DISCLAIMER:

The below described characteristics of the deities are just opinions of some players and in no way official lore

---

Geas Theology

Discussion

OK, everyone, let's start the work on theology of different clergies. Have a go and write how you see the theology of different deities and their clergies. Add your own ideas below or make a link to a new page, if you want. Add a signature after each note!

I myself would like to see a worked-out theology for each of the clergies. Then there could be theological reformations in the clergies and new ideas starting to circulate. I have myself worked a lot with the GeasTheology of Zhakrin. In addition to your comment in the god's own discussion, please add a note here, that you added something. I added today a short treatise of basic Zhakrin theology... -- GeNeSis - 05 Nov 2007

Added a picture for Zhakrin, just to test the Attaching feature... -- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

Added my input about Asral and Sathonys, and found out that I'm a day behind GeNeSis :O -- IsenGorn - Nov 5 2007

Commenting a bit on Asral. Corrected the signatures of Isengorn. Please copypaste signaturefrom the small box... Oh, and please make all articles you add here so that their parent-page is this theology page :). Oh, some comments on the deities, I added..-- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

Talked about Sathonys and Free Will, reiterating some ideas I put forward in-game. Commented on Asral, asked a question about Gwen. Created "General Concerns" section and posed some more questions. -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

I moved the question about gods who abhor violence to the "general concerns" section, since I ended up talking much more about Evren than Gwen. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

Talked a bit about Zhakrin and participated in the General Concerns a bit, adding a new theme as well... Also, I'd like you to submit NamesOfDeities, so that there would be a wider possibility of naming the Gods. And I must say I'm really happy to see you've been thinking about these things! I'm not the only one! -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Added question in new section "Non-god things," jabbered a little about magic in response to Genesis. -- NagA - 09 Nov 2007

A reply to Naga on the abovementioned, and some talks about Zhakrin. -- GeNeSis - 22 Nov 2007

I added the "names for followers" section. -- DeVi - 04 Jan 2008

Moved Names for Followers into a new page NamesOfDeityFollowers. Also, some Non-god discussion. I think I'll part these into sub-pages sometime soon... Too much to read, or too chaotic. -- GeNeSis - 18 Feb 2008

Good Deities

Taniel

Taniel is very much like the Christian God, without the aspect of love. An ordered creator of life. -- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

I think that framing Taniel in OOC terms does him an injustice. He is the god of the beauty that can be found in order, of the light that banishes shadows, and of purity in body and spirit. A great symbol of Taniel would be a dazzle of light shining from a perfectly cut diamond. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

I don't really think Taniel can be compared with the Christian God. If at all then only with the God of the Old Testament, who could also be wrathful and angry. Other than that I think Taniel shares only some of God's aspects. -- AbHarSair

Taniel created the Elves in order to expand his power and to be praised - he didn't need complementation because he is arrogant enough to see himself as perfect, righteous and complete. He gives his followers a strict moral code caring for their well-being and expects obedience, yet if they fail he smites them with wrath. He praises wisdom because logically it promotes his ways but I believe he shouldn't be described as a god of knowledge because he can't find all knowledge proper for followers or worthy. He thinks himself powerful and above other gods so allowing low deceit would be stooping. He loves the truth because nothing else is as firm, he is pleased with order because it means stability and peace: people at war and struggling for survival have no time for praises which he so loves. He expects striving for perfection and purity. He expects people to take care of their mundane tasks that he bethought for them and not to reach for powers: he dislikes magic because power like that should be reserved for gods. He is very jealous and does not forgive easily, he expects his followers to earn favour with him but if they deserve it he shares gladly blessing them with his miracles to inspire them to continue on his ambitious task of bringing order and once they earn his favour he accepts them among the worthy and grants them eternal joy in his kingdom. His favour can't be taken for granted and he leaves his followers no other way than to obey - worshipping him isn't something you can shove away at convenience and it involves all aspects of life. -- TaTi

I'm inclined to disagree with you, Tati, on whether Taniel dislikes magic. Perhaps for his own clergy, but what better sponsor of scholars of the arcane? -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

Evren

Evren is the goddess of nature, of animals, of the life force, and of the open spaces. It was she who broke Sathonys' near-triumph by giving Humans Free Will and the ability to choose another path than the one that Sathonys had dictated for them. Without Evren's Gift, Sathonys would surely have broken out of the struggle of the gods and become the dominant power. After bestowing the Gift, the gods' power became much more unpredictable, since no god could absolutely rely upon the worship of His or Her chosen races. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

Evren is the Arch-Enemy of Sathonys (Life vs. Death) and will fight him and his minions without mercy. And while she protects nature, she's not automatically against cutting trees or eating animals. It's just the unnatural, rampant and senseless destruction of nature and life itself which angers her. -- AbHarSair

Neutral Deities

Gwen

Gwen is the ever-encompassing love, who accepts everyone as they are either in motion or in stillness, but abhors violence, because it disrupts the normal state of beings. The normal state of beings is to be in the love of Gwen, still, but because of this love be in motion in bringing this love to others. Even a prostitute can be a Gwenite. -- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

I disagree. In my opinion, Gwen should represent all of the aspects of love - not only tender, gentle, and kind love, but also obsession, jealousy, and the wrath of love scorned. I don't think that accepting everyone OR abhorring violence is fitting with the concept of love. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

Gwen is in my opinion a neutral-good deity, and as Chara already said, emcompasses all aspects of love. Including jealousy, the wrath of a scorned lover, lust and whatever else is involved. Limiting her to the fluffy, friendly type of love would make her a very one-dimensional, boring, and impossible to worship deity. -- AbHarSair

Yeah, the idea of all-encompassing love - meaning, all in the aspects incl. jealousy etc. - sounds wonderful and gives some depth to the roleplaying of a Gwenite. -- GeNeSis - 22 Nov 2007

I like the depth, and agree that Gwen should not be worshipped only by flower pickers. I have a hard time, however, making sense out of the different views expressed. Gwen could mean anything ranging from the giant vicious walking female genitalia in The Wall to the person who turns the other cheek. These are opposites in my opinion, at least they are at odds. So for instance, with Evren, your position is a little more clear...chopping trees for no reason BAD...growing trees GOOD. For Gwen, since the emotion of love can manifest itself in virtually any action including WAR the followers are left to pursue their own agendas and only convene for the celebration of the multiple different meanings of one word. What other common threads, laws, rules, or doctrine can we devise to make the religion deeper. -- Vurdijak Feb. 1, 08

I propose giving the followers of Gwen a choice between remaining a general follower or joining one of 3 cults. Gwen would frown on switching cults. The first cult would be the cult of Andropsa, where the followers would be inclined towards nurturing love, motherly love, and the love that strengthens friendships. These followers would be the most peaceful of her followers, but not necessarily pacifists. A mother fights fiercest to defend her young. In addition to eating the fruit, the followers of this cult could join together in a ritual (two or more) that involves gripping each others hands, leaning back at an impossible angle, and chanting facing the sky. A symbol for this first cult could be head with two faces, one pointing in each direction. The second cult would be the Cult of Evris. These followers would be inclined towards carnal love, physical love, new love, and creation. Passionate and impulsive, these followers would embody love at first sight and not shy from violence in the least to protect creative freedom or the formation of new bonds (openmindedness). A sapling growing from an open palm would be a good symbol for them, or an eye with a very wide pupil. The third and final cult would be the cult of Jositus. This cult would represent tried love, jealous love, and even love lost. Old love that has established itself and hardened into place would be the focus here. Two big trees growing side by side for eternity would be a good symbol. These cults might even have minor powers and detriments, and may be considered as a replacement system for clergy. ---Vurdijak

Zhakrin

Zhakrin is the God of balance and unity. I consider Zhakrin a slightly evil deity despite the common view of it being completely neutral. I consider him representing a certain type of balance many would see as true neutral, actually not balance itself, but instead the balancing force, the opposite. Thus, the main nature of Zhakrin is the Change (the Shift), and this Change takes place through the creative actions of Zhakrin (the Flow from Zhakrin). The Flow of Zhakrin is continuous and unending and thus there is no end of time, and eventually no end of world, total infinity. However, the world is One in Zhakrin, because Zhakrin is the starting place of everything. In the beginning, there was only Zhakrin and in it was everything; then, the Flow begun by the entrance of one God (possibly Taniel), and was corrected by the coming of Lilith, which was corrected with Evren, which was corrected with Sathonys, which was corrected by Gwen, which was corrected with Asral, which was corrected with the creation of dwarves, which was corrected with creation of elves, which was corrected with creation of humans, etc. Zhakrin uses other gods and mortals as its puppets in the Flow to create the Change. Thus, stillness of Shaolin is not a goal of Zhakrin, instead a constant Change and true balance are the characteristics of Zhakrinite Spirituality. Well, this for now. Comments, anyone? -- GeNeSis - 05 Nov 2007

The only truly neutral deity. Naturally, there's a problem how to define "neutral", though. Is it the absence of good and evil, or is it the sum of good and evil? Personally I would prefer the later one, since it is just more interesting. A true follower of Zhakrin should intentionally do both good and evil deeds, but not chaotically and randomly, but planned. After all, worshipping Zhakrin shouldn't be a carte blanche to do whatever one wants, and being chaotic should be left to followers of Lilith. -- AbHarSair

I am agreeing with you here, Abharsair. That is the way I have always imagined, the way I have played my Zhakrinite characters and the way I have added new stuff (as a wizard) about Zhakrin into the game. (Of course, looking from the perspective of someone else than my characters, others might call her a crazy bitch...) In a way, I feel, that Zhakrin can be considered chaotic, but only in the sense that it "shifts" from position to position, not strengthening the weaker one because of some moral code, but for the Balance. Zhakrin simply as the lack of light and lack of darkness doesn't do justice to its position in the pantheon. (By the way, Abh, mind using the signature from the copy/paste box below the edit box, so you get the date as well?) -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

If this stacking of correcting elements is the instrument and Zhakrin is the puppetmaster, one could conclude that the correct way for the follower is to be a little puppetmaster oneself.

Enforcing the balance could end in always fighting for the losing side, which is boring, and crude. Wouldn't a Zhakrin cleric rather preach that enough forces are strongly fighting for each side, thus leaving the subtle parts to Z's followers. (Consider the scales in the temple, which cannot be balanced just by throwing in heavy stones from far left to far right.)

I would regard a follower of Zhakrin to be a rather clever, scheming type. Rather than taking one or the other side, or beating up good/bad guys for enforcing balance, he would plot and intrigue, or as friendlier but challenging version: maybe act as mediator. -- GrindeL - 10 Nov 2007

i am inclined to think much alike to GrindeL. Though, a ZhakrinClergy most likely would be always fighting on the losing side if they adapted an Active Balancist theology instead of Passive Balancist (as ShaoLin do). The theology of the deity doesn't really allow static in the form it has been represented here. There is always the Change, which is caused by the happenings of the world, the balancing is a continuous act. Actually, creating a guild along this theology represented here, the guild would always be at war and in the end, always losing. The only way for a ZhakrinClergy Guild to operate would be, thus, that they operate entirely in the shadows. No one knows who really belong to the clergy, and instead of gathering as a one public Guild, they take over some positions of power in the cities and perhaps even other guilds where they can make a difference and pull the strings.

Public "clerics of Zhakrin" would be really rare. Perhaps there would be one or two public "faces" or Voices of Zhakrin, but others would be hidden - perhaps even from the Zhakrinites themselves. They would go to their secret meetings wearing masks that hide their identity and basically only the master who has accepted someone in the clergy in the first place would know that the person belongs to the guild. This is how I've always seen the clergy of Zhakrin ever since I realized the Change and the Flow. Oh, and you never know whether this kind of guild already exists in the game... Mhawhawhaw. - The One be with you. -- GeNeSis - 22 Nov 2007

Asral

Hmm, through battle comes glory for Asral. He's just a warrior that throws fire and thunderbolts, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure others feel differently :P -- IsenGorn - Nov 5 2007

So, "Asral is the god of War" means simply that Asral is the god who likes to go warring against others? Does he have any sort of metaphysics? Hey, can gods be killed, imprisoned? How omnipotent are they? -- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

Asral loves not only War but also Courage in the face of great odds, Honor even when dealing with the dishonorable, and Faith when all seems lost. He is the champion of the underdog and the fire that consumes even when all seems dark. He championed the Humans because they were prepared to be destroyed to a man before they would give in to He who would enslave them, and by that strength of character, they won Asral's love and respect. -- CharA 06 Nov 2007

Are you familiar with Heraclitus? Change was essential to his conception of the universe, so fundamental that a notion of continuity becomes absurd. "No man can enter the same river twice," because the river is always a new river, and the man is always a new man. Flux is the principle, and it is fire. Arborea embodies the principles of the Asralites: a flurry of activity and change, setting up, tearing down---anything else, clutching onto this or that, striving for some transcendent end, is artificial. Good life is in the immediate, found in heroism in word and deed and in generosity. The "Germanic Warrior Code" found in, for example, the epic Beowulf, is a good distillation of Asralite morality. -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

When thinking about Asral I have a mental image of some guy with a horned helmet sitting on a cloud, in one hand a war hammer and in the other a horn filled with mead, who looks down upon the mortals and eventually goes "Whoa, that dude just lopped off the giant's head! Awesome!". So yes, similarities with Norse deities do exist. But endless war and senseless deaths should not be the sole reason of worshiping Asral. It only means that if you have to die, do it right, with a weapon in your hand and not with your back turned to your enemies. Be courageous, but not stupid. Be sly, but not a liar. Have honor and keep the promises you make. -- AbHarSair

The Norse view on Asral surely clears some things. It's actually quite a nice view on Asral, but would require a society that has those values (mainly: honour) integrated in it. Arborea is not such a society anymore. -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Evil Deities

Sathonys

see: AShortSpeech -- IsenGorn - Nov 5 2007

Sathonys provides the opportunity for an alternative perspective of Free Will, something that most characters treat as foundational to serving the god of their choice, something fundamentally good. But the pretext for Free Will was as a weapon against Sathonys. It exists in a sort of tension to the Sathonyte. On the one hand because, unless they are human, they would not be able to serve Sathonys without the Gift, and on the other because Sathonys was harmed by Free Will, and it is a violation of His will to which the believer must submit. I wrote a short-book in game about this problem in the form of a discourse. It's in the Scribes library.

This makes Sathonys attractive to those who are ambivalent about free will, who see it as problematic. I borrowed a little from Buddhist thought to come up with this distillation. In some respects, it can be compared to the conversion experience as well in certain strains of Christianity, for the abandonment of free will is to return to an original state, and when the original state is seen as superior, it is like a certain purity.

But all pain, you must come to realize, is the result of the will. What do we mean by will? Individual pursuit of individual desire. This desire, and its pointless pursuit is what causes all pain. Not getting what one wants is suffering, the pursuit of what one wants is suffering. Wanting is necessarily a feeling of incompleteness and is suffering. Even getting what you want is suffering because even that must end.

Man was built for a will, just not his own. To try to live inactively, without will, is to deny, painfully, a most fundamental part of us. The desire for separation is never satisfied and to try to maintain it is pointless torture.

Individual desire, and therefore all suffering, is eliminated through the rejection of the tainting of the will that Evren brought upon us. One must dispose up his own will and unite with the greater will, and in doing so become detached from suffering. One becomes a drop of water in an endless sea, invincible, unexhaustable, rather than spread thin, petty, and weak.

The idea of death is the idea of annihilation, return to death, essential unity of life and death, the imagery of obscuring the two:

All gods, excepting one, embrace the mistaken notion that individual free will is a blessing, rather than a painful distortion of our true natures. The greatest liberty is found in obedience to our essence, and that is to unite with the Great. It is a process that requires annihilation... It is very much like, death, yes, in the sense that it is a backwards birth. A return to a virginal state that was stolen from us the very moment we were born into this world. Really, though, it transcends death. Death becomes life, life becomes death. These lose their meaning---There is only the one.

Surrender of will as return to order, freedom from chaos:

Faith in only one god allows us to return, to be free, to be obedient, to be strong, to be wise, and to be genuinely happy. There is nothing this god, Sathonys, cannot provide for us, and even instantly, when we unite with his will. Only Sathonys genuinely cares for all races and allows them, even those whom he did not create, to return to original, untainted order. An order above life, beyond death, reaching across the universe into eternity. -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

OK, you have some interesting points. -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Lilith

I consider Lilith one of the most interesting deities. Lilith, the Bitch, is the chaotic motion. I always enjoyed playing Lilithians. -- GeNeSis - 06 Nov 2007

Lilith is the goddess of the darkness, of that which remains hidden from those who search, of the corruption beneath a beautiful surface, and the beauty of the slide into decay. She despises serenity, stillness, and order. She does not want to stand in the light of notice, but prefers to pull the strings and be the power behind the throne. Her strength is in whispers and lies and the words that remain unsaid between lovers. -- CharA 06 Nov 2007

Loves lies, betrayal, deception, corruption and chaos. In my opinion a very interesting deity to worship. This one would indeed give you a carte blanche to do whatever you want, as long as you do at least in secret some of the afore mentioned things. Needless to say, she's the Arch-Enemy of Taniel. -- AbHarSair

Yeah, the Bitch is wonderful! -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

General Concerns

Then is any god consistent with the abhorrence of violence, Chara? -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

All of the gods have been locked in conflict for a length of time impossible to understand in mortal terms. None of them abstains from this conflict, and therefore none of them exemplifies pacifism or inaction. Even Evren, whose domain includes Life, has one of the most violent and bloody of all domains - nature. Instead, she champions the triumph of life over death, growth over decay, and progress over chaos. However, due to Evren's Gift, individuals can choose to be more or less peaceful, or even to step away from the central conflict of the gods and choose secular paths like those of the trade guilds or the rangers.

If Gwen were nothing but peace and flowers, she'd be a good goddess, not a neutral one. However, love can be an incredibly harmful force as well as a good and comforting one, making it neutral. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

I'm beginning to see a lot of depth in the person of Gwen. Love as a brutal force, this is very interesting. Interesting; but so, does Gwen reveal herself in full? Is she actually "Love Incarnate" in a way, the Love that spreads out to the world, thus making lack of Love being lack of Gwen? Or is there love without Gwen? Is she the metaphysical reason for the existence of the feeling love (and perhaps even other feelings, is she responsible for the feelings in general?) Perhaps this should be in Gwen... -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Non-god things

Okay, I've been meaning to ask this for a long time... What do we make of things that seem spiritual, but are not quite divine? Demons, angels, nature spirits, tutelary deities, ghosts, ancestral spirits, saints, etc. Where do these all fit in, and what role do they play in the religious world of Geas? Are all demons, for example, merely servants of Lilith, or are they battling spiritual forces in and of themselves, pettily engaged in minor concerns? -- NagA - 09 Nov 2007

We'd need some establishing how the world works. Are the three levels of existence, physical, spiritual, noetical, or only two or how many and how deities are related to the levels of existence; do they have physical bodies or are they simply "minds" in the cosmos; do they have a location or are they omnipresent. This is, of couse, linked to the question of whether they are omnipotent or not. -- GeNeSis - 18 Feb 2008

Man and God

How do we define the gods in relation to man? We are used to saying "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" (omniscient and omnipotent), but are these terms useful when describing the gods of Geas? Gods are again and again deceived, it seems, unsure of the future, and submit to the same cosmic principles that man does, even if on another level.

I don't think that the gods of Geas are all-powerful or all-knowing. Such a concept doesn't make much sense in polytheism, especially when the gods do not act in unison but rather at odds to one another. I do believe that they are "very" powerful and "very" knowing. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

Do gods need men and why? Some possible answers: No, men are mere playthings of little relevance to the gods. Yes, men provide a means for gods to effect their will. Yes, men actively enhance the power of the gods. Yes, gods need men to be attain completeness, to be magnified and glorified.

Mortals were originally created as playthings by Zhakrin. However, it became clear that they had the potential to be more when the actions of the dwarves directly increased Zhakrin's power, inspiring the creation of the other races and, eventually, Evren's Gift. Now, the mortals are very instrumental in the war of the gods, since their worship increases the gods' powers, and yet caring for them and responding to their pleas weakens the gods. If all the mortals disappeared, the gods would continue, but as it is, they are at the most remote, vital instruments. As the gods also have feelings and desires, some of them feel very close to mortal races, or even to individual mortals. -- CharA - 07 Nov 2007

We say that Free Will used to belong to the gods, but is this even intelligible? Can Taniel, for example, be said to have free will when it seems he cannot act in a way defying his essential goodness, or else he would no longer be good and therefore no longer Taniel? -- NagA - 07 Nov 2007

What exactly are the gods warring over? I always thought it was more control over the races, but that seems like a means to its own end. Is there some cosmic battlefield? Are the gods just inherently power hungry? How does this affect roleplaying, especially in a church guild, on Geas? -- IsenGorn - 07 Nov 2007

Naga gives an interesting question, and I am inclined to say that the deities of Geas are not bound to their general aspects. It's just the ways they normally work, and not bound to some set of rules. Of course, morally they may consider themselves bound, e.g. Asral bound to his honour. Chara had this wonderful saying that mortals were in the beginning the playthings of Zhakrin. Never thought this one that far. Wonderful! Of course that must be true! Well, of Zhakrin I do believe that at least it consider itself to be some sort of "power" more than a person, as does probably Sathonys, but in the end they are simply persons, acting on their urges. -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Beyond the Polytheism

Is there something beyond the polytheism or the pantheon of Geas? Is there a one source where everything comes from? Is one of the Gods (e.g. Zhakrin) such source? I would be inclined to think as a Zhakrinite Balancist that Zhakrin could be also referred with the Neoplatonist term the One, and much of Neoplatonist philosophy would fit to Zhakrin. -- But, another possibility would be that there is some sort of "Fountain of Life" or "Being Itself" that is not a personal power, or is even suprapersonal in a way going beyond all the personalities of the individual mortals, even the gods. This "Fountain" would be some sort "God of Gods"; perhaps magic is some sort of "emanation" of the power of this Lord of Lords; perhaps all gods are simply damn good magicians, who are closer to the emanations of the Fountain and able to more directly commune with the "Fountain" and receive magical/godlike abilities; so, basically, mortal magicians would have a dim, theoretical possibility to "become gods". -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Naga is inclined to view magic as a sort of divine art, an exercise that is fundamentally linguistic: the magician manipulates word and creates permutations. Word is reality; the true word "fire" is not an arbitrary symbol of fire, but fire in the highest actuality. Magic is arrived at only through the study of imperfect human languages so that one can catch a glimmer of the underlying universal Word, the Logic that is the fountain of reality, and then restructure the world through Word. To Naga, this extends to not just magic principles but objects and gods as well: they are, in essence, their names, even if their true names may be concealed. Every action by a god is an action through the name, every creation is a creation through a name. Taniel is "Taniel," but also his attributes "Good," "Light," "Order," and "Wisdom." There is no such thing as "dark order" or "bad wisdom," because Taniel is all of these things to the point of perfection, and in perfection cannot exist contrariety. The true name of a god is not arbitrary and provides the believer unmediated access to the god's reality.

Naga's understanding of will has changed somewhat since his abandonment of Sathonys and dedication to magic; no longer does he seek to bend his will to a greater one, but, through combinatory magic, achieve a sort of theosis and shed the limits of the personal will that define the mortal, opening to the highest reality and emptying himself into it so that it may fill him. -- NagA - 09 Nov 2007

Actually, the stand you've taken is very much equal to understanding of the Christian God at least in the era I've studied. Since God is the prime Good and the Cause of Being, there is no opposite power, because that would not exist. Evil means then simply lacking the fullness; thus, "bad wisdom" means simply wisdom that e.g.has only 50% of its capacity, whereas good wisdom has 99% (100% thus being utterly unreachable due to the hidden nature of the Godhead). Though, when considering this in relation to the pantheon, it cannot be held that deities represent these values separately of each others, but there can be only One Cause (Hen). As such, you theory thus leads into a point of One God, some kind of "God beyond gods". Using patristic terms, we might perhaps say that there is only one divine essence, but seven hypostasis's in the Geasian pantheon. Just thinking out loud. -- GeNeSis - 22 Nov 2007

Gods and Magic

I believe that gods would see magic as something snatched from them rather than given. If you consider sources of magic you can assume that it is the energy of gods once devoted to the land that the mages draw from now, and since most gods want obedience they would naturally prefer to have means to lure the worshippers to them, and that shaping the reality with the power they lend to the mortals is under their control: that is comes from their own clergies. In my eyes mages exploit the order of the world stealing the energy from the it for their own goals. On the other hand we have Evren involved in the ritual creating the Tshaharks, yet it was a choice between having the creation annihilated and lending the greater power to the mortals. As for Taniel, mages would be too unpredictable and out of control to receive his support - but perhaps each individual involved with magic would be dealt with separately, what do you think? TaTi

Names for the Deities

Please also participate in listing some names for the deities in the page NamesOfDeities. -- GeNeSis - 08 Nov 2007

Names for followers

Moved the Names for Followers started by DeVi - 04 Jan 2008 to the page NamesOfDeityFollowers.