magical theory

[kgauck]

In the ancient world, there were two metaphysical camps. The materialists,
who argued that reality is composed of stuff, material stuff, and the
dynamists who argued that reality is composed of forces, which were willful.
The rain wants to rain. The sun wants to shine. Our ideas of soul, spirit,
and animistic thinking emerge from this camp. Today, we are materialists
who have coopted forces by subjecting them to materialist methods, namely by
making them impersonal and subject to mathematics. Newton`s gravity is a
perfect example. The product of the masses divided by the square of the
distance between their center points. This is not a willful occurance.

In adopting a thorough-going materialism, we invented science and abandon
the concept of magic as a plausible force among educated people. People who
cling to magic like to think of it as a science, people who do science
certainly do not think of it as magic.

There is nothing wrong with a scientific basis for spellcasting and the
powers, but it certainly is different from a spellcasting based on some
other theory of mentalism-produces-effects, like psionics, or dynamist based
spellcasting. For a dynamist, all magic is willful. Mighty forces come
to your aid. You don`t mechanistically employ them (mechanism is branch of
materialism), because they choose to have an effect. This is one of the
things the dice can be said to represent. Divine spells are granted by
certain kinds of willful spirits, for the dynamist, arcane spells are
granted by other kinds of willful spirits, perhaps less familiar to humans.
The mention of “forces” in 2E priestly magic is a kind of intermediate kind
of spirit, willing and requiring veneration, but having the personality of a
god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord_Grave]

> There is nothing wrong with a scientific basis for
> spellcasting and the powers, but it certainly is different
> from a spellcasting based on some other theory of
> mentalism-produces-effects, like psionics, or dynamist based
> spellcasting. For a dynamist, all magic is willful. Mighty
> forces come to your aid. You don`t mechanistically employ

them (mechanism is branch of materialism), because they
choose to have an effect. This is one of the things the dice
can be said to represent. Divine spells are granted by
certain kinds of willful spirits, for the dynamist, arcane
spells are granted by other kinds of willful spirits, perhaps
less familiar to humans. The mention of “forces” in 2E
priestly magic is a kind of intermediate kind of spirit,
willing and requiring veneration, but having the personality of a god.

Kenneth explains this rather well, if I do say so myself.
One thing to remember though is that knowing that a certain action
(i.e.
the invocations necessary to cast say, a fireball) will almost always
result in a massive ball of fire exploding on your enemies (or
inconveniently placed allies) is not the same scientific knowledge. It
is not a mechanistic reaction, it is more to do with “asking nicely”
than “physics via invisible gears”.

Arcane spellcasting is not use of some “special” kind of physics, it is
knowing the proper ways to persuade inhuman (and probably not even
sentient in a human sort of way) forces into doing what you want.

Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering into reality a
little. Wether or not you believe in the stuff called magic in real
life, there certainly are some things happening that science can`t
explain. However, we witness that science is constantly finding ways to
explain things that were once impossible to explain.

Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that everythting
is natural. There are no supernatural things, just as there are no
science and magic as two different things. Those two words merely divide
nature into what we do and what we do not understand.

Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of faith. For
example, a large number people believe in Anduiras and he starts
existing as focus of their belief. It is either just focused belief or
belief focused in an individual(in case of belief in living being as a
god). In real world, “mircles” happen because large number of people
believe that it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.

This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should be even
more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are individuals who learn to
produce miracles on their own, with only their own belief? Or maybe
wizardry could be considered just another religion?

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: “Milos Rasic” <mrasic@TEHNICOM.NET>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:30 AM

> Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering into reality a
> little.

I will reveal myself as a died in the wool materialist and say that there is
nothing except reality. Fantasy is only a re-arrangement of ideas about,
visions of, and constructions of reality. There are no really alien ideas.
When George Lucas created all the alien voices in the Cantina bar, he used
regular voices played backwards and broken into different parts because he
realized that an attempt to be alien without a firm hold on real speech
would wind up sounding fake. Fantasy without being a rearrangement of,
reversal of, or otherwise based on reality provides a sense of
artificiality.

> There certainly are some things happening that science can`t

explain. However, we witness that science is constantly finding
ways to explain things that were once impossible to explain.

Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that everythting
is natural. There are no supernatural things, just as there are no
science and magic as two different things. Those two words merely divide
nature into what we do and what we do not understand.

An excellent materialist argument for the non existance of magic. Hence you
must already be a convert to the supposition that materialism has no place
in a fantasy game. It certainly a fine premice for non-fantasy RPG`s, on
the other hand.

> Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of faith.

I think gods are super beings transending the existance with which we are
familair.

> For example, a large number people believe in Anduiras and he
> starts existing as focus of their belief. It is either just focused
> belief or belief focused in an individual(in case of belief in living
> being as a god).

I think that Andurias was entirely unaffected by his worshipers (in the
sense of his power) and that he only chose to interact with them because he
created them and saw Azrai attempting to mess with creation as a personal
attack.

> In real world, “mircles” happen because large number of people
> believe that it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
> who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.

Actually miracles dont happen, they are just thought to happen. In fantasy, gods have unlimted power and can tell their clerics, "Hey, when you get to the Red Sea, raise your staff when you are ready to cross, and Ill
part the waters."

> This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should be even
> more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are individuals who learn to
> produce miracles on their own, with only their own belief? Or maybe
> wizardry could be considered just another religion?

Or maybe the whole belief makes magic paradigm should be abandoned.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

> I think that Andurias was entirely unaffected by his
> worshipers (in the sense of his power) and that he only chose
> to interact with them because he created them and saw Azrai
> attempting to mess with creation as a personal attack.

I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
“proper god”? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that
belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
bloodlines and RP (to my mind).

I could probably be persuaded the other way though.

> Or maybe the whole belief makes magic paradigm should be abandoned.

For Birthright, yes. For Unknown Armies or Mage: the Ascension, never.
Different games, different motifs, different methods.

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

> Now, I think that your theories are dangerously wandering
> into reality a little. Wether or not you believe in the stuff
> called magic in real life, there certainly are some things
> happening that science can`t explain. However, we witness

that science is constantly finding ways to explain things
that were once impossible to explain.

I feel that my opinions in this regard are probably not relevant.
At least not to a discussion about a fantastic world. There is a reason
I am not a member of lists that discuss this sort of thing all the time,
and that is because I`d rather not do it. I am interested, primarily, in
the game metaphysic. I am quite willing to assume (as they do in Ars
Magica) that models of reality that we have discarded are 100% accurate
in the game-world. Yes there is pholgiston and a lunar sphere, yes it is
demons of sickness that make people ill.

> Following this line of thought, we reach the conclusion that
> everythting is natural. There are no supernatural things,
> just as there are no science and magic as two different
> things. Those two words merely divide nature into what we do
> and what we do not understand.

Who said things were supernatural? I am pretty sure I didn`t. Inhuman
maybe, but ducks are inhuman too and they are certainly natural.

Now, back to fantasy. I think that god is a manifestation of
faith. For example, a large number people believe in Anduiras
and he starts existing as focus of their belief. It is either
just focused belief or belief focused in an individual(in
case of belief in living being as a god). In real world,
“mircles” happen because large number of people believe that
it is possible. In fantasy, there are people called Clerics
who can draw on that belief with their prayers and perform miracles.

This was about Divine magic only. I guess Arcane magic should
be even more natural. Or maybe Arcane spellcasters are
individuals who learn to produce miracles on their own, with
only their own belief? Or maybe wizardry could be considered
just another religion?

In my conception of Birthright gods benefit from worship but they are
not soley composed of it. Haelyn existed before people began to worship
him, he merely became stronger when the human-divine partnership of
worship began. Magic doesnt come from within, the gift to use it yes, but not magic itself. The only inherently magical species on Cerilia are the ancient ones - the sidhelien, the dragons and, in some peoples
campaign`s, the giants. For all other peoples the act of magic is the
act of interacting with an external force, be it one that is
understandable by everyday persons (i.e. gods) or one that lacks any
human guise (i.e. mebhaighl).

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[MichaelRoele]

<< I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
“proper god”? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that
belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
bloodlines and RP (to my mind).

I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do most of them
try to gather as many of them as possible? Also, it tends to be a rule that
gods of greater stature have more worshipper. Of course, you might say that
it works the other around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
because she is of greater stature. But that still doesnt invalidate my first point: given the behaviour of most priests, and given the assumption that they try to act in the best interests of their god, isnt the fact
that they try to convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of benefit of
having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain power from worship.

But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power from worship,
doesnt mean that ordinary people can too. Or at least, not directly. It also doesnt mean that worship can automatically elevate you to godhood. In
my eyes, deities gain power from worship because they are deities. You
have to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.

Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in Birthright. You
need to have a bloodline before you can ruler. Merely having subordinates
doesn`t mean you automatically get a bloodline.

That`s how I see it, anyways.

    - the Falcon

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[MichaelRoele]

<< In my conception of Birthright gods benefit from worship but they are
not soley composed of it. Haelyn existed before people began to worship
him, he merely became stronger when the human-divine partnership of
worship began.
>>

Thats exactly how I see it too. Its just like being blooded doesnt mean you automatically collect RP either. Keep in mind though, that even if youre blooded, if you dont collect RP, you cant spend. If we assume that
rulership reflects or is parallel to divinity in some way, that would also
mean that a god who is not worship, doesn`t have any real power, or at least
not on the same level as a worshipped god, just like a non-ruler scion does
not command power on the same level as a ruling scion.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 19:35, the Falcon wrote:
> << I am not sure about this. While we have talked about this sort of this
> before, off list, I still like the idea that people do matter to the
> gods. Perhaps they only matter up to the point where a god becomes a
> “proper god”? I don`t know. D&D certainly seems to make us think that

belief has a power - Planescape suggests this, as does the mechanic of
bloodlines and RP (to my mind).

I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do most of them
try to gather as many of them as possible? Also, it tends to be a rule that
gods of greater stature have more worshipper. Of course, you might say that
it works the other around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
because she is of greater stature. But that still doesnt invalidate my > first point: given the behaviour of most priests, and given the assumption > that they try to act in the best interests of their god, isnt the fact
that they try to convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of benefit of
having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain power from worship.

But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power from worship,
doesnt mean that ordinary people can too. Or at least, not directly. It > also doesnt mean that worship can automatically elevate you to godhood. In
my eyes, deities gain power from worship because they are deities. You
have to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.

Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in Birthright. You
need to have a bloodline before you can ruler. Merely having subordinates
doesnt mean you automatically get a bloodline. > > Thats how I see it, anyways.

    - the Falcon

Hmmmm, isn`t it a bit “chicken and egg” ?

How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second generation gods ?
(Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules
etc). Power from worship however, I`ll go along with - the more
followers a god has the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other
gods, or as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but worshiped as
part of a group of gods)

In BR couldnt you just accept that gods have an incredibly high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more worshipers in the gods domain, then the god gains in bloodline ? (the you is not
specific - I`m discussing this generally)

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Peter sez:
> How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second
> generation gods ? (Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have
> mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules etc). Power from worship
> however, I`ll go along with - the more followers a god has

the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other gods, or
as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but
worshiped as part of a group of gods)

It does discuss this briefly in BoP (IIRC).
I am not sure that Cuiraecen and Laerme were “born”. It seems that
Cuiraecen has a lot more to do with Haelyn than with Neserie. Ditto
Laerme w/r/t Avanalae. I believe that Cuiraecen probably just “emerged”
from Haelyn as one of Haelyn`s aspects became so important that it
warranted a new deity.

I am also of the opinion that priests are abberrant in their worship
behaviour. They tend to devote themselves to a single god, whereas most
people will propitiate whatever god is appropriate. I realise that this
flies in the face of what most people see the temple system of BR
representing, but it seems unlikely that the vast majority of a populace
actually worship one single deity. That being said, nearly all worship
is pantheonic, i.e. shared around. Jim Bloggs, a farmer of Roesone,
doesn`t worship Haelyn exclusively, he gives homage to all the deities
at their appointed time.

Peter sez:

In BR couldnt you just accept that gods have an incredibly > high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more > worshipers in the gods domain, then the god gains in
bloodline ? (the you is not specific - I`m discussing this
> generally)

I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
accidental, it was deliberate IMO.

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Falcon sez:
> I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do
> most of them try to gather as many of them as possible? Also,
> it tends to be a rule that gods of greater stature have more
> worshipper. Of course, you might say that it works the other
> around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
> because she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t

invalidate my first point: given the behaviour of most
priests, and given the assumption that they try to act in the
best interests of their god, isn`t the fact that they try to
> convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
> indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of
> benefit of having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain
> power from worship.

Perhaps the priests believe that, just as human lords seek more
subjects, so do the gods? Often people do things that they believe is
the will of their god.

Another alternative perhaps is one that Hero Wars gives us. The gods are
ultimately static. By becoming immortal, all-powerful, and
indestructible (effectively) they also become unchanging.

Falcon sez:
> But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power
> from worship, doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or

at least, not directly. It also doesn`t mean that worship can
> automatically elevate you to godhood. In my eyes, deities
> gain power from worship because they are deities. You have
> to be a deity before you can gain power from worship.

Ergo my comments about the bloodline allowing regents to coalesce
“worship energies”.

Falcon sez:
> Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in
> Birthright. You need to have a bloodline before you can
> ruler. Merely having subordinates doesn`t mean you

automatically get a bloodline.

Well, you can be an unblooded ruler, but a blooded ruler can use their
superior abilities to command loyalty (i.e. RP) to usurp your position
with relative ease.

Falcon sez:

That`s how I see it, anyways.

I have actually clarified my position, in my mind, now. I believe that
the gods are eternally gods, lack of worship won`t rob them of their
divinity or condemn them to floating about in the Astral. However, I
believe that, to a certain (unspecified) extent, worship can effect the
power of the deities. Extensive worship might make a deity increase in
power, but not to an unlimited extent.

Im a bit leery of getting too technical here. I dont think that
deities really benefit from having hard and fast principles or
stat-blocks, ala Deities and Demigods.. Still, I think this sort of
thing can assist in forming a coherent cosmology of the setting.

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:26, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > How about the deification of Haelyn etc, or the second
> > generation gods ? (Laerme Cuiraecen etc) Some gods have
> > mortal progeny (i.e. Hercules etc). Power from worship
> > however, I`ll go along with - the more followers a god has

the more stature as a god, especially w.r.t. other gods, or
as a member of a pantheon at least marginally. How to handle
non-specific deities ? (gods not exclusively worshiped but
worshiped as part of a group of gods)

It does discuss this briefly in BoP (IIRC).
I am not sure that Cuiraecen and Laerme were “born”. It seems that
Cuiraecen has a lot more to do with Haelyn than with Neserie. Ditto
Laerme w/r/t Avanalae. I believe that Cuiraecen probably just “emerged”
from Haelyn as one of Haelyn`s aspects became so important that it
> warranted a new deity.

The creation of new gods remains unsatisfactorily explained. (IMO -
Rhetorical questions follow) What governs the creation of new gods ?
Does this diminish the powers and or responsibilities of the other gods
? Does this imply that gods wither and fade perhaps to non-god or to
death ?
>
> I am also of the opinion that priests are abberrant in their worship
> behaviour. They tend to devote themselves to a single god, whereas most
> people will propitiate whatever god is appropriate. I realise that this
> flies in the face of what most people see the temple system of BR
> representing, but it seems unlikely that the vast majority of a populace
> actually worship one single deity. That being said, nearly all worship
> is pantheonic, i.e. shared around. Jim Bloggs, a farmer of Roesone,
> doesn`t worship Haelyn exclusively, he gives homage to all the deities

at their appointed time.
Yeah, I agree with you here. It`s the power of the temple (institution)
that is important in a very materialistic way for BR - much like the
Bishoprics and Abbeys of early Christendom vied for status with each
other. (What am I saying early for ? - it still goes on today !)

What does this argument mean to the “worship gives power” theory though
?

>
> Peter sez:
> > In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly

high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more
worshipers in the godsdomain, then the god gains in > > bloodline ? (theyou is not specific - Im discussing this
generally)

I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
> like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
> were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
> people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
> accidental, it was deliberate IMO.
>
Does this then preclude the creation of new gods - by common worship for
example ? Can the power of worship alone “create” a god ?

Cerilia aside, many religions see the origin of their tribe or nation as
founded by a god, or the leaders of their tribe/nation as being
descended from gods. (or even gods themselves) Even Christ was born as a
man (although we start to get really technical here - reborn ?
incarnated ?). So there`s a damn good set of precedents to support
“deities are just like you and me only bigger”.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:26, John Machin wrote:
> Falcon sez:
> > I still think deities derive power from worship. Why else do
> > most of them try to gather as many of them as possible? Also,
> > it tends to be a rule that gods of greater stature have more
> > worshipper. Of course, you might say that it works the other
> > around: a god of greater stature has more worshippers
> > because she is of greater stature. But that still doesn`t

invalidate my first point: given the behaviour of most
priests, and given the assumption that they try to act in the
best interests of their god, isn`t the fact that they try to
> > convert people to the worship of their god some sort of
> > indication that gods need worshippers and gain some sort of
> > benefit of having more worshippers? So yes, deities gain
> > power from worship.
>
> Perhaps the priests believe that, just as human lords seek more
> subjects, so do the gods? Often people do things that they believe is
> the will of their god.
>
> Another alternative perhaps is one that Hero Wars gives us. The gods are
> ultimately static. By becoming immortal, all-powerful, and
> indestructible (effectively) they also become unchanging.

Perhaps, but the anecdotal evidence of the emergence of 2nd generation
gods changes the god-landscape with either an enlargement or a
reorganization of duties, powers and responsibilities. This implies
change in the cosmos on a less grand scale than that of the cataclysm of
Diesmaar.

>
> Falcon sez:
> > But it ends there. The fact that deities accumulate power
> > from worship, doesn`t mean that ordinary people can too. Or

at least, not directly. It also doesnt mean that worship can > > automatically elevate you to godhood. In my eyes, deities > > gain power from worship *because* they are deities. You have > > to be a deity before you can gain power from worship. > > Ergo my comments about the bloodline allowing regents to coalesce > "worship energies". > > Falcon sez: > > Note that this happens to stroke nicely with rulership in > > Birthright. You need to have a bloodline before you can > > ruler. Merely having subordinates doesnt mean you
automatically get a bloodline.

Well, you can be an unblooded ruler, but a blooded ruler can use their
superior abilities to command loyalty (i.e. RP) to usurp your position
with relative ease.

Falcon sez:

Thats how I see it, anyways. > > I have actually clarified my position, in my mind, now. I believe that > the gods are eternally gods, lack of worship wont rob them of their
divinity or condemn them to floating about in the Astral. However, I
believe that, to a certain (unspecified) extent, worship can effect the
power of the deities. Extensive worship might make a deity increase in
power, but not to an unlimited extent.
Isnt that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ? (you cant use divine being in your definition - :“divine being” ==
“god” is a null statement containing the same information twice)

If a god has the power to do “X” (whatever “X” is), and this power
delineates him as a god (as distinct from a demigod, or mortal for
instance, then that ability power or characteristic is a defining power.

A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

I`m not putting any particular point of view here, just cogitating…

>
> Im a bit leery of getting too technical here. I dont think that
> deities really benefit from having hard and fast principles or
> stat-blocks, ala Deities and Demigods.. Still, I think this sort of
> thing can assist in forming a coherent cosmology of the setting.
>
> –
> John Machin
> (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
> -----------------------------------
> “Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
> Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
>
> ****************************************************************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[MichaelRoele]

On Wed, 22 May 2002, John Machin wrote:
> > In BR couldn`t you just accept that gods have an incredibly

high bloodline - one that is augmented by worship - the more
worshipers in the godsdomain, then the god gains in > > bloodline ? (theyou is not specific - Im discussing this
generally)

I wouldn`t do this myself, since it implies that the deities are just
> like you and me, only bigger. I think that the champions of the gods
> were selected to become the vessels for the dying gods divinity. Lots of
> people got bloodlines, only the champions became new gods. This was not
> accidental, it was deliberate IMO.

The new 3e rules seem to bear this out, though- gods can be statted with
hit dice and levels and feats and such, but they also have divine rank, 0
to 20, which measures them compared to each other. Even a divine rank of
1 is a demigod, and pretty much unstoppable compared to mere mortals. But
BR could be thought of as representing play at the divine rank 0 level.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: “Peter Lubke” <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:11 AM

> Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less

worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ?

Not at all. A god can be seen to have a basic degree of power without
worshipers. Worshipers are a little gravy. Something extra that can be
added on. While less worship means that something extra is gone, the basic
and fundamental power of the god is still there.

I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a
powerful god.

> A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
> difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
> they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

Not at all. I can lay out the plans for my new secret god Brwyn, god of
grains, and suddenly have famines and other effects because I think Brwyn is
an angry god.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 06:59 AM 5/22/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a

powerful god.

This is sort of apropos to this discussion…

All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods do
gain some sort of energy (the god-level equivalent of regency) from their
worshippers, but because they can also represent natural phenomena it`s
plausible that they could also collect their god points from the god-level
equivalent of source holdings.

Azrai, being the god of shadow, had a pretty serious opportunity to collect
god points from whatever the source equivalent of sources is, because
shadows permeate existence.

Gary

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:37 AM

> All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods
> do gain some sort of energy […] from their worshippers, but because they
> can also represent natural phenomena it`s plausible that they could also

collect their god points from the god-level equivalent of source holdings.

I think this “power from ideal” is the main source of divine power, and some
of the description in the BoP backs this up. Laerme doesnt seek worshipers because the fact that everyone feels love is enough. Get gets power from loving, from creativity, from beauty. Oh, yeah, a few worshipers dont
hurt.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 21:59, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Peter Lubke” <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:11 AM
>
>
> > Isn`t that a bit contradictory: more worship equals more power but less

worship or no worship has no effect ? What makes a god a god after all ?

Not at all. A god can be seen to have a basic degree of power without
worshipers. Worshipers are a little gravy. Something extra that can be
added on. While less worship means that something extra is gone, the basic
and fundamental power of the god is still there.

I dont need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a > powerful god. Okay - Ill go along with that (so far) [that a god does not require
worshipers to be a god]. (although if anyone else out there wants to
jump in and make a suggestion or comment we could get more consensus)

Yeah - but what is that “basic degree of power” ? What is the difference
between a being with that “basic degree of power” and a god ? i.e. Is
that a good enough definition of a god ? (should we be able to describe
the “basic degree of power”), or is there more to it ?

Can someone with that “basic degree of power” (leaving it undefined for
the moment) who gains worshipers, gain “a little gravy” ?

A god who has no people and no worshipers and whose name is unknown is
difficult to have interact with the BR world. From a game perspective
they no longer exist (or the effect is the same).

Not at all. I can lay out the plans for my new secret god Brwyn, god of
grains, and suddenly have famines and other effects because I think Brwyn is
an angry god.
While that may be a justification to the DM - the players will never
know and it will affect them no more than a DM`s fiat. (Unless you tell
them of course in which case she(/he) ceases to be unknown) But yeah, of
course you can - but the effect is identical to no god at all, just
random chance. You might like to argue that the god is trying to get
people to acknowledge it, (for what purpose ? - to gain worshipers ?)
but this is also an attempt to come into the open (cease to be secret).

>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ****************************************************************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 22:37, Gary wrote:
> At 06:59 AM 5/22/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> >I don`t need to postulate a herd of Azrai worshipers to imagine Azrai as a

powerful god.

This is sort of apropos to this discussion…

All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I think gods do
gain some sort of energy (the god-level equivalent of regency) from their
worshippers, but because they can also represent natural phenomena it`s
> plausible that they could also collect their god points from the god-level
> equivalent of source holdings.
>
> Azrai, being the god of shadow, had a pretty serious opportunity to collect
> god points from whatever the source equivalent of sources is, because
> shadows permeate existence.

Ah, thats a good thought. So youre saying that a god can derive power
from the physical or the meta-physical - both the object and the
abstract idea of the object so to speak … interesting, very
interesting.

As a comment or corollary to that most very early RL
(real-life/real-world cf BR) gods were animals, followed by the next
step of more abstract gods (Sun, Moon etc) representing unknown or
unknowable objects (at least in detail - no one goes and touches the sun
etc).

Gods that embody certain human (or living being) characteristics such as
craft or commerce, for example, can be quite limited without followers
(weaker perhaps) than those that embody an ever-present “thing”, e.g.
Azrai and the shadow world.

So the godly “holding”, the “source”(s) so to speak exist separately and
are empowered/enhanced by worship. i.e. A potter makes beautiful vase,
this creates beauty empowering the God of Beauty. When people admire the
vase and give thanks to the Goddess for inspiring beauty in the world
they enhance the power of the Goddess further. That kind of thing ?

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary sez:
> All gods embody some human ideal, or a natural phenomena. I
> think gods do gain some sort of energy (the god-level
> equivalent of regency) from their worshippers, but because
> they can also represent natural phenomena it`s plausible that
> they could also collect their god points from the god-level
> equivalent of source holdings.

This need not mean that they dependent upon mortals for existence.
Perhaps all human ideals come from the gods? Undoubtably they fashioned
the world and the creatures upon it, are they going to make them utterly
different to themselves?

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Daniel sez:
> The new 3e rules seem to bear this out, though- gods can be
> statted with hit dice and levels and feats and such, but they
> also have divine rank, 0 to 20, which measures them compared
> to each other. Even a divine rank of 1 is a demigod, and
> pretty much unstoppable compared to mere mortals. But BR
> could be thought of as representing play at the divine rank 0 level.

This was what I was thinking, pretty much.
I dont think Id ever tell my players they were rank 0 deities, since
it might go to their heads. Rank 0 deities are still pretty nice
(immortality, etc..)

As I have said, I am not sure of the point in giving the gods
stat-blocks. I do notice that there is no CR for them though

–
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

“Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All.”
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

---

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.