Pantheon

[fete67]

How do you make your pantheon; do you even have deities in your world?

 

[Ravana]

'Fraid I'm gonna have to let this one wait until tomorrow… someone remind me if I miss it, eh?

 

[Motley]

I have one world with a god/goddess pair, but no other gods. They come from water sources--the river is the god, a mysterious underground aquifer with accompanying pool, the goddess--and are the sources of what little magic is in the world. They are worshiped in general, and used in curses, but using them is outlawed.

Another of my worlds has occasional mentions of 'the gods,' but they are very much passe, so I haven't bothered to give them names or anything.

 

[sashamerideth]

I have a Pantheon of gods, but none of them are real. My people made them up on their own.

 

[Kaellpae]

I have three 'gods.'

 

[fete67]

sashamerideth, so you mean that there is no evidence of deities in your world? Are there any forms of higher power in your world?

 

[sashamerideth]

Not exactly, the people worship imaginary gods, just like on earth. There is a second people who are human, isolationist manipulators with advanced tech that like to screw with the people on the planet. The "gods" are blamed and praised for these manipulations but no one in my world knows this.

 

[Ravana]

This is a revision of a post I made some months ago. I'll add some specific "pantheon building" notes afterward.
•••
One of the problems with religion as an active, effective force is that pretty much either all sides have to be "correct," or else none of them: if only some of them were—that is, if only some religions received aid from their divinities—the others would quickly die out… a sort of Theological Darwinism, if you will. People can believe anything they want, as long as no one is obviously receiving benefits from their worship—essentially, what we have in the real world (if you feel you've received divine assistance before, I'm not going to argue with you): but if god was on anybody's "side," it would be hard to explain why that side ever loses… unless there's also a god pulling for the opposition.

Mind you, that says nothing about the extent to which mortal interpretations of their divinities are "correct": if the god in question doesn't care how it is worshipped, or what strange rituals, mysteries, etc. they buy into, then the religions themselves can vary wildly, even when they're worshipping the same deity.

Basically, I see the interaction of divinities, religions and the world as breaking down into the following possibilities:

(1) There are no religions (or, alternately, you don't bother writing them, because you aren't interested in that aspect).

(2) Religions receive no overt assistance from divinities.
(2A) There are no divinities; everybody's "wrong."
(2B) One or more divine beings exist, but for whatever reason do not provide overt assistance. (More subtle assistance may be another matter.)
• One very probable reason would be the divinities simply don't care. After all, why should they? (See the final bullet point for more on this.)
• Another is that they can't. Maybe the only "benefits" involve what happens to the soul after death.
(2C) One or more divine beings exist, but have good reasons not to provide overt assistance on a routine basis; exceptional situations, in which they are willing to provide such assistance, may arise, but will be exceedingly rare.
• One possibility would be that the divinities have a tacit—or even overt—agreement to avoid situations which would bring them into direct conflict with one another.

Note that in both (2B) and (2C), it is possible for some religions to be "correct"—that is, have a real but largely inactive patron—and others to be "incorrect."

(3) Religions do receive overt assistance from divinities. This is possibly the most overlooked aspect among writers who create their own deities—as opposed to religions: what happens when your gods actually exist? Answer: it changes everything. Consider the Greek or Hindu mythologies (the two examples I'm most familiar with): in their stories, the gods manifest in the real world, in person, on a regular basis; they fight at the side of their followers, teach them, make love to them, etc. We're not talking about remote, impersonal forces that "speak" through a priesthood (or so the priests claim…); we're talking about gods who can show up, lay a hand on each of your shoulders, look you in the eye, and say "Listen up! I want you to do it this way.…"

Would you be inclined to do as you're told under those circumstances?

Here's where it starts to get interesting:
• There will be no "false" religions: any religion that survives, let alone prospers, will be receiving assistance from something. (They may be incorrect, even deceived, as to the nature of this "something." It might not be "divine" at all: it could be an impostor, capable of fulfilling requests magically or even by direct, physical action… but its followers will be getting something for their worship, or they'll turn elsewhere.)
• Who receives assistance may be extended or limited in any number of ways, anything from exclusive priestly hierarchies being the sole mediators of divine power, to anyone invoking the deity's name—perhaps even insincerely—receiving some benefit.
• What benefits are extended can also vary wildly, and may depend upon the deity's sphere of activity, the petitioner making suitable sacrifice, or just about any other factor imaginable. Benefits may be extended automatically (even unconsciously) at some levels, with restrictions at others. (It's easy to imagine more popular divinities being "busy" much of the time, as they get bombarded by invocations, if the extension of their benefits is not unconscious… though they can always have "staffs"—angels, saints, etc.—dealing with "minor" requests.)
• What will not happen, ever, is one religion's followers receiving significantly greater benefits than any other: this would result in "natural selection" again. This does not mean that there won't be people who follow certain "narrow" religions that cater to their interests, only that these will necessarily provide greater benefit within that area—i.e. to that individual—than following an otherwise more "favored," widespread (and probably more socially acceptable) faith. Choice of religion—or at least the choice to not follow the locally "dominant" religion, if there is one—becomes a cost-benefit analysis.
• Divinities will almost certainly "care" about their followers' activities to a certain extent, if they are going to lend portions of their power to them (and, again, the ones that don't will probably see their followings diminish over time, for various reasons).
•• Among other things, this means that there will never be actively hostile sectarianism to any great or lasting extent among followers of the same deity. It's hard to see where a deity would find war between its followers to be a good thing—even if it's a war god, or a death god; even then… who receives divine favor in such situations? Both? Then both sides will feel finked out. Neither? Then both sides will wonder why they're bothering with this god instead of one that will help them. Just one side? It wins; heresy stamped out, refer back to previous arguments for why only "real/true" faiths exist.
•• It also means that the religions will conform to the god's wishes, in terms of what the priesthood, and followers in general, are expected to do… because if they ever stray from this, they'll either stop receiving those benefits, or the god (or a messenger thereof) will show up and… "clarify" the issue.

Finally, for (2B), (2C) and especially (3):
• What are the deity's own motives for doing what it does? Why would a "divine" being—whatever that means in your situation—bother doing favors for worshippers? What's the god getting out of it? The answer(s) to this question can go a long way to fleshing out how the religions work… and depending on what they are, they don't have to be the same answer(s) for each individual deity. Here's where I'd recommend putting in serious "character development" work: if you're going to have "real" divinities, as opposed to remote, impersonal abstractions, define them as thoroughly as you would any other character; the results should breathe life into the religions formed around them. Or, to look at it another way, if they're going to be doing work for your characters, make them do some for you, too.

 

[Ravana]

Okay: now pantheon building, in specific.

To start with: most "pantheons" in the real world are political entities—that is, the "members" of the pantheon were originally "only" gods of some limited geographical area; when that area was absorbed by some other entity, the god got fit in to the overall structure of the religion. I'm not aware of any pantheon arising ab initio… doesn't mean there aren't any, or couldn't be, I'm just not familiar with them. So whether or not you even have a pantheon is up to you, as is whether it formed the way they did in the real world, or whether the gods in question actually were an allied group at the outset.

The first thing you have to do is answer (for yourself) whether or not the gods are real, as previously mentioned. If not, anything goes, as far as what a pantheon might look like.

If they are real, the next thing you need to decide is whether or not they have unique spheres—i.e. is there a sun god? If there is, there's only going to be one sun god. He might be called by any number of names throughout the world, forms of worship might differ, but there will never be two real sun gods. On the other hand, there might be any number of beings who claim to be sun gods—but the only way they'll get away with this for any length of time is if there isn't an actual god who genuinely controls the sun.

More flexible would be a sphere such as weather: there may or may not be a god who "controls" weather in general, but weather is a local phenomenon, so there may be any number of gods who can influence the weather within the area they're worshipped… at least as long as the big boss weather god doesn't get offended by this.

Local gods can abound: each city can have its own. These gods may be assigned attributes by their followers that they do not actually possess: it's easy to claim to be a "god of everything" if, within the limited area you're active in, you can influence everything. Again, assuming that any "bigger" gods that exist don't care. Likewise, if the god has a handful of lesser divine servitors (angels, demons, saints, etc.), these might be regarded within that locality as being "gods of X"—possibly whether or not their abilities are even specialized in that area. After all, if you were a "supreme" god, wouldn't you rather assign one of your flunkies to be the local "god of war," rather than seeing one imported from elsewhere, regardless of whether or not said flunky is any better at warfare than anyone else available? Presto… instant "pantheon."

My usual approaches go one of two ways:
(1) There are gods who have real power in specific spheres. This means there's only one of each for the entire world. See the previous post for the consequences of this as far as non-sectarianism, etc. are concerned.
(2) There are gods, but none of them specifically controls a given sphere; they may be associated with one (usually several), but there is no single deity who runs/rules the sun, the moon(s), the sea, etc. Most gods have at least some ability to influence just about anything; many will have specific personal interests in which they can influence those matters—or are willing to go to the trouble of influencing them—even in areas where they are not widely worshipped.

The first will produce a fairly consistent pantheon across the entire world, in terms of which gods appear… though of course some gods won't be highly regarded (or even mentioned) in parts of the world to which their sphere doesn't extend (desert nomads probably don't care about sea gods all that much). Whether the names, forms of worship, and so on are similar or different in different areas depends primarily on how much these details matter to the deity.

The second can produce pretty much anything, from the same result as the first, to myriad separate and rival pantheons… and politics among the deities themselves can strongly influence this. Some areas might have single deities; others might have groups of allied deities; others may follow a variety of deities they regard as allied, but who may in fact have little interest in one another—so long as they aren't actively enemies of one another.

 

[Hëradïn]

Yes. There is The Void (or what I like to call the great multi-cosmic vagina) that gave birth to the bubbles who allow space to exist and then the Zieglë (major god) Grospës who allows time to exist. In one of the universes created by the bubbles there is born a being to control and guide the progression of that universe. One such universe had its being split in two: Ëglagor and Këingi who were called Glëdi (gods). The two were lovers and settled on a world during the first Von Grosp (basically several billion years) from there Këingi started to play with the animals that evolved on that world which was called Mënt (living). Ëglagor became jealous and killed all the animals so Këingi became angry and said she never wanted to see him again. Ëglagor became even more enraged and made the entire solar system of Mnënt into Umnmënt (unliving or dead), traping Këingi inside. With the creation of Umnmënt, most of Ëglagor's powers were sapped and absorbed by Këingi, which, in turn, allowed her to escape Umnmënt and trap Ëglagor there. After that she created the twenty Qëhoglëdi (lesser gods). After the release of Ëglagor from Umnmënt for trying to corrupt the souls that gathered to the dead place, eight betrayed Këingi and joined Ëglagor, while the other twelve stayed loyal. there names are: Grïsm, Alzi, Hophna (sometimes spelled Hofna), Mïsëros, Bakra, Lardërkom, Haula, Arëkno, Hodkova, Sotëpo, Grospi and Yienaq (later renamed herself Amnfradïn). The ones who left were named Hëmishnie, Phraftën (sometimes spelled Fraftën), Malie, Ëthrok, Jroksë, Qëthnir, Ondië and Fësïmkënt. Collectively Këingi and her people are called Uthmnglëdi. For Ëglagor and his people, they are Këthmnglëdi. On top of that each of the Qëhoglëdi can make helpers to do things, but they are not very powerful and in such a large number that few if any are named.
questions? comments?

 

[Peutra]

In my fantasy story, there's a place called the "Godlands", with seven gods (subject to change, though, since the names are rather hard to come up with ). They are the ones who created my entire fantasy world, and as time went by, people became more and more aware of their presence. Of course, then there are the "Guardians", who are omnipotent and aren't allowed (by their own rules) to interfere with the flowing time stream. Of course, this is all STC (subject to change) as my story goes by.

 

[Kevlar]

Peutra, I have one thing to say, and this goes for anyone creating gods. Don't heed me if you don't want to. Omnipotence is impossible. Not just physically: logically. Say Phil (to avoid religious specification) is 'omnipotent.' Can Phil create a stone that Phil can not lift? If he can, than he can't lift the stone, and therefore isn't omnipotent. If Phil can't create this stone, he is obviously not omnipotent. Just something to think about when creating omnipotent beings. It can backfire.

 

[Donny Bruso]

Unless you are intentionally writing about paradoxes, this is unlikely to come up. Anything worthy of the title 'God' or even 'Demi-god' possesses power so far beyond human capabilities, that actual omnipotence is irrelevant. This is the sort of thing that is likely to come up in either A) philosophy class, of B) discussions about the relative power of the gods, which unless you are out to destroy one a la Elenium, is rather a moot point, as the chosen God, if he has one iota of sense will look down and obliterate you, you ancestors, your wife's ancestors, your children, your family pets, and probably give you a good godly raspberry at the same time, just to prove he can multi-task.

 

[Kevlar]

I agree with you, its not likely to come up in most stories. In mine, however, one of my characters is a cynical, angry young man, bitter about the rape and death of his family nine years past and totally rejects gods. He is likely to bring up the argument with confrontational devouts. (Though I'm not sure if that would be a good idea for the story itself, as people might think I'm out to corrupt them. Meanwhile I don't care what you worship, so long as you're not going around killing for it.) If he were to find out a god existed he might even go so far as to plot its death (or do something else) to prove it isn't omnipotent or immortal. As far as being out to kill a god you've given me some ideas for an unrelated project.

And, sorry if my views on the subject have offended anyone, it was not my intention.

Now back to the original topic:

For me, because my world doesn't actually have a greater power, I look not at the current culture, but at its roots. What would hve been important - not necessarily good - to them? What would they have associated with other things, therefore being the province of one god? Would they consider these things feminine or masculine? (This one doesn't always need asking. Look at Athena. War, not arts or wisdom.) What would the development of the culture change in these gods? For example, a civilization that 'upgraded' from bows to blackpowder would probably start associating the making of said boomdust and guns with their god of the forge.

 

[Hëradïn]

Peutra, I have one thing to say, and this goes for anyone creating gods. Don't heed me if you don't want to. Omnipotence is impossible. Not just physically: logically. Say Phil (to avoid religious specification) is 'omnipotent.' Can Phil create a stone that Phil can not lift? If he can, than he can't lift the stone, and therefore isn't omnipotent. If Phil can't create this stone, he is obviously not omnipotent. Just something to think about when creating omnipotent beings. It can backfire.

you can get around that by saying non-logically contradictory omnipotence.

 

[Ravana]

you can get around that by saying non-logically contradictory omnipotence.

No, you can't—because it isn't possible. If you want something to be omnipotent, it must be logically self-contradictory. The only way out is to say that omnipotent beings aren't subject to the constraints of logic… which, to me, is a cop-out, though it works for others. There are many other problems associated with omnipotence, too—all of which can be avoided simply by changing "all"-powerful to most powerful. If there's nothing else in the universe that's of greater power, does it really matter that the being in question is missing an attribute or two? Especially if nothing else in the universe possesses those attributes either?

Donny's right, though: for your characters, the difference may be irrelevant. On the other hand, mythology gives plenty of examples of gods who, while they were more powerful than mortals, weren't so much more powerful that the occasional mortal couldn't contend with them (often, admittedly, with divine assistance). So there's no reason your deities have to be "omnipotent"—or that the people in your setting have to believe they are, even if they're mistaken about this. And, let's face it, it shouldn't be too hard for a deity to convince the average peasant schmuck that he's "all-powerful."

 

[sashamerideth]

You are assuming that a deity must be logical, and that is a restriction you are trying to impose. Thought experiments are useless when it comes to gods.

 

[Telcontar]

I'd agree with that. I'm the first to say that any proposed God has to follow the constraints of logic - but that's through examples given. To use one of the most common constraints, we mere mortals cannot conceive of a square that is ALSO a circle. Our definitions of the two would seem to completely disallow this phenomenon.

Yet, suppose we want to say in a story that a God creates such a thing. Maybe for no other reason than to demonstrate his omnipotence. The reader simply needs to accept that it exists. Hopefully the story is good enough to make the reader want to do this, but that is besides the point. Paradoxes are posed in fiction all the time in order to give a sense of wonder. This is no different. Just because it is impossible in the 'real world' doesn't mean it needs to be impossible in our fictional one.

 

[Ravana]

You are assuming that a deity must be logical, and that is a restriction you are trying to impose. Thought experiments are useless when it comes to gods.

No, I'm not. You may be, but I'm not. I'm assuming logic must be logical. "Logic" is not something subjective: it is a rigorously defined discipline, with its own well-established rules. Whether these rules apply to deities is more than I could say (and you don't have to have them apply in your writings anyway)… but if or where they do not apply, the deities fall outside of logic. So it is not possible to have "non-logically contradictory omnipotence"—because omnipotence will always lead to logical contradictions. Whether or not such contradictions bother you has nothing to do with whether they exist… and as I already mentioned, there are many people who do not view this with concern: if they do bother you, I'd recommend giving up on the omnipotence part, because otherwise you're stuck with them.

As for thought experiments being "useless when it comes to gods"—if you believe that, why are you discussing the topic? Thought experiments are precisely what discussions like this are about. Are you saying that gods cannot be imagined? I can certainly imagine mine… I can even imagine them having abilities that inherently violate the rules of logic. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.…

 

[fcbkid15]

I haven't come up with mine just yet, but I'm going through a few possibilities. I'm stuck between several guardians that keep watch over the world, one all powerful elemental, or, my favorite, four gods, one from each element. The water one watches over the seas, the earth watches over the lands, the air one watches over the skies, and the fire one rules them all. I'll probably go for the last one, but anyone else have any ideas?