PDA

View Full Version : What if belief and certainty were different?



Fortuna
2010-07-10, 09:20 PM
I've been getting interested in Planescape recently, and one aspect in particular intrigued me. The whole idea of belief powering everything (particularly gods) is extremely interesting, and to my mind has a whole lot of potential.

But what if we take that one aspect, put it in a finite planar environment, and give it the caveat that certainty and belief are two different things? That forces the gods to take something of a hidden role, and also brings up the trade-off between divinely inspiring someone to certainty (losing their belief but possibly gaining their actions) and leaving them alone in their devout belief. It also brings up the question of how such a world could even exist, assuming that belief is needed for every little aspect of it.

What else arises from this premise? What does the playground think of it as an idea?

Aroka
2010-07-10, 10:00 PM
I think you mean "mutually exclusive"; I don't quite get why they would be, though. How does empirical certainty (insofar as one can trust their perceptions in a magical world) eliminate genuine faith? Many people who believe have emotional certainty already.

It sounds like a setting where deities would work through one mortal, or one mortal per region at most, who would convert others (presumably with the aid of miracles) and spread the faith, since this maximizes faith.

I presume "certainty" can only be achieved through direct contact? "Certainty" is an attitude rather than a metaphysical boolean, so you need to define it a bit.

Why would everything require belief? A world that works like that would be silly - if everything someone isn't actively having faith in doesn't exist, a lot of things aren't going to exist.

Fortuna
2010-07-10, 10:16 PM
I guess that what I mean is blind faith as opposed to belief, really. I suppose everything requiring faith is a bit silly, but the gods and similar beings requiring it is interesting in my opinion. If there is no way for the facts to admit something other than the conclusion, then you are certain.

Also, it opens up the Adams disproof of any given god. Which is neat.

gbprime
2010-07-10, 11:04 PM
You're touching on the dichotomy between faith and proof. In our world, faith is belief and hope. In most D+D worlds, faith is proof and magical power. They know their god exists and loves them because they gain a magical ability to heal, smite, or otherwise work miracles on demand.

Thus the word "faith" in D+D means something entirely different than it does here in the real world.

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-10, 11:46 PM
If there is no way for the facts to admit something other than the conclusion, then you are certain.
Facts don't admit nor deny propositions; thinking beings do. Are you thinking of faith (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith) in the sense of "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", or are you actually thinking of everything relying on doubt?

Note that believing that something exists isn't the same as believing in it. For example, I believe that the president of the United States exists, but I wouldn't say that I have faith in him (nor in anyone, really).

Different setting from Planescape, obviously, but I think that an agnostic cleric of the Sovereign Host could be an interesting character. "Maybe the gods aren't real, but if so, that makes the fact that they grant me spells even more impressive."


It also brings up the question of how such a world could even exist, assuming that belief is needed for every little aspect of it.
I don't see an inherent problem with a multiverse where every truth is believed (or doubted) by some large group.

If gods are specifically powered by irrational belief, then clerics probably shouldn't be Wisdom-based. I am of the opinion that Charisma makes more sense for them anyhow.

Swordgleam
2010-07-11, 12:14 AM
I like the idea. You could avoid the whole semantics of it by just saying that a god can either gain power from someone or give power to them, but not both - the current can only flow in one direction.

Then you still have the same "reveal and lose the power of faith vs leave alone but not get active support from" problem, without worrying about words.

Psyx
2010-07-11, 03:28 AM
So what about resurrected characters?

And how would clerics get their spells.

Fortuna
2010-07-11, 04:05 AM
So what about resurrected characters?

And how would clerics get their spells.

A resurrected character can be solved by saying that everything is a blur after death. A cleric gets spells by direct divine power (rather than the cleric's belief, the other followers of the god grant the god the power to grant clerics the power to do stuff).

Eldan
2010-07-11, 06:28 AM
In Planescape, specifically, the problem would however be that any believer of sufficient level or creativity could just pop over to his gods domain to look if it actually exists (not the god, but the domain.)
Which would mean that the gods would have to ward off their domains against mortal intruders or lose their faith.
Which would probably piss of the Lady. Do not block the portals.

cZak
2010-07-12, 05:13 PM
...cleric gets spells by direct divine power (rather than the cleric's belief, the other followers of the god grant the god the power to grant clerics the power to do stuff).

Isn't this the general premise toward DnD? Deific beings (gods) gain power by the consensual belief/ faith of individuals (mortals).
This belief/ faith is perpetuated by the performance of wondrous effects by agents of the deity granted a small portion of the 'power of faith.'

Are you proposing:
1. The belief in a deific being generates the power/ energy/ whatever to perform wondrous effects normally beyond the ken of mortals?
2. The certified knowledge of these beings would nullify this power?

The problem is in explaining why the certified knowledge cancels out the belief. I suppose it could eventually like our own world where scientific development eventually disproved the existence of superstitious effects, but it would take a long time.
World of Darkness: Mage (2nd Ed) system kind of followed this premise with their explanation of how paradox worked.

Aroka
2010-07-12, 05:54 PM
Isn't this the general premise toward DnD? Deific beings (gods) gain power by the consensual belief/ faith of individuals (mortals).

Not as far as I know, no. There's some correlation in Faerūn, specifically, between worshippers and deity status, but that's it. There's no rules or guidelines in Deities & Demigods, as far as I remember.

It's a common idea, though, probably mostly because of Forgotten Realms (and also Pratchett).

cZak
2010-07-12, 06:26 PM
Not as far as I know, no. There's some correlation in Faerūn, specifically, between worshippers and deity status, but that's it. There's no rules or guidelines in Deities & Demigods, as far as I remember.

I can't see how you could create a mechanical system to develop this. Would it be something a DM would want/ bother to track? I mean how would you incorporate it into a game?
But, I think this has been the staple for deity status since the Greyhawk setting. Its generally fluff to explain the ups and downs of deity power, and to explain the power levels of fiends (devils & demons); Orcus' death and return, Vecna's rise from uberlich to Lesser deity status, the rise of Kelanan, Murlynd, Keoghtom, etc...

The idea is intriguing, a kind of Wizard of Oz perspective. The deities are not 'gods', but advanced beings able to tap into the psychic/ mental/ strawberry jam power generated by the beliefs of lesser beings. If knowledge of the actual system were to get out, the belief would go away and thus the 'gods' power.
I would imagine that the 'gods' would therefore do all they could to inhibit access; why allow Plane shift, Gate, or any other effect that would allow mortals the chance (no matter how minute) to see behind the curtain.

Aroka
2010-07-12, 06:32 PM
I can't see how you could create a mechanical system to develop this. Would it be something a DM would want/ bother to track? I mean how would you incorporate it into a game?
But, I think this has been the staple for deity status since the Greyhawk setting. Its generally fluff to explain the ups and downs of deity power, and to explain the power levels of fiends (devils & demons); Orcus' death and return, Vecna's rise from uberlich to Lesser deity status, the rise of Kelanan, Murlynd, Keoghtom, etc...

Guidelines are dead easy. "Lesser deities usually have 1,000 to 10,000 worshippers" and so on.

It's possible that it's also Greyhawk fluff (wouldn't know, never even seen a Greyhawk setting book), but looking at your standard D&D settings, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Eberron all lack this sort of metaphysics, to my knowledge. It's just a popular meme among D&D players, for some reason.

I can't think of non-D&D fantasy settings other than Discworld with a similar system, either, but then my reading's been deep rather than broad.


The idea is intriguing, a kind of Wizard of Oz perspective. The deities are not 'gods', but advanced beings able to tap into the psychic/ mental/ strawberry jam power generated by the beliefs of lesser beings. If knowledge of the actual system were to get out, the belief would go away and thus the 'gods' power.

You're sounding like a Taker, berk.

cZak
2010-07-12, 06:47 PM
You're sounding like a Taker, berk.

I don't understand this...

Well, Mage the Ascension 2nd Ed went this route in explaining paradox.

The paradigm shift brought by the Technocracy generated the 'world' belief that magic did not exist. Those few who believed could still do effects, but eventually reality, established by the preponderance of the masses, would act to reassert the no-magic paradigm; sometimes violently.

Gensh
2010-07-12, 07:39 PM
Actually, this isn't an entirely new idea, it just usually fails to make it to any games systems because it undermines the traditional structure of the multiverse that most players are used to. It does, however, frequently appear in comedy; this comic (http://jacqofallblades.com/index.php?p=50#comic) is a good example of it given humorously but also explains it in a way that could be used in a serious game.