Clerical magic?

[tkdguy]

How would you design a magic system for a religion similar to (but not necessarily identical to) the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? My guess is that it would take the form of prayer. It would probably be very subtle in effect.

What would you include or exclude? Would you use power frameworks? How powerful would it be?

Note: I'm just looking for general ideas, not write-ups of spells. However, if you have something particular in mind, please share!

[Killer Shrike]

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/adeptologyUrzadrek.shtml

Not a lot of difference between a pantheistic religion and a monotheistic religion with a slew of saints and named angels.

[tkdguy]

That's another one I owe ya, KS! Thanks again!

[Killer Shrike]

That's another one I owe ya, KS! Thanks again!
Np!

[bblackmoor]

It's also possible that priests use the same magic that anyone else uses (much as priests use the same mathematics and musical instruments that everyone else uses). The difference between a priestly caster and a secular sorcerer would not be how they cast magic, but what they use it for. In a game setting I am currently working on, the Gallican Catholic Church is the second most powerful institution in the Empire (second to the Emperor, of course), and they have a fair number of magicians. A brief excerpt:

Magic and the Church

The official stand of the Gallican Church is that hex use is a sin unless it is done by the will of the Emperor (who rules with the sanction of God), or it is the result of an answered prayer (in which case it is not "hex", but a "miracle"). It goes without saying that the prayers of priests, who are closer to God and better trained in what He wants to hear, are more likely to be heard and answered than the prayers of the laity. In the eyes of the Church use of magic without the sanction of the Church or the Emperor is an abomination, because it seeks to overrule the will of God with the will of Man. Such attempts are doomed to fail, even though they may appear to be successful in the short run.

(from Rough Magic, http://www.westguard.org/index.php?title=Rough_Magic:Overview

Of course, the reality in Rough Magic is that the god of the Gallican Church doesn't grant spells (there are a few other gods that do, but they are forgetful, and far away). If you want a central religion with more overt power, something along the line the "divine spellcasters" described in Fantasy Hero would probably be more appropriate (that would not work for my purposes, because it would make the Church far too powerful for the setting I have in mind). As Shrike said, there's really not much difference between polytheistic religion and a henotheistic religion. Demigod, saint, god, angel, potayto, potahto.

[susandwyer]

I think all "secretaries" and administrative assistants are magic! :D

[AlHazred]

In an old Adventurer's Club, there was an article about Priestly Magic. In it, the author uses VPPs to model divine favor. All powers in the pool have Invisible Power Effects (completely invisible) and the pool's control cost has No Conscious Control (as the priest can't control the Effects level, -1).

Most of my players balked at having a VPP with NCC; as it was explained to me, "How do I know you're using it at all, if it's got Invisible Power Effects?" My response, "That's Faith! You don't know, you believe!" Eventually, one player made a priest of Lady Luck, and it worked really, really well. He was easily one of the more powerful characters in the group, since he dumped most of his points into it. And he was never unsatisfied with it.

[Seraphym]

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/MagicSystems/adeptologyUrzadrek.shtml

Not a lot of difference between a pantheistic religion and a monotheistic religion with a slew of saints and named angels.

This is not correct. Saints were not said to have creative power, pantheistic gods were.:angel:

[Killer Shrike]

This is not correct. Saints were not said to have creative power, pantheistic gods were.:angel:
Well, Im certainly not going to get involved in a religious debate.

[Super Squirrel]

This is not correct. Saints were not said to have creative power, pantheistic gods were.:angel:
As far as a magical system goes, that is what I have been using. Spells come from the Saints themselves.

[Curufea]

This is not correct. Saints were not said to have creative power, pantheistic gods were.:angel:

Some saints are pantheistic gods of other religions. Bridget comes to mind.

[AlHazred]

This is why I never use any real-world theological sources in my games. I always file off the serial numbers.

[tkdguy]

This is why I never use any real-world theological sources in my games. I always file off the serial numbers.
I use actual religions as a starting point, but I make sure there are enough differences to make the religion something different. I wouldn't use actual religions as they are unless my campaign is set in the real world.

[Trencher]

As BBlackmoor say the "magic" employed by early catholic priest were the same magic as the witches they tried to controll, it is was not as much they were trying to wipe out magic itself as much as they tried to ensure all magical abillity was under their controll.
Another way of doing it is if you define the god that they are worshiping and give him mind link with his followers, then he uses his god powers as he see fit after reciving the prayer from his priest.
Offcource the priest should pay a lot of points for such a perk. (contact: God! contact is allpowerfull, contact has significant contacs of his own since he created the universe)

[Seraphym]

As far as a magical system goes, that is what I have been using. Spells come from the Saints themselves.

In this system you could also say the spells come through the saints. They are not the source of the power, simply channels of it.:)

[tkdguy]

I recall someone saying in these boards that all magic in this world is divine magic rather than arcane magic. Then everyone uses gods and/or spirits as the source for their enchantments. So, to paraphrase bblackmoor and Trencher, the "us against them" applies. If it's our guys performing feats of magic, it's a miracle. If it's someone else, it's sorcery. That works too.

[Curufea]

My world has the major religion as catholicised Norse/Saxon/Germanic (they were fairly similar in the Dark Ages). The world has thousands of years of civilisation, ergo the religion is less primal, with more rituals.

However - all magic is sourced in belief. But not all of it is religious in nature. In fact the relgious versions, while more common than secular magic due to the power and influence of the church, are less adaptable and often less powerful in effect except in religious matters (such as holy days and expected miracles). Mainly due to the anthromorphication of the magic.

[Lethosos]

Returning to the source of the question in general... try looking up IronClaw and the Adropovious sourcebook--in that game world, one of the religions is the Church of S'allumer. It suspiciously mirrors Christanity, even down to Helloise as a similar "Jesu."

[Gadodel]

The caster should have some contacts: God, his fellow clergy and so on. These might replace or augment the required skill roll in some way.

[DangerousDan]

It's also possible that priests use the same magic that anyone else uses (much as priests use the same mathematics and musical instruments that everyone else uses). The difference between a priestly caster and a secular sorcerer would not be how they cast magic, but what they use it for. In a game setting I am currently working on, the Gallican Catholic Church is the second most powerful institution in the Empire (second to the Emperor, of course), and they have a fair number of magicians.
You can easily build in a few differences: Your priests have to pray. This requires Incantations and extra time. More importantly, the power is not precisely under the character's control, for a No Conscious Control (-1/2 to -2, as GM sees fit, based on how often the GM expects the prayers to be answered)

A brief excerpt:

Of course, the reality in Rough Magic is that the god of the Gallican Church doesn't grant spells (there are a few other gods that do, but they are forgetful, and far away). If you want a central religion with more overt power, something along the line the "divine spellcasters" described in Fantasy Hero would probably be more appropriate (that would not work for my purposes, because it would make the Church far too powerful for the setting I have in mind). As Shrike said, there's really not much difference between polytheistic religion and a henotheistic religion. Demigod, saint, god, angel, potayto, potahto.

The principle difference that I see is that with a Monotheistic religion, all the entities pull in the same direction, whereas the gods of a polytheistic religion may have very different goals, and thus a wider variety of prayers could be answered.

[bblackmoor]

The principle difference that I see is that with a Monotheistic religion, all the entities pull in the same direction, whereas the gods of a polytheistic religion may have very different goals, and thus a wider variety of prayers could be answered.

That's a fair point.

[Curufea]

Not necessarily - the three main real world montheistic religions offer variety to purpose-
Christianity and Islam has the devil, an ex-angel that opposes the deity. Which justifies purposes contrary to the diety.
Judaism has an ineffable god, that both rewards and punishes for reasons beyond mortal understanding - thus contrary purposes can be justified.

I'm not sure how the lesser monotheist religions justify it (Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc)

[tkdguy]

Yeah, but they all have the same roots. As for the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, they're Christians too, so I expect most of their beliefs are similar to larger Christian denominations.

[Curufea]

Loosely christian. Christian in that they tend not to believe that Jesus Christ was the saviour and son of god. Which, to me, kinda is the point of the description "christian".
I don't know if they have devil-equivalents either, as I've never sustained a conversation long enough with them (I keep failing my SAN rolls).

[Seraphym]

Not necessarily - the three main real world montheistic religions offer variety to purpose-
Christianity and Islam has the devil, an ex-angel that opposes the deity. Which justifies purposes contrary to the diety.
Judaism has an ineffable god, that both rewards and punishes for reasons beyond mortal understanding - thus contrary purposes can be justified.

I'm not sure how the lesser monotheist religions justify it (Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc)

Judaism indeed has Lucifier (Satan):

How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who did rise in the morning? How are you fallen to the earth, that wounded the nations? And you said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet you shall be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)

[bblackmoor]

Judaism indeed has Lucifier (Satan)

The "Lucifer" referred to in Isaiah is the King of Babylon. (Read the passage in context: it's pretty obvious.)

Judaism does not have a "Devil" or capital-S "Satan" who acts in opposition to Jehovah: it does have angels who perform the task of "adversary" (which is what the Hebrew word "satan" means), challenging or testing mortals at the behest of Jehovah, such as in Job. All angels in Judaism are obedient servants of Jehovah. These are also mortal adversaries who are referred to as "satan", such as in Zechariah.

That all being said, while I am comfortable discussing real world mythology, not everyone is capable (or willing) to do so with respect (q.v., the reference to "SAN rolls"). If we can't discuss people's beliefs respectfully, perhaps we should not discuss them at all.

[Trencher]

Eh.. Not speaking for any other Christian groups but us Lutherans sees the devil as the rebellious angel who for his arrogance and treason got stuck with the crappiest job in the universe. He has no power beyond what God gives him.
I think most Christian religions have sort of the same belief that Judaism when it comes to old hoof-foot. Off course I could be wrong.

[Curufea]

There are two schools of thought on political correctness-
1) You either believe that others should be forced to be politically correct, thus condemning individuality and reducing creativity to the lowest common denominators.
2) You take on board the fact the people have different personalities, and you modify your own political correctness to the level of tolerance. Ergo - you respect others beliefs that they can be disrepectful as part of their personality, and will expect them to behave that way, and tolerate it.
Plus, I'm Aussie - and we're famous for making fun of everything.

That being said - I do actually prefer Judaism over Christianity because it has less logical plot holes concerning an omnipotent diety. Speaking as an athiest, of course (which I hope you respect, but understand if you mock). The idea that an ultimate diety both causes good and evil makes more sense to me, than an ultimate diety that is opposed by a lesser being, which they appear to be unwilling or unable to stop or mitigate.

[Trencher]

What was that all about?

[Curufea]

Three paragraphs too long of unwritten ethical concepts few actually even think about.

[Seraphym]

There are two schools of thought on political correctness-
1) You either believe that others should be forced to be politically correct, thus condemning individuality and reducing creativity to the lowest common denominators.
2) You take on board the fact the people have different personalities, and you modify your own political correctness to the level of tolerance. Ergo - you respect others beliefs that they can be disrepectful as part of their personality, and will expect them to behave that way, and tolerate it.
Plus, I'm Aussie - and we're famous for making fun of everything.

That being said - I do actually prefer Judaism over Christianity because it has less logical plot holes concerning an omnipotent diety. Speaking as an athiest, of course (which I hope you respect, but understand if you mock). The idea that an ultimate diety both causes good and evil makes more sense to me, than an ultimate diety that is opposed by a lesser being, which they appear to be unwilling or unable to stop or mitigate.

The ultimate deity does not cause evil, man or spirits do (i.e. devils). God allows evil, he doesn't cause it. If you read the position statement about Judaism above, you will see that Jews teach God causes evil through his angels. The actual position you are against is the Jewish position.

[Curufea]

Ah! I stand corrected. That's what happens if you learn about a religion by just talking to a random member of it, who may or may not have all the data about it.

[Trencher]

Ah! I stand corrected. That's what happens if you learn about a religion by just talking to a random member of it, who may or may not have all the data about it.
But that is the same thing I said. And how does those three paragraphs about ethics have anything with the reply I gave you?
I really don't understand please explain.

[Curufea]

Nothing at all to do with your replies. I was referring to bblackmoor's predeliction for cover=book.

[bblackmoor]

I was referring to bblackmoor's predeliction for cover=book.

No, you were just babbling. Don't blame me for it.

[Curufea]

That too :)

[Trencher]

So you were not talking to me then I got confused there for a minute, no worries.