Dungeon Fantasy: Sanctity and Holy Abilities

[Rasputin]

Does the sanctity of a place have an affect on access to Holy/Unholy abilities? I see nothing in the rules that says it does, and so I would assume that it does not, but it seems odd to me that the Temple of Unspeakable Evils lowers the ability of clerics to cast spells but doesn't affect them holding back zombies with True Faith.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Does the sanctity of a place have an affect on access to Holy/Unholy abilities? I see nothing in the rules that says it does, and so I would assume that it does not, but it seems odd to me that the Temple of Unspeakable Evils lowers the ability of clerics to cast spells but doesn't affect them holding back zombies with True Faith.

The Divine power source in Powers agrees with that. The only limitation of it is remaining on good terms with your Cosmic Patron.

[Kromm]

I almost went with what Powers suggests for sanctity . . . and then I realized that if I did, clerics would have no ability that emanates from faith from within rather than from divine intervention from without. That is, really, really believing would have no psychic impact at all. That kind of bugged me, so I decided to make "cheap" spells prayers for calling down divine aid while "expensive" Holy Might would be a kind of inner strength, a bit like a chi or psi power.

I realize that this doesn't work quite as nicely with Allies, but that's the only dodgy ability -- and one could argue that these entities are the cleric's genii or guardian angels, and thus his perpetual spiritual shadows. Patron isn't dodgy in this interpretation. I really like the idea of gods doing war by sneaking clerics into enemy territory to invoke them there through sheer faith! It makes it easier to explain why they operate through agents instead of just coming down from Valhalla or Olympus and doing things themselves.

[sjmdw45]

Hmm. But if those abilities don't come from the god, then the suggestion on p.22 "If he transgresses, he loses his power -- although his god won't endanger him unless the sin is terrible" isn't really about the god at all. It's just his own id that's being merciful.

This opens up the door to the gods being impostors leeching money off of the faithful, and clerics are just mages tapping into a natural force (as opposed to an intelligent force) without realizing it.

Pagan pantheons are more fun for fantasy, but I have trouble suspending my disbelief (whether at their existence or at the thought that someone might actually worship one, I'm not sure). Um. No offense intended to religious folk--I'm pretty unusual in my perspective. (It's not about atheism per se as not believing in the supernatural. I believe in God, I just don't see him as a supernatural entity or in fact believe that the word "supernatural" is anything but a contradiction in terms.)

-Max

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Hmm. But if those abilities don't come from the god, then the suggestion on p.22 "If he transgresses, he loses his power -- although his god won't endanger him unless the sin is terrible" isn't really about the god at all. It's just his own id that's being merciful.

This opens up the door to the gods being impostors leeching money off of the faithful, and clerics are just mages tapping into a natural force (as opposed to an intelligent force) without realizing it.

Pagan pantheons are more fun for fantasy, but I have trouble suspending my disbelief (whether at their existence or at the thought that someone might actually worship one, I'm not sure). Um. No offense intended to religious folk--I'm pretty unusual in my perspective. (It's not about atheism per se as not believing in the supernatural. I believe in God, I just don't see him as a supernatural entity or in fact believe that the word "supernatural" is anything but a contradiction in terms.)

-Max

I'm not quite following your reasoning. If you are aware of the world around you, then you know that people engage in worship of things that are real and things that are not and whether the power that a fantasy wizard or priest wields is "super" natural or not is a semantic distinction.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I almost went with what Powers suggests for sanctity . . . .

Doesn't sound like you changed what Powers suggests.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I'm not quite following your reasoning. If you are aware of the world around you, then you know that people engage in worship of things that are real and things that are not and whether the power that a fantasy wizard or priest wields is "super" natural or not is a semantic distinction.

Yeah, good point. I just have so much trouble relating to people who worship other people that I got excited at a way to build a religiously-agnostic universe... but, as you point out, it wouldn't have any game effect because the clerics wouldn't know about it (although some might suspect).

I'll keep pushing at the concept until it does what I want. Maybe either eliminate clerics or make them some kind of chi-based thing.

-Max

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Yeah, good point. I just have so much trouble relating to people who worship other people that I got excited at a way to build a religiously-agnostic universe...

Yrth is already a religiously agnostic universe.

[Kromm]

Well, to put it another way: I extensively tested out this view of a cleric in my own campaign -- for years -- and found that it worked best when "low" miracles (spells) didn't respond in areas without sanctity, while "high" miracles (the power, up to and including using the Patron to call down your god) worked anywhere. This explanation doesn't invoke faith . . . it's just about what's fun in a game. :)

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Pagan pantheons are more fun for fantasy,

Indeed!

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

but I have trouble suspending my disbelief (whether at their existence or at the thought that someone might actually worship one, I'm not sure). Um. No offense intended to religious folk--I'm pretty unusual in my perspective. (It's not about atheism per se as not believing in the supernatural. I believe in God, I just don't see him as a supernatural entity or in fact believe that the word "supernatural" is anything but a contradiction in terms.)

Supernatural is indicative of *any* manifestation of a cosmic order different (higher or lower) of the merely natural, bodily or profane world. Such worldviews assuming the supernatural as true necessarily have a "World Within Worlds" hierarchic ontologic/cosmic structure.

Supernatural manifestations would be the results of higher/lower cosmic regions, its influences (blessings, curses) and/or its beings acting in one way or another upon the natural region (usually the "middle region").

A only and single level of cosmic reality couldn't be natural and supernatural simultaneously. That would be indeed contradictory. And for people thinking about the whole reality as featuring a single level (our human world), it is clearly absurd.

But in mythologic thinking, the assumptions aren't equal to the modern ones: the different cosmic regions (see Basic Set Champaigns, Worlds Within Worlds) were distributed along the vertical Axis mundi, featuring the natural and physic order as synonimous of profane (lacking of inherent sanctity), while the various supernatural orders were the domains of the sacred (or holy) if the ontologic level was higher, or demonic (unholy) if the arrangement of these regions in the Axis fell lower.

But lacking that ontologic structure of the cosmos, the supernatural lacks of any basis.

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

I just have so much trouble relating to people who worship other people (...)

People worshipping other people would be evemerism, and it corresponds very well with the current modern day perception about these subjects. But evemerism isn't enough for explaining or understanding mythological cultures.

In a broad and ancient sense, religion doesn't implies simply worship to other people as *people*, but to certain beings (humanlike, animal-like, mineral-like, whatever) native of the before mentioned higher spiritual and supernatural cosmic strata. These beings -gods, spirits, supernatural transhistoric ancestors . . . - could be manifestated into the human world trough "natural forms" (the most effective and widespread symbolic language) they were "dressing" and remaining as living symbols of the human world's analogic link with higher regions.

Worship to these beings dressed in natural forms wasn't by definition straightforward idolatry or cult of personalities (that isn't the rock stars phenomenon), but a way of trying to keep a conscius link with the spiritual domain portrayed by these beings through keeping ritual relations ("worship") with them.

However, some humans with extraordinary capabilities could be regarded as having went beyond the human-natural-profane condition (that was deemed as Leveling Up in the ontologic scale or the "Worlds Within Worlds" hierarchy) being transmutated in supernatural spirits while remaining in the human body, through mysteric rituals of death to the human condition and rebirth (resurrection) to a divine or supernatural (ontologically higher) level or status: shamans, some sacred priests, kings, or sages would be examples of this [OK, Clerics and Holy Warriors in Dungeon Fantasy; maybe even Wizards (*)]. And ritual relations were equally suited about these "holy" people due them being transcendents spirits inhabiting human bodies for accompanying and providing guide to the human community.

(*) Because *fantasy* is a modern manifestation of mythological themes in the ambit of fiction entertainment, Dungeon Fantasy keeps a definite relation with them.