Troll Lord Games

I'll admit that I had always played and GM'ed Polytheistic campaigns but as much as I loved St. Cuthbert, Uller, and all the religions available in the Forgotten Realms, I wanted something simpler for my kids. I decided to simplify my newest campaign by using David Gemmell's model from his Drenai books. Good aligned Priests and Paladins serve The Source and Evil Priests serve The Darkness.
Druids are also Source Priests but their branch of the faith (pun intended) is more attuned to the natural world. It's worth noting that in my campaign the adventuring Source Priests are more of a martial order than the ones in the Saga.
Has anyone else tried stripping polytheism out of their campaigns?

I've mixed the two within the same game world, with some cultures being polytheistic, and others being monotheistic (and usually believing some unsavory things about the source of power for the polies).

I shared a campaign a few years back with another GM. We ran a simple "The Light" and "The Darkness". For cults and fringe groups etc.. we used demon worshipers. It works just fine.

In a more recent campaign i used simply "The Church" for all good clerics and paladins. While those of neutral were just nature worshipers(shaman druids etc). Evil clerics and cults were worshiping demonic forces (any/all lower planes types).

I've done it on a regional basis with polytheistic civilizations elsewhere. The monotheistic cultures convert within a century of contact though.

That sounds neat and simple.
Simple is good, LOL.
Like anything, the 'gods' can simply be aspects of the Source or Darkness, human constructs if you will, metaphors if you prefer, but there can be 'true believers' who see this as a facade over the real thing.
or something.

As DM I didn't really think about it too much, and druids worshipping "nature" is really just about the same thing, so yeah, should be fine.

I did, but I took it one step further. I striped any sort of theism out of my game. At least in one sense. The cleric class, for example, doesn't actually exist in my home brew. What is deemed magic derives from a source based more on research into more advanced methodology of the mind. It could be called psionics, but it also has much to do with applied physics.

gideon_thorne wrote:I did, but I took it one step further. I striped any sort of theism out of my game. At least in one sense. The cleric class, for example, doesn't actually exist in my home brew. What is deemed magic derives from a source based more on research into more advanced methodology of the mind. It could be called psionics, but it also has much to do with applied physics.

So, no raise dead and the like.

No reason not to.
the (whatever Peter calls it) is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural....

Arduin wrote:

gideon_thorne wrote:I did, but I took it one step further. I striped any sort of theism out of my game. At least in one sense. The cleric class, for example, doesn't actually exist in my home brew. What is deemed magic derives from a source based more on research into more advanced methodology of the mind. It could be called psionics, but it also has much to do with applied physics.

So, no raise dead and the like.

Not by any divine artifice, no. There are various mental disciplines among the Healer class that might be able to help return someone from close to death. It's a matter of kick starting the patience physiology via various 'taping the minds uncharted abilities' sort of thing.

Rather like a Monk and his healing abilities, taken to the next logical steps.

I have always run monotheistic campaigns - there are polytheistic societies but they are mistaken, the "gods" don't exist, their clerics are limited to 4th level spells or below (those being provided by demons and/or other spirits)

There are multiple religions who worship the One, but have different theologies concerning him - just like in our world.

I have used Judaism, Arian Christianity, Pelagian Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam as examples. I stole an idea from Steve Jackson, namely that of the Banestorm, that transported people from our earth (c. 720) to the campaign world and they brought their religions with them.

In the "reboot" of my homebrew campaign, I think I'm going to go with a Dualism. I'll be using the sample from the 3.0 Deities & Demigods as the basis of the pantheon. Druids fall outside of the two gods and will be able to pull magic from nature, able to harness primal magical energy from nature itself. The two gods will be served by angels and saints, demons and devils, with various sects and cults that will specialize in various aspects of the gods (since their portfolios will be quite large).

I think it would be pretty cool. I think it would add some verisimilitude to a campaign. To me, pantheons with 20, 30, or more, gods gets kind of old after a while. A monotheistic (or in m case a dualistic) religion would be quite interesting I feel, as a shake-up from the norm.

I prefer a more Gritty/Pulp style to my games. Drawing more on things like Song of Ice and Fire and Conan than more typical D&D settings.
So, in most of the games I run, there are many different beliefs. There are Monotheistic societies and Polytheistic societies. But, since the gods (if they even exist), don't get involved, its really just a matter of flavor to the society and the characters from it, not in any way relevant to the game itself.
In these games, if I allow Divine magic at all, I make it a system of magic taught by the "cult" that the priest belongs to. Thereby, the magic isn't really from divine empowerment at all, so, it might just be a specialized type of wizardry.
As much as possible in my games I run on the philosophy of "the gods don't exist, or if they do, its irrelevant, because they wont make their presence known". Because nothing bugs me more than the typical fantasy schtick of being able to magic your way out of tight spots, or having Deus ex Machina swing in to save adventurers.

Nyarlathotep5150 wrote:Because nothing bugs me more than the typical fantasy schtick of being able to magic your way out of tight spots,

So, a game without magic?

In general I try to avoid discussing religion, in life and in gaming, because somewhere along the line someone will get offended. But this is a great topic!

Dead Horse wrote:I shared a campaign a few years back with another GM. We ran a simple "The Light" and "The Darkness". For cults and fringe groups etc.. we used demon worshipers. It works just fine.

In a more recent campaign i used simply "The Church" for all good clerics and paladins. While those of neutral were just nature worshipers(shaman druids etc). Evil clerics and cults were worshiping demonic forces (any/all lower planes types).

When I think of clerics it's always with a semi-historical "crosses to hold off vampires" and "holy water to exorcise demons" sort of approach, clearly connected to the views of the Catholic church.

My way of avoiding using anything too real is to simply use Law and Chaos in the same way you use "the Light" and "the Darkness" as factions in a big cosmic battle, then I avoid pinning myself down to specifics.

Arduin wrote: So, a game without magic?

It doesn't have to be without magic (though I've had plenty of games were no one played a magical class and they were great), just without magic as a crutch for lazy storytelling.
I prefer it to be more like Game of Thrones, where magic exists, but is very rare and can't be relied upon to fix all your problems.
Tyrion didn't just teleport out of the cells in the Aerie.
Rob Stark couldn't just decimate the Lanister army with a single fireball spell.
No giant Eagles swooped in to save people every time the author wrote himself into a corner.

Nothing ruins a story quicker, or makes it harder to understand/believe than too much magic.

Nyarlathotep5150 wrote: It doesn't have to be without magic (though I've had plenty of games were no one played a magical class and they were great), just without magic as a crutch for lazy storytelling.

?? Players aren't telling a story. They are playing a role. Ya lost me there.

Thanks to all for this great discussion. It's really refreshing to participate in a forum conversation without it disintegrating into bickering and posturing-cool. This discussion has been very helpful to me in my own campaign design. I will still be doing a Source vs. Darkness style conflict but I may add Saints into the mix and holy orders. This will be similar to real world Catholicism, but in my family that would work, given the fact that this campaign will be primarily for my kids.

Arduin wrote: ?? Players aren't telling a story. They are playing a role. Ya lost me there.

The players are absolutely telling a story. Thats what a roleplaying game is. Its group storytelling. I don't run my games in the typical D&D style of,
1) players are handed the entire adventure plot in the hook.
2) players go to the place the hook describes.
3) players wander through a "dungeon" that is basically just them going through a Rube Goldberg device of death where they just react to events.

Those types of games bore me very quickly. I empower my players to have an impact on the story and to drive it.

Nyarlathotep5150 wrote:
The players are absolutely telling a story. Thats what a roleplaying game is. Its group storytelling.

Not in my experience. Telling a story involves making it up as you will. That would b like saying that when you go out to do something in life, you are story telling rather than living based on what is happening... In my experience, the PC's are in a world and make decisions based on what is going on in the world and what they want to try and accomplish. I don't see how that is story telling. But, to each his own gaming style.

I agree with Nyarlathotep, but I can see where Arduin is coming from. In my games, the players are indeed telling the story. The characters' actions are the actions that determines what happens, or what doesn't, in the game. In my interpretation, that's what "storytelling" is. Sure, other things are going on in the world, and many, many things are happening. But those things, regardless of scale, are not the matters of import. If they are that important, then they will involve the characters at some point. Otherwise, the characters feel like bystanders in the world and in my experience, it's made them feel detached from the campaign. I guess this might be something that varies from GM to GM but in almost every game I've ever run, the players are the ones making the story of the campaign.

I don't do storytelling either, and games designed that way have always run cross-purposes to what i enjoy in gaming. I want roleplaying, with stories being told after the fact.

I think that the problem is that the term "storytelling game" has gotten such a stigma. Any RPG adventure is really telling a story, but it's not the one that the GM plans and it's not the one that the players want. It's a blend of both.

finarvyn wrote:Any RPG adventure is really telling a story

I disagree. Any RPG adventure is creating a story, but we're all creating story every moment of our existence.

A storytelling game is one in which creating the story is a focus, and players and GMs make decisions based in large part on how they affect the story. Personally, I find the stories that come out of such games much less interesting than those that come out of more similuation-type games. Good stories aren't as likely to happen, but I find them much more enjoyable when the do.

In my games, I'll create "stories" in the sense of having numerous plot-hooks to engage the characters in the world -- usually in the form of rumors they hear, not all of which are true, of course. Each rumor, if followed up, can lead into an adventure.
After that, the greater world 'story' is the history woven from the actions of the party acting and reacting to what they encounter as well as NPC actions and reactions to the players.
(Though this is a bit off-track from the 'monotheism' thread)

But it is rapidly approaching an old RPG religious debate.

Runng a game where you do not railroad is not story telling.
Nyarlathotep5150 you described a railroad. That is not typical D&D unless you count most 3e/4e modules as typical. There are tons of old and new modules that arent railroads. From what I have seen the Troll Lords dont seem to make railroads at all. (limited experiance with TL modules).
Sandbox campaigns allow the players characters the freedom to go as they choose and affect the world as they desire.
Any campaign, sandbox or railroad might eventualy have such adventures that the retelling of those actions becomes a story. Players are playing a role. GMs set the stage and provide the story.

Nyarlathotep5150 wrote:

Arduin wrote: ?? Players aren't telling a story. They are playing a role. Ya lost me there.

The players are absolutely telling a story. Thats what a roleplaying game is. Its group storytelling. I don't run my games in the typical D&D style of,
1) players are handed the entire adventure plot in the hook.
2) players go to the place the hook describes.
3) players wander through a "dungeon" that is basically just them going through a Rube Goldberg device of death where they just react to events.

Those types of games bore me very quickly. I empower my players to have an impact on the story and to drive it.

I agree with Nyarlathotep completely here... the GM and Players are combining their efforts in making the story. The GM provides the background, and events, the players provide the heroes acting within those events. Be that in the method of the 2e modules which were basically a set of instructions on what had to happen when to make the adventure work, or a more free-form where the GM describes the conditions in the world that the players would be privy to, let them react to that, then the GM reacting and describing, rinse, repeat. From the early days of gaming, I tended to have many hooks available for scenarios I had prepared, but often had even more fun when the characters went "off the grid" and I had to make things up on the fly.

I'm not sure what Arduin really means with the players aren't telling a story, they are playing a role... True the players are playing a role, but so is the GM, whether that role is an NPC in town, a monster being fought deep in a dungeon, or even the terrain or weather on a journey between cities. How each of those roles is played builds the story on top of the backdrop provided by the GM.

I guess in the end, if the players aren't part of telling the story, then the GM should stop running a game and instead become an author.

Nyarlathotep5150 wrote:No giant Eagles swooped in to save people every time the author wrote himself into a corner.

Nothing ruins a story quicker, or makes it harder to understand/believe than too much magic.

Ah, but those eagles were an actual plot point, not a mistake in writing requiring something to get Tolkien out of a jam he wrote himself into. LotR is a very low-magic setting that has magic permeating the fabric of the setting, but it is not powerful magic of the type you see in traditional RPGs. Also, if you read through the Histories of Middle-Earth you will see that Tolkein wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote again many portions of his stories. Also, writing yourself into a corner in a book is really hard to do since you can always go back and fix your mistakes, after all it is just you working on it. In an RPG, you can get yourself into a jam since it is cooperative...

As for the last portion of the post, that is the difference between a low-fantasy and high-fantasy setting. I don't think either is any more difficult to believe, really... After all, magic is magic, it either exists or it does not, and if it does not, it is not believable in any circumstance.

Getting back to the topic at hand, AEG did a real nice job with their "church of the prophets" for 7th Sea (d10 and d20 versions) that presents a pretty cool monotheist religion with lots of room for conflict without using real world religion (though obviously modeled on them) at all.

I like the idea of a single Deity. Something like they did in Dragon Age. The Maker is a Great God! Along with one God (at least one God openly discussed) the Maker seems to be a distant Deity. Though powerful and Good this Deity dos not keep a hands on approach like most D&D Gods. A Cleric is granted powers(spells) for service but has no governing celestial body overseeing his actions.

This means that the LG deities priests can become corrupt and selfish if not downright evil and still receive spells and benefits. I know that idea was strange to me at first but it made for a much more interesting game. Normally you know the clerics of St Cuthbert are good because well,St Cuthbert has his eye on them and is watching them!

Giving them the same freedoms to be selfish,greedy ect was a new way of thinking about clerics for me,at least.