What are the gods?

You have to keep in mind though that mages who are ArchMasters stay out of the affairs of the mortal world entirely due to the Pax Arcanum.

Everyone is saying that a god is any entity that receive worship. However, I say that these gods had to earn that worship, like controlling nature to the benifit of the worshipers (and the god), blessing a craft or trade, perform miracles, or exercise their wrath. True, they might credited natural phenomina to the deity, and true the gods are fickle and practicly unreliable, but they woudn't worship something that would give nothing in return.

NOWOD:

Everyone is saying that a god is any entity that receive worship. However, I say that these gods had to earn that worship, like controlling nature to the benifit of the worshipers (and the god), blessing a craft or trade, perform miracles, or exercise their wrath. True, they might credited natural phenomina to the deity, and true the gods are fickle and practicly unreliable, but they woudn't worship something that would give nothing in return.

Are you actually talking about humans, here?  Humans are not rational creatures.  If a human gets it in his head that a funny-shaped rock is the source if his good fortune, he'll worship it.  And if he's charismatic enough, he'll drag others along for the ride.  And before you know it, you have a religion based around one deluded man's crazy ideas about an odd-shaped lump of rock.

But this is the WoD we're talking about...  It's possible that the funny-shaped rock was actually an object of power, and truly responsible for the man's good fortune.  But that's giving entirely too much credit to guy who started worshiping a rock.  This being the WoD, it's much more likely that the worship of the rock formed or attracked a spirit (or ghost, or Fae, depending on the nature of the worship), which began to provide its worshipers those blessings credited to their rock god.

But you can't be that rational in analyzing the origins of human beliefs and superstition.  Remember, this is a species that fairly widely believes that the severed foot of a small furry animal brings good luck, even though this obviously wasn't true for said small furry animal.  Knock on wood?  Step on a crack, break your mother's back?  Break a mirror, and you'll have seven years of bad luck?  The only real difference between superstition and religious belief is that the latter is more organized and respectable.  (And I don't say that to belittle any religion.  An article of faith isn't necessarily wrong simply because it seems to defy logic.  But it is, by definition, based on faith rather than reasoning, no differently than superstitions.)

NOWOD:

Everyone is saying that a god is any entity that receive worship. However, I say that these gods had to earn that worship, like controlling nature to the benifit of the worshipers (and the god), blessing a craft or trade, perform miracles, or exercise their wrath. True, they might credited natural phenomina to the deity, and true the gods are fickle and practicly unreliable, but they woudn't worship something that would give nothing in return.

You're absolutely right, at least insofar as the world's pre-Christian religious history is concerned. Nobody worships or gives offerings to a god that doesn't deliver in some way--whether it's Zeus bringing the rain or the emperor protecting your family and city. Like I said, "god" is a job description, not a specific kind of being. Any being that stopped doing favors for worshipers would cease being worshiped by that person--you actually see that in some cases, where their statues are cast out and destroyed when they fail to protect the people who honored them.

I wouldn't say the gods were thought of as fickle or unreliable, as that would defeat the purpose. Again, keep in mind that the gods as portrayed in certain mythic stories doesn't have a lot to do with how their worshipers believed they really acted. Even as early as Pindar you get poets modifying stories and expressing doubt as to whether the gods could really be so flawed as the stories suggest. No, people worshiped gods because they believed the gods were likely to respond in kind--and those remaining non-monotheists presumably still do. It's only monotheists that continue to worship a god whether he delivers or not, since there aren't any alternatives--and so monotheistic worship is really a different sort of thing altogether.

mb_webguy:

Humans are not rational creatures.  If a human gets it in his head that a funny-shaped rock is the source if his good fortune, he'll worship it.  And if he's charismatic enough, he'll drag others along for the ride.  And before you know it, you have a religion based around one deluded man's crazy ideas about an odd-shaped lump of rock.

I'd give people a bit more credit than that. True, superstition and the worship of gods isn't rational in the sense that it pertains to the use of scientific reason to make decisions and form beliefs. On the other hand, it is perfectly rational in the sense of performing those actions that seem most likely to be beneficial, based on current understanding of how things work. Back before the scientific revolution it was taken as a given by virtually everyone that there were supernatural forces behind phenomena, and it made perfect sense to try to harness those and get them to work for you rather than against you.

Now, maybe we don't need that anymore, but that's more a function of differing levels of understanding about the workings of phenomena rather than differing levels of rationality. If you don't know about the science behind a given thing (and most people really still don't), then on the surface it's reasonable to attribute the success or failure of a venture to whether the relevant gods were appeased with exactly the proper rituals and gifts (a system that, incidentally, leaves enough open to explain why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't). And in the WoD, these people just very well may be right.

Black Flag:

I'd give people a bit more credit than that. True, superstition and the worship of gods isn't rational in the sense that it pertains to the use of scientific reason to make decisions and form beliefs. On the other hand, it is perfectly rational in the sense of performing those actions that seem most likely to be beneficial, based on current understanding of how things work. Back before the scientific revolution it was taken as a given by virtually everyone that there were supernatural forces behind phenomena, and it made perfect sense to try to harness those and get them to work for you rather than against you.

I submit the following evidence in support of my case:  otherwise intelligent and educated people crossing their fingers, knocking on wood, wearing rally caps, carrying rabbits' feet, thinking the number 13 is unlucky (especially concerning Fridays on the 13th of a month, or buildings without a 13th floor), not washing a "lucky" shirt and other similar rituals -- and actually believing that these things have some effect on events or otherwise possess some validity despite their modern understanding of the world.  People join wacky cults because of charismatic leaders and irrational emotional needs even when the cult's beliefs are contrary to what they rationally know to be true.  And for the ultimate proof -- I don't know how many gamers I've known who were, in their non-gaming lives, rational thinkers, very intelligent, and highly educated, and yet who at the gaming table had any number of dice rituals intended to appease the Random Number God.  I'm a skeptical agnostic with post-graduate education in computer science, and generally a very rational person.  And yet even I have been known to make a few rolls before a game to see which ones were going to roll well for me that night, or to punish uncooperative dice by throwing them across the room or putting them in the microwave for a few seconds...

People aren't rational.  All it takes for someone to develop a superstition is to associate a bit of fortune or misfortune with a particular act, object, location, or time.  And if a person attempts to rationalize superstitions -- trying to rationalize the irrational -- or put them in some kind of context, you end up with religious belief.  Religion is essentially a contextual framework for a collection of superstitious beliefs.  Does that mean that those beliefs are necessarily wrong?  Not at all.  But even if they're right, it doesn't mean they're rational.  Belief itself -- the assumption or acceptance of truth without, or even despite, evidence -- is not a rational act.

Black Flag:

I wouldn't say the gods were thought of as fickle or unreliable, as that would defeat the purpose.

True, but (epsecially in greek mythology) they could get very pissed very easilly, and tend to take advantage of mortals. 

What you said was awsome, and the ancient chinese do actually "punish" god that failed to uhold their duties. However, I highly doubt people of other cultures would follow suit, mainly because of their fear of divine (and harsh) retribution. They could be fickle, wrathful, lecherous, and unimaginably pround at times. This is especially true with the Olympians, who had used mortals on several ocasions for their own motives.

Majunior:

Shock:

*thinks about it*

Disbelief would kick in and everyone would forget about it.

Would it?

What if those Mages chose to find a way to suspend the forgetting part, strictly for the purpose of casting themselves as Gods in their own right?

There is a theory that some of the Arch-magi  magics used to be merely Master until they received too much mortal exposure. Perhaps the same is true of some Vulgar magic, it used to be Coincidental before in that days of God-like Mages it got over exposed. Back in that day it wasn't vulgar so no one forgot.

While its a possibility it sort of breaks the metaphysics of the game line if that were true because the concept of why certain magics are Vulgar and others are Covert is that the Lie has altered the way the world is supposed to work.

Evo_Shandor:

In my "book", being worshiped as a god, makes you a god.

Kordeth:

if someone asks you if you're a god, you say "yes?" :)

that's my motto

Kordeth:

Evo_Shandor:

In my "book", being worshiped as a god, makes you a god.

So what you're saying is that if someone asks you if you're a god, you say "yes?" :)

That is correct, Mr. Zeddemore.

If the job of a god is to provide an empiric object for worshippers, thereby providing the worshipper emotional comfort and predictability in a chaotic world, then a god doesn't need to have the power or desire to actually impact the world at all. In fact, his literal existence and the metaphysical details of his nature are completely irrelevant.

When a worshipper sings hymns, chants invocations or reads liturgies the "god" may or may not find it pleasing, but that isn't the point. The actual goal is the worshippers' personal and societal religious experience. Exultation in beautiful music, catharsis from a malediction, sheer pleasure of ecstatic worship, establishment of stable social/intellectual structures (eg religions, folk traditions, cults, schools of thought, philosophies), or adherence to a religiously derived moral code and social contract are ends in themselves, not the means.

Also, gods need not exhibit what one would normally call "good" behavior to be worthy of worship. Sometimes the god's very capriciousness can be reassuring to his worshippers. A neolithic farmer working in a field with his family when his beloved wife is killed by a random lightning strike might believe that she died as payment for some unknown sin, died as a sacrifice to ensure a bountiful harvest for the community, or died so she could serve as a valued servant in the palace of the sky god. Any of those religious explanations are more comforting to the bereaved than to believe the truth in the WOD: that life is nasty, short and brutish and that random death can arrive at any time, usually for no good reason.

So, what is a "god" in the WoD? Well, maybe he doesn't exist at all. Or maybe he does exist, but because the act of defining a god would limit the nature of the god, he can't meaningfully be discussed. Or maybe he didn't used to exist, but some being has taken on his role. Or maybe he exists but is nearly always absent or disinterested. Or maybe he's an Exarch. Or maybe he is the over-exagerrated tales of a long ago mage or vampire or werewolf. Or maybe he is of the Gentry. But, in the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is the worshippers' experience of the "god".

What matters is the belief, not the object of the belief.

Thank you, Nosimplehiway.  Several people have put forth the idea that a god is anything that is worshiped as one, but no one has put it nearly as eloquently as this.