Talk:Expanded Religions (3.5e Variant Rule)

Clarification

I don't think this is too important, but it should be noted that pantheism is a real-world religion, and it is not nearly correctly defined in this article. I understand how the author meant the term (pantheism as the worship of a pantheon, but this is actually an etymological non sequitor). In any case, I doubt this will get changed, but it probably should be. --EldritchNumen 01:52, 8 January 2007 (MST)

What would you say the name should be changed to? --Green Dragon 16:49, 8 January 2007 (MST)

I suggest paganism or polytheism. I lean towards polytheism. --Dmilewski 17:54, 8 January 2007 (MST)

I agree. Polytheism actually encompasses the idea expressed by the author quite nicely. --EldritchNumen 01:52, 9 January 2007 (MST)

Agree as well, go ahead and change it. --Green Dragon 16:25, 9 January 2007 (MST)

As the original author of this article, I am fine with this change. I deliberately chose pantheism over polytheism because pantheism is the term used in the official WotC rulebooks. I do, however, agree that polytheism is more accurate. In the real world, pantheism means the belief that everything is divine, not faith in a pantheon. Banyan 13:22, 6 March 2007 (MST)

Great! I'm glad that you approve of this change (we try very hard not to change people's pages too much, but it seemed like a good idea to clean up this possible point of confusion). You are right that WotC often uses pantheism, which I find rather frustrating, but hopefully we can both incorporate their technical vocabulary and also improve upon it. —EldritchNumen 14:48, 6 March 2007 (MST)

Supplemental Variant Rule

EldritchNumen, would you mind clarifying your decision to make this a Supplemental Variant Rule? --Green Dragon 10:37, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

Decisions about religion changes are a little weird. I feel like changes to the "core" religion are necessarily transformational... here's the reasoning. Religion is very often changed (between every sort of CS, for example). The "core" system doesn't really encompass what the community has established as basic, in my opinion. While the deities change, the basic system is the same: portfolios, alignments, domains, dogma, etc. are all attributed to the deities. The religion framework doesn't change, only it's content. Thus, I would consider the content, which is basically freely interchangable-- ("pick the gods you want!")-- to be supplementary, while any real changes to the way religion, the gods, or divine magic works is transformational, since it actually changes the structure of the framework. This article encompasses very little change to the basic religion structure. Sure, there are minor changes in what happens in the afterlife and cosmology, but otherwise the system is basically intact. In fact, there is nothing in this article that precludes core material! All the core gods can exist in the domain of this article, as can the FRCS and Eberron gods, and any other number! Basically, this article 1) adds two planes, Heaven and Hell (which don't necessarily supercede Baator, the Abyss, or Celestia!), and 2) makes categories for the gods that entail a minor change in the afterlife (which is really specific to each campaign, not codified in the rules). All adherents of the core Gods, for example, would be polytheistic, and would do the things they normally do in DnD when they die: go to their deity's home plane. In then end, then, I see this as virtually entirely supplementary. If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear why you'd consider it transformational, and we can figure out where it rightly belongs. —EldritchNumen 14:17, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

Thanks for clearing this up. The only reason I was wondering was because when I read the "as well as changing the rules on what happens when you die." I thought it was very different from the normal D&D rules. However, I did not take the time to read through this entire article. So, I agree with your choice and thanks again for clearing this up. --Green Dragon 16:43, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

Monotheism

What about monotheism? I also have to protest that athiests would be philosophical; in fact, they would be the LEAST philosophical, as philosophy usually leads to the belief in God. At the very least, you could include henotheism (belief in many gods but worship of only one.)

Thanks for the comment. In the future, please include comments in a heading (such as I've put this under) and sign using two dash marks and four tilde's. As for the comment, monotheistic religions are dualist religions in this framework. There is nothing in dualism as its spelled out here to prevent any real world monotheistic religion, except of course that no religion would believe that everyone but its adherents go to Hell. There could even be a religion that doesn't believe anyone ever goes to Hell or one that doesn't believe Hell has any power and so on. As for the comment on atheists; I can see your point on atheists in the real world, (although I would disagree regardless), but this is a fantasy world where everyone knows that there are deities, and so to deny their authority, especially knowing that it will condemn you to real mortality that could be preventable otherwise, requires a good deal of thought and introspection. Remember that atheists in this framework do not deny the existence of deities, they just don't worship them. --Banyan 23:34, 19 July 2007 (MDT)

Dualism is not enough. It is not the same as monotheism. Dualism defines good and evil as having equal power, while in most monotheistic religions good is infinitely more powerful than evil. --Sir Milo Teabag 15:46, 21 March 2008 (MDT)

Dualism does not define good and evil as having equal power. It never says that anywhere in the variant rule. Real world monotheist religions would be dualist religions under this framework. --Banyan 17:49, 26 March 2008 (MDT)

I too must protest. We need monotheism as an option and the acknowledgment that atheists are NOT philosophical. I used to BE an atheist, but when I discovered Platonic philosophy, I THREW OUT atheism and became a Christian. Noname 22:33, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

I would have to disagree. Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); and what the correct principles of reasoning are (logic). Because Atheists do not live by a set rule system they have to define their own belief structure (what is good and what is bad) and therefor are more philosophical. --Green Dragon 01:33, 31 March 2008 (MDT)

I agree with Green Dragon here, but I must point out that what's being discussed in this thread is real world religious belief, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the variant rule. The variant rule is used in a make-believe fantasy world, not the real world, and as such I, or you, or anyone else, can just stipulate what things are like. So I'm telling you that any real-world religion could be reasonably recreated in a fantasy world using this variant. Monotheist religions are dualist religions because they view the ultimate good or personified God as the correct object for worship. They then can think whatever they want about evil/hell just so long as they don't deny it exists. They can think it has no power (this is specifically stated in the variant) or that it is merely the absence of good, or whatever. The variant is intended to be open ended enough to allow this. Atheists in this world are more philosophical because in this world you CANNOT deny the existence of heaven and the gods and spirits and so on, and atheists know that their religion means they will suffer real mortality (assuming they ever die) instead of having an afterlife, and so they have to justify their belief philosophically in order to be atheists. All that said, if you want to use this variant and disagree with all this, you are welcome to use it and just tell your group that you are adding monotheism as a separate option and that atheists in your game are all morons. --Banyan 13:10, 31 March 2008 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon 15:10, 12 March 2009 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

I feel kinda like a jack for nominating my own article, but I am very proud of this variant, which I've been using successfully since I added it to this wiki.

The criteria for featured variant rules are that it be beneficial, understandable, and not overly encumbrant. I feel like religion in the games I've been running has become much more interesting as a result of using this rule, and generally the players have been much more engaged in their characters' religious convictions. As for understandability and encumbrance, the only problem I've had is either with players not reading the variant or experienced players, who want things to be just like they're used to, trying to ignore it. I won't comment on the quality of my own writing. Please respond. --Banyan 14:15, 11 March 2008 (MDT)

Comment — Nice work I like it :), I have one suggestion though anyone could incorporate this into their games perhaps it would be better if you made a more general introductory paragraph rather than the one about Age of Titans. I'm not saying remove this information entirely you could put it somewhere but a general intro would let people know they can use it for their own games not just Age of Titans and are therefore more likely to keep reading. Oh and I actually prefer the author to nominate their own articles, the process of fixing up articles and suggesting changes could get a bit intense sometimes and if you nominate your own article you've chosen to go through that rather than someone choosing for you. --Hawk 19:27, 11 March 2008 (MDT)

I agree with this. People will be turned off from the article if the first thing they read is "This is how religion works in the Age of Titans". A non-campaign specific introduction needs to be made. --Green Dragon 22:19, 12 March 2008 (MDT)

Done. Actually the only reason I put that in was because a moderated had added a big thing to the top saying that it was Age of Titans specific, so I figured I'd roll with that. Now it's more generic. --Banyan 17:30, 26 March 2008 (MDT)

Thanks for doing that, it sounds good. Also, I think I was the one that added the thing saying it was campaign specific. Oh well. --Green Dragon 12:35, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

Support — I like this it is a good idea and in my opinion quite useful, I'm sure many people would find it interesting and many people could use it. The only fault I can find with it is that it isn't as pleasing to the eye as say the prestige class layouts but apart from random pictures of clerics or something I can't really think of a way to make it better That said it follows all formatting 'rules' we have. I've MOI'd GD see what he thinks now. --Hawk 07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

More links could be added throughout. Also, I think the header depths should be discussed. --Green Dragon 12:35, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

What sorts of links are you looking for? I could create more sample religions like those listed at the bottom of the page and then link to them off of each category, rather than giving small examples of believers/organizations under the religions themselves... --Banyan 13:12, 31 March 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I do not actually see the reason why one would implement this into a game. As far as I can tell all it does it expand on what happens after death. That's it. I think this would be a lot more useful if it provided some in-game benefit for each type of religion chosen. For example dualists maybe could be able to make a check and see if someone is "evil" or "good". Also, to even increase the in-game effects further, you could make "levels" of the religion type and have benefits associated with that. For example a dualist prophet would be more attune to his religion that a standard follower, and therefor would have more religion-related bonus'. Just my thoughts. --Green Dragon 12:35, 28 March 2008 (MDT)

You're right this variant, added just as it is, does not change anything mechanically. If a group is mostly interested in mechanical changes given from their religious choice, they could still use this variant and build the changes they want into whatever particular religion they believe in. For example, if you look at the religion "Totemism" linked at the bottom of the variant, you'll see mechanical changes given from being a member of that particular religion. However, it should be noted that this variant is mainly for the purpose of role playing, and not dice-rolling, and so mechanical changes were not my primary objective, which is probably why they're not necessarily part of the variant. Nonetheless, they're possible. --Banyan 13:12, 31 March 2008 (MDT)

In my opinion who cares if it's not a mechanical article this page gives you a base to build flavor into your world not just new rules --Hawk 22:30, 1 April 2008 (MDT)

I feel if it is a variant rule system it should bring some variant rules into the game. --Green Dragon 23:25, 1 April 2008 (MDT)

The way you die and the system of gods are pretty much rules this alters them therefore variant rule :P. --Hawk 21:51, 3 April 2008 (MDT)

Comment — How can any system of beliefs be complete without monotheism, even as part of a list? --Noname 19:10, 30 September 2008 (MDT)

See the above discussion, which you yourself participated in. As I've said repeatedly, this variant rule does incorporate monotheism; monotheism is a variety of dualism because monotheists believe the correct object of worship to be the ultimate good or personified God. --Banyan 20:27, 19 November 2008 (MST)

Support — A different kind of article than all the rest of the FA noms and I like it. Be something different for our main page visitors to see.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   08:00, 9 January 2009 (MST)

Comment — As this article currently stands it does not bring enough mechanical changes to the game table to become a featured article. --Green Dragon 15:10, 12 March 2009 (MDT)