Stephen Lucek gives us a multi-option ballot:
> i) every one worships one general purpose god (Orlanth / Ernalda), calling
> on the appropriate aspect of the god for the matter in hand.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "aspect", but if it's essentially what would be in game terms a "sub cult", then this is quite close to the pattern of worship before the formalisation of the Lightbringer aspect/cults, and isn't so far off the situation for the "normal" Orlanthi now. But obviously it doesn't describe everyone.
> ii) typical clan members worship the pantheon as a whole, without the close,
> and often exclusive, ties to ONE god as in the RQiii rules for initiates.
The trouble with this description is, it's so broad as to include almost all "sides" of what used to be a dong-dong debate on the subject, and Stephen explicitly includes my suggested approach (whether or not I'd agree with the above synopsis), and the sort of "pantheon/cultural initiation" model others have argued for (ditto).
BTW, as to "often exclusive": apart from Humakt, how many other (especially main cultural) gods have _no_ associates? This side of Voria, how many demand membership of _no_ other cult? Most gods are not exclusive, though whether their cults are unreasonably restrictive or not is another matter.
> iii) perhaps priests / rune levels are not so important for worship, the
> individual can worship any god in the pantheon and receive a blessing, perhaps
> with less oomph than if a rune level leads it.
True, I think. Of course, you still require someone who can cast Worship Appropriate Entity, and knows the correct liturgy and ceremony, but this could simply be a Very Bright Initiate, in extremis.
A separate question is the idea of "individual" worship, where someone has a "personal relationship" with their deity, outside of any cult structure. The RQ3 don't address this at all, except for the stab made in Vikings.
> iv) perhaps priests / rune levels also are not tied to one god, and the holy
> person of the clan can lead worship for any god in the pantheon.
I definately don't care for this option. I think any sort of worship requires at least a "core" of dedicated believers. See, for example, the city of Boldhome waiting around for a Praxian Storm Bull cultist to show up, so they can celebrate his holy day.
> v) close tribal links or links with cities.
I think it's very true that some cults are much more significant at the tribal (or above) level: whether clan/tribe relations are close (or good), or not. One will only ever get anything bigger than a LM shrine in a city, I think, Orlanth Rex is primarily a tribal aspect, and cults like Humakt will typically only muster reasonable numbers in tribes, not the average clan.
> I like less close ties with any one god for the average person, who
> worships the pantheon as a whole. I call these lay members (though I
> know others hate this term!).
Personally, I think there was a certain amount to be said for the quaint old RQ2 "lay member" concept. Trouble is, the term itself was fairly bogus, and certainly there was a false universality about it. But I'd find this a more reasonable starting point than the idea of someone being an "Initiate of the Pantheon", which poses more questions than it answers. What Rune Magic do such initiates have access to? What role or viewpoint do they take in rituals? (The original question being, I suppose, "What is an Orlanthi who is is not initiated into the cult of any particular God?". (Other popular answers being "Uncommon" and "Non-existant".))
> Then you have a few rare folk who dedicate themselves wholly to one god,
> whom I call initiates. In general, this restricts them to the magic of
> their chosen god [...]
This isn't true of Initiate status in RQ3 (or RQ2 (or RQI (or RQ4))), and I don't see why those who believe in "pantheon worship" would advocate it: other than, to be _terribly_ cynical, to pad the existing rules situation out with a little more straw so that it burns more readily when they flame it. And to justify the characterisation of "rare", which seems to me, well, unjustified.
I favour the opposite methodology; rather than junking existing cult structures, I think we ought to recognise that they're more variable, fuzzy, and flexible than a Strict Reading of the rules would suggest. It's true to say, I agree, that some worshipers are more "exclusive" than others, but I see this as more much a matter of inclination, than as artifacts of the cult structure. Having one sort of "initiate" with generic access to rune magic, and another sort with more specific, but presumably greater, rune spell access seems an artificial distinction to make. (Though I'm not sure if this is what Stephen proposes or not.)
Stephen descrives worship among variously: Individual, Household, Few households, clan, and tribe. I'd broadly agree with his summary, except that when he says "initiate" (especially for the main cultural gods) I'd rather say "(minor) godi". For other gods, it may literally be the case that only one Actual Initiate is present, the rest being Associates. Add to the list "city ring", and "kingdom", which much like the tribal level, I think, only moreso.
The usual pattern, I think, is that RQ3-style cults become "magically significant" at the clan level, for Major Cultural Dieties, others at the tribal level, and the highly obscure at the level above. They seem a reasonable model at those levels, and the ones immediately above and below, if one accepts that the actual temple size rules are a Crude Hack.
The main question is then: how magically significant are the smaller gatherings than are below the "cult threshold" of RQ3? An obvious "fix" is to say that these are mainly spirit-magic oriented gatherings, possibly even quasi-shamanic, which may be partly true. On the other hand, it seems to me also likely that even these "too small" gatherings might be magically active, given greater than normal effort by the participants, and/or special "mythic" circumstances.
Jeff Richard, in reply to the above:
> My beef is that the difference between
> a "subcult" and an "associate cult" for most clans is almost
> indistinguishable.
I'm not sure why this is a "beef", but I entirely agree. The two concepts differ only in whether one thinks of the "other" cult as having an "independant" existence. If I asked a Resettlement era Orlanthi about Chalana, or a modern urban Sartarite about Barntar, or practically anyone about Mastakos, they'd be unlikely to report that they were "associates" -- a full-scale, free-living temple to any of the above would seem unlikely, or at least, outwith their own experience. So, they're Sub-cults, as near as makes no odds. Equally, a supposed subcult, like Barntar, might become an "associate" by acquiring a quasi-separate existance in particular circumstances, such as in Heortland, or during the Lunar occupation.
Of course, whether the distinction even exists for Joe Orlanthi, or if it does, whether the Rulesy Terms are good translations of what he'd call them if he did are Other Matters. I note in passing that while a distinction exists in the RQ3 rules, it's mainly terminological. The two actually "work" very similarly.
> Look, clan members become adults by passing the rites of Orlanth/Ernalda -
> in rules terms, initiates of O/E. Quoting KoS: [...]
As KoS is the main reason I suspect this is _not_ the case in the modern day, I'll run the risk of repeating my previous thoughts on the subject. To wit: initiatory status is explicitly separate from age status; and that adulthood initiations are performed in a "sanctified" ceremony, implying it has less of an overtly religious element than it once did, which doesn't fit well with being an actual cultic Initiation.
I do believe it's still the "expected" thing for adults to become O/E initiates rather speedily (or perhaps vice versa), and that not doing is very strange, other than for people whose primary affiliation is not the clan -- familes of hereditary tribal Lawspeakers, the king's weaponsthanes, and other (congenitally) Strange Folk.
> These associate cults don't provide the panoply of magic that the
> specialized tribal or city cults do. Issaries Pathfinder (an associate
> cult of Orlanth) provides Path Watch and that's it.
I'm mildly surprised Jeff rejects Model #1, given his other comments, especially for his early DP setting. It seems to me the two differ mainly in perspective and degree. Take for example, the worship of Orlanth Pathfinder, Goodvoice, Lawspeaker, etc, known to still occur in "backwoods" areas of DP. These make it more explicit that it's "just" a sub-cult, emphasise the Main Deity (even) more, but are effectively equivalent. Not that this was ever done _universally_ of course, but such forms were almost certainly more common before modern Lightbringerisation of the religion, with its (relative) emphasis on the associate and "specialised" LB cults. Perhaps the reverse has happened with the "Orlanth's Hearth" cults, though?
Belatedly,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail