plague. Letting people die would sorta be shooting yourself in the foot when it comes recruitment time...."Heck, no! I'm not worshipping Tim!" And, you are absolutely right. If your church deals solely in healing or that is a large part of the faith, then you would be expected to cure the people, free of charge.
My husband was looking at it from the Faerunian perspective where the gods didn't care one whit about people before the Time of Troubles (as was I, actually). They only came to see people as important, or more accurately assetts, after they were forced to use worship to "power" themselves. If you look at the gods not as a team, but as a group of rivals, then you can kind of understand where they may want to let other worshippers die. By doing that, you weaken your rivals and gain yourself a chance to take their portfolio, if you can either kill them or wrest it from their deific hands.
Hmmm...come to think of it, letting others die may not hurt your recruitment. It could actually increase your flock. After all, those who are left would know that should the same thing happen again, they may not be so lucky as to live through it a second time. Everyone at Tim's Church lived, so.....*shrugs and smiles* Yeah, it would definitely be playing on the fears of people, but it could go that way.
Clerical Corruption - by din on 16:54 07 Apr 2003
right about the point of using the fear of survivial at recruitment time , but i think that only stands solidly if the gods are as your husband is looking at them, not part of a co-operative pantheon and worshipped individually over being worshipped as a pantheon. other wise it would be basicly, '#### the gods, they let everybidy die' because they are seen as a group.
not familar with 'Fairunian' but I do not see that working as you descriibed, at least for me, would your god of healing be rival to another god of healing?, or would the the god of animal husbandry be able to turn the plague into a windfall and start including general healing into its tenet if he came up with a cure for it ?
Are each of the gods trying to expand themselves to the point were they will eventually become the 'supreme being' and be responsible for everything? in favour of that the greek/roman gods often wore many hats.
or does the animal husbandry god try to increase his user base by getting more people interested in animal husbandry ?
recently I've been trying to steer away from power explanations, though essentually i've always used the worshippers=power formula but now only in the sense that if people need a particular god more than another then those types of gods were usually seen as more powerful .. but still couldn't compete in many ways with lesser gods in the lesser god's main area. This works in the family tree analogy with the big gods being sons and daughters and the lesser gods as 2nd cousins and grandkids and those elevated.
right about the point of using the fear of survivial at recruitment time , but i think that only stands solidly if the gods are as your husband is looking at them, not part of a co-operative pantheon and worshipped individually over being worshipped as a pantheon. other wise it would be basicly, '#### the gods, they let everybidy die' because they are seen as a group.
not familar with 'Fairunian' but I do not see that working as you descriibed, at least for me, would your god of healing be rival to another god of healing?, or would the the god of animal husbandry be able to turn the plague into a windfall and start including general healing into its tenet if he came up with a cure for it ?
Are each of the gods trying to expand themselves to the point were they will eventually become the 'supreme being' and be responsible for everything? in favour of that the greek/roman gods often wore many hats.
or does the animal husbandry god try to increase his user base by getting more people interested in animal husbandry ?
recently I've been trying to steer away from power explanations, though essentually i've always used the worshippers=power formula but now only in the sense that if people need a particular god more than another then those types of gods were usually seen as more powerful .. but still couldn't compete in many ways with lesser gods in the lesser god's main area. This works in the family tree analogy with the big gods being sons and daughters and the lesser gods as 2nd cousins and grandkids and those elevated.
Clerical Corruption - by Arislyn on 17:35 07 Apr 2003
We're working on the basis that you only have one god of any particular portfolio, so you'd only have one god of pain, one god of death, one god of love, etc. Now, granted, there would be a lot of overlap and that is where the rivalry would come in. After all, shouldn't death include murder? That is, after all, the act of making one forcibly dead. Or is death relegated only to the judging/guiding of the dead spirits? So, there could be different gods who handle different aspects of similar portfolios.
You are right, though, about how it would most likely work should the pantheon be like a family or team, all working towards keeping the people/world safe. In that instance, I would think that what would be traditionally considered evil gods are merely keeping the balance. For example, you have to have death to balance out life. What if nobody ever died? Could the food supplies hold out? Would people eventually go mad from never having personal space as the planet became more and more crowded?
Hehehe! The hubby just got here to pick me up at work. Car went all funky today. We can continue the debate later. *grins*
| Quote |
| would your god of healing be rival to another god of healing |
We're working on the basis that you only have one god of any particular portfolio, so you'd only have one god of pain, one god of death, one god of love, etc. Now, granted, there would be a lot of overlap and that is where the rivalry would come in. After all, shouldn't death include murder? That is, after all, the act of making one forcibly dead. Or is death relegated only to the judging/guiding of the dead spirits? So, there could be different gods who handle different aspects of similar portfolios.
You are right, though, about how it would most likely work should the pantheon be like a family or team, all working towards keeping the people/world safe. In that instance, I would think that what would be traditionally considered evil gods are merely keeping the balance. For example, you have to have death to balance out life. What if nobody ever died? Could the food supplies hold out? Would people eventually go mad from never having personal space as the planet became more and more crowded?
Hehehe! The hubby just got here to pick me up at work. Car went all funky today.
We can continue the debate later. *grins*Clerical Corruption - by Brad on 19:44 07 Apr 2003
I think this is for the DM to decide as they create the campaign world and mythos. If gods and religions play a big role then the Dm better think about this right from the start.
There is no right answer because it will be different in each campaign world. And may be different for each race and/or culture in the world.
Also monotheistic religions are going to be much different in their world view than pantheistic cultures. Pantheistic religions might have highly specialized gods. (ie.: a priest of a god of warriors might only heal or cure plagues for members of the warrior class, a preist of the god of agriculture might only spend his spells on farmers.)
So I would think up the society and the gods in the society and then the religions built around them first.
I think this is for the DM to decide as they create the campaign world and mythos. If gods and religions play a big role then the Dm better think about this right from the start.
There is no right answer because it will be different in each campaign world. And may be different for each race and/or culture in the world.
Also monotheistic religions are going to be much different in their world view than pantheistic cultures. Pantheistic religions might have highly specialized gods. (ie.: a priest of a god of warriors might only heal or cure plagues for members of the warrior class, a preist of the god of agriculture might only spend his spells on farmers.)
So I would think up the society and the gods in the society and then the religions built around them first.
Clerical Corruption - by Haruchai on 01:44 08 Apr 2003
The clerics will do as I, the DM, instruct them to do through their gods.
Simple answer.
*ducks the thrown fruit*
The clerics will do as I, the DM, instruct them to do through their gods.
Simple answer. *ducks the thrown fruit*
Clerical Corruption - by MoonHunter on 03:55 08 Apr 2003
Lots of questions....
Another question that should be asked is, "Which god created the plague?" It is a god that allied or opposed to the diety providing the healing? that would determine if the god could heal the illness. (Head Diety: I am sorry God of Healing, but the human population has reached a point where the God of Illness has to reduce them. You can not stop the flow of this plague. or a variation on above. I am sorry Athena, but Hera has a legitimate claim to granting this plague against that city) Is there a compact or agreement that prevent gods from intervening in the affairs of other gods? (Darn that evil god, I would intervene but that would break the compact.) The relationships of Gods is a question that needs to be addressed.
There is the thought that The Good diety is actually responsible for the plague to set up events that will bring the greater good later, so that their will be no healing for this one. They are immortal, they may be planning long term.
If we are using the worshipers=power, there is always the energy to be scooped up by the death of a human... or the diety might need spirit warriors (recruited from the spirits of the dead who worshiped them), so the plauge allows them to recruit en mass.
(By the way, I though Evil churches did not have access to heal. Is that a change in 3E?)
Also remember that a Diety might care, in the abstract, but there is a difference between the diety and the religion. (Well of course we are the children of the Good God, but we need money to support our good works.)
Just some more throughts to add...
Lots of questions....
Another question that should be asked is, "Which god created the plague?" It is a god that allied or opposed to the diety providing the healing? that would determine if the god could heal the illness. (Head Diety: I am sorry God of Healing, but the human population has reached a point where the God of Illness has to reduce them. You can not stop the flow of this plague. or a variation on above. I am sorry Athena, but Hera has a legitimate claim to granting this plague against that city) Is there a compact or agreement that prevent gods from intervening in the affairs of other gods? (Darn that evil god, I would intervene but that would break the compact.) The relationships of Gods is a question that needs to be addressed.
There is the thought that The Good diety is actually responsible for the plague to set up events that will bring the greater good later, so that their will be no healing for this one. They are immortal, they may be planning long term.
If we are using the worshipers=power, there is always the energy to be scooped up by the death of a human... or the diety might need spirit warriors (recruited from the spirits of the dead who worshiped them), so the plauge allows them to recruit en mass.
(By the way, I though Evil churches did not have access to heal. Is that a change in 3E?)
Also remember that a Diety might care, in the abstract, but there is a difference between the diety and the religion. (Well of course we are the children of the Good God, but we need money to support our good works.)
Just some more throughts to add...
Clerical Corruption - by din on 07:18 08 Apr 2003
i don't know about 3E, i use my own rules etc .. To touch on brads post i think it is plausible for an evil god to have healing of some sort for there priests, if only to use to keep their own worshippers up and running ...
i agree that those ingame concerns and plots are vary viable which ever way the gods are presented. i usually play the gods and thier religions very close.
it is true that a god may 'live' on a sacrifice of corn husks and pray his priests will need some cash on hand.
| Quote (MoonHunter @ April 08 2003,00:55) |
| (By the way, I though Evil churches did not have access to heal. Is that a change in 3E?) |
i don't know about 3E, i use my own rules etc .. To touch on brads post i think it is plausible for an evil god to have healing of some sort for there priests, if only to use to keep their own worshippers up and running ...
i agree that those ingame concerns and plots are vary viable which ever way the gods are presented. i usually play the gods and thier religions very close.
it is true that a god may 'live' on a sacrifice of corn husks and pray his priests will need some cash on hand.
Clerical Corruption - by NoonChild on 11:23 08 Apr 2003
I know that as far as Roman Gods go you can try and scupper other peoples plans, but you cant change destiny. Fate is a power that is sorta above the Gods, who are not moral + all powerfull like monotheistic gods, but just more powerfull than Humans. An example - Aeneus (Roman version of Odyssius (sp?)) was favoured by Venus (his mum), but hated by Juno. Juno knows he is fated to be a great leader and found a new sparkling city etc, but she decides to try to stop him with storms etc. This slows him down but eventually he succeeds, cos it's destiny. The Godesses continue to squabble until Jupiter says "Stop it you two". They obey not because he has any power to destroy them, but because they respect him as a husband and father, and know he is wise.
Plagues in that kind of system are caused by humans disrespecting the rules of the Gods ie they are not random but a direct result of poor burial practice, neglect of shrines etc. This is not a moral judgement by evil/good gods because the Gods are no more morally pure than humans. They just got rules!!
| Quote |
| Is there a compact or agreement that prevent gods from intervening in the affairs of other gods? (Darn that evil god, I would intervene but that would break the compact.) The relationships of Gods is a question that needs to be addressed. |
I know that as far as Roman Gods go you can try and scupper other peoples plans, but you cant change destiny. Fate is a power that is sorta above the Gods, who are not moral + all powerfull like monotheistic gods, but just more powerfull than Humans. An example - Aeneus (Roman version of Odyssius (sp?)) was favoured by Venus (his mum), but hated by Juno. Juno knows he is fated to be a great leader and found a new sparkling city etc, but she decides to try to stop him with storms etc. This slows him down but eventually he succeeds, cos it's destiny. The Godesses continue to squabble until Jupiter says "Stop it you two". They obey not because he has any power to destroy them, but because they respect him as a husband and father, and know he is wise.
Plagues in that kind of system are caused by humans disrespecting the rules of the Gods ie they are not random but a direct result of poor burial practice, neglect of shrines etc. This is not a moral judgement by evil/good gods because the Gods are no more morally pure than humans. They just got rules!!
Clerical Corruption - by Arislyn on 11:48 08 Apr 2003
Oh! That's an excellent point! *grins* I hadn't even considered that.
It makes me want to compare being a god to playing a strategy / simulation video game. I don't care how I accomplish my goals in this game, only that the goals are achieved. So, if I need to smack around my "people" to get something done, I do it. Or, if I find that they react better to being praised and rewarded, I do that. Sometimes, it's a combination of both that gets the job done quickest....
| Quote |
| Gods, who are not moral |
Oh! That's an excellent point! *grins* I hadn't even considered that.
It makes me want to compare being a god to playing a strategy / simulation video game. I don't care how I accomplish my goals in this game, only that the goals are achieved. So, if I need to smack around my "people" to get something done, I do it. Or, if I find that they react better to being praised and rewarded, I do that. Sometimes, it's a combination of both that gets the job done quickest....
Clerical Corruption - by Brad on 14:51 08 Apr 2003
So there are lots of variables the DM needs to decide upon:
1. Gods' alignment.
2. Gods' attitude towards humans
3. Mythology
4. Religious orders and cults
5. Society
6. Situation
7. Err, what Haru said.
Everybody has brought up really good points.
BTW I really did not like the stock dieties 3E D&D supplied. Also, I that question of evil clerics being able to heal is interesting. You could set it up so that they can only heal evil people or followers or that there is a price for their healing like nasty scaring. To all others the healing spells are reversed. Or some variation like that. I think if I were planning a campaign i would make up my own pantheon and rules for it.
So there are lots of variables the DM needs to decide upon:
1. Gods' alignment.
2. Gods' attitude towards humans
3. Mythology
4. Religious orders and cults
5. Society
6. Situation
7. Err, what Haru said.
Everybody has brought up really good points.
BTW I really did not like the stock dieties 3E D&D supplied. Also, I that question of evil clerics being able to heal is interesting. You could set it up so that they can only heal evil people or followers or that there is a price for their healing like nasty scaring. To all others the healing spells are reversed. Or some variation like that. I think if I were planning a campaign i would make up my own pantheon and rules for it.
Clerical Corruption - by Arislyn on 15:04 08 Apr 2003
Heh! I usually say that they can they just may not. I can see an evil cleric sitting around and teasing the horribly wounded who aren't well enough to get up and do anything about it. :P
Besides, healing is definitely a major part of being able to effectively torture someone. You don't want your subject to die before you get your info. And, you can always say that healing isn't necessarily a pleasant experience. Sure, when it's doen you are whole and still alive, but you could say that the actual process itself is probably worse than the injury.
I had one character who went to an evil cleric to be cured of poison. What the cleric did was make tiny cuts all along the insides of her arms and legs then magically purge the poison by forcing it out of all the cuts. She spent as much time recovering from the cure as she would've had the poison not been deadly.
| Quote |
| question of evil clerics being able to heal |
Heh! I usually say that they can they just may not. I can see an evil cleric sitting around and teasing the horribly wounded who aren't well enough to get up and do anything about it. :P
Besides, healing is definitely a major part of being able to effectively torture someone. You don't want your subject to die before you get your info. And, you can always say that healing isn't necessarily a pleasant experience. Sure, when it's doen you are whole and still alive, but you could say that the actual process itself is probably worse than the injury.
I had one character who went to an evil cleric to be cured of poison. What the cleric did was make tiny cuts all along the insides of her arms and legs then magically purge the poison by forcing it out of all the cuts. She spent as much time recovering from the cure as she would've had the poison not been deadly.