Need Some Religion Ideas!

[graverobber]

How big a part of their lives is this religion going to be? I don't imagine from your description that they'd have anything along the lines of temples or monks, but it sounds to me like they would have some, say, tribal rites and rituals that might be based around their beliefs. It could be customary for them to thank their God(s) after winning a battle, for example. Or, if you really want to make them brutal, you could have them sacrifice their enemies to them. And how about important religious figures within their society? This could include Shamans, but also Druids, or, say, witchdoctor like healers.

Anyways, back to answering your question instead of just creating more: it might be a good idea to have a look at some aspects of pagan religion (I think that's where Shamanism, comes from, actually). You wouldn't be able to use it exactly, or even use the name, but I think it would still help. They believe that there are many different Gods and Godesses in the world around them, so you could have fun with that, it's very old, so it would fit with the time and the religion can be practiced without fancy buildings, texts, etc, which would suit the lifestyle I'm imagining your horsemen would have.

P.S. I love the idea of the ritual combat between husband and wife. Also, I'm a huge fan of George R R Martin and think the Dothraki are brilliant, but in my opinion your ideas don't rip them off, so you shouldn't worry about that.

 

[Kit]

it might be a good idea to have a look at some aspects of pagan religion (I think that's where Shamanism, comes from, actually). You wouldn't be able to use it exactly, or even use the name,

You can- and there are enough variations of it that you would have broad latitude- but just as with shamanism, if you're going to use the term "Pagan", you would be advised to do your homework. Modern versions of Pagan religions are spreading like wildfire these days; to the point where- just as you can assume that a decent percentage of your potential readers have read ASOIAF- you can also assume that a decent percentage of your readers are Pagan. We read lots of fantasy.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Cavalry makes up the bulk of their military. They are a warlike people, see war in an almost recreational sense. For them, war is not necessarily about hatred or even aggression, but merely a contest of power and strength. They have no use for "honor" in the chivalric sense. They are not knights, but barbarians. For them, honor outside the context of power or strength is meaningless. From their point of view "honor" and "strength" could be considered synonymous. However, cowardice in their eyes is the lowest form of evil, with deception coming not far behind. They believe that it is despicable for a person to steal by stealth or trickery what they do not have the strength to take by force. If one does have the strength to back it up however, then anything is permissible- except cowardice.

This seems a bit contradictory. If they detest cowardice, then they do have a code of honour: It is dishonorable to act cowardly, it is dishonorably to cheat, it is dishonorably to steal (but not to rob), etc.

By extension, they should also be very big on honesty, because lying is a form of deciet and can be considered a form of cowardice as well. (If for example you lie to avoid retribution or otherwise save your own skin.) Note that honesty was a very important virtue in European chivalry.

You really shouldn't mistake honor for some arbitrary rules of fair play that only hampers the warrior. Honor is "an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body." That is to say, honour is to act in an upstanding an respectable way as percieved by your society.

Frankly, I don't think a society like the one you describe can actually exist without some sort of formalized honor - basically all warlike people develop a warrior code out of necessity, because even if violence is acceptable it still needs discipline and focus or it will damage the rest of your society. You need basic rules like: "Don't murder/rape women and children" or "Be loyal to your family and chieftain." If all that matters is being better at hitting people in the head with battle axes, your society basically ends up being the orcs from Lord of the Rings, who can't go five minutes without stabbing and eating each other.

Only, that almost never actually happens in reality, because humans are very social animals who typically value social harmony.

This culture originated when the arrival of invading foreigners on their continent created a schism between the aboriginal peoples. In a nutshell, one faction wished to repel the invaders while the other faction admired their strength and established an uneasy truce with them. The Horsemen (haven't invented a proper culture name yet) are descended from the latter faction.

The only thing I know about their religious beliefs as of now is that it might be some form of "shamanism", but that is not set in stone.

Any ideas?

I'm thinking basically a polytheistic animism with some shamanist traditions. They would have a pantheon of actual gods who closely resemble their own society, sort of like the Norse or Roman. So, basically their gods are a divine tribe of warriors riding divine horses, probably spending their time battling giants or demons or something, while inhabiting a kind of spirit world modeled after the land these people inhabit. Shamans can communicate with these gods and other lesser spirits, acting as the medium between the mortal world and the spirit realm.

Possibly, the aboriginal people had a more traditional animistic religion, then the invaders brought with them their polytheistic faith, and the two eventually merged. The "old gods" of the original faith either got assimilated into the new pantheon, merging with an equivalent new god, or got "demoted" to trickster spirits, fairy-type creatures, etc.

EDIT: I like ThinkerX's idea about ancestor worship. Say, warriors who die in combat get to ride with the divine horde, einherjar-style, making them technically part of the extended pantheon. Historical warriors with particularly impressive legends would then be roughly the equivalent of saints.

 

[graverobber]

You can- and there are enough variations of it that you would have broad latitude- but just as with shamanism, if you're going to use the term "Pagan", you would be advised to do your homework. Modern versions of Pagan religions are spreading like wildfire these days; to the point where- just as you can assume that a decent percentage of your potential readers have read ASOIAF- you can also assume that a decent percentage of your readers are Pagan. We read lots of fantasy.

Fair enough. My issue with using it 'as is' (which I probably should of explained before) would be that one of the few things almost everyone associates with paganism is a deep love/respect of nature and I thought the horsemen would need to have a 'nothing is sacred' attitude. Now I've written that down I've realised I'm kind of contrdicting them having a religion in the first place (oops!) but I just wanted to explain where I was coming from with that. There being lots of variations changes things, though, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Read the Wiki. Your excuse is useless. If I start reading your book and see what appears to me to be a Dothraki clone, I'm going to drop the book with an eyeroll.

Seriously? Your stop reading books because something in them reminds you of something else your read?

The same will happen if I'm reading your book and see little pipe-smoking guys with hairy feet called Bobbits.

And also elves and dwarves and orcs, I presume?

 

[Kit]

one of the few things almost everyone associates with paganism is a deep love/respect of nature and I thought the horsemen would need to have a 'nothing is sacred' attitude.

Perhaps not. Nature is savage. Only the strong survive.

 

[Kit]

Seriously? Your stop reading books because something in them reminds you of something else your read??

Heck yeah. If I picked up a book and saw little pipe-smoking guys with hairy feet going on a quest, I'd figure the writer was ripping off Tolkien. Sorry, no matter how good your "bobbits" story is, it's not going to be better than Tolkien, and I'd figure that if you can't come up with something more original, you must be no good. Plus, you must think your readers are stupid, and you have no respect for a master.

If I pick up your book and it's a love triangle between a human, a vampire and a werewolf- again, I assume you're an unoriginal copycat.... and maybe you're better than Meyer, but there are now dozens- if not hundreds- of vampire stories flooding the market, and I *like* vampires, but at this point I'm tired of the cliche and not interested in the retread.

If a book has glaring elements of a great classic- or of a recent blockbuster hit- it had better smack me with something interesting enough/original enough to keep me reading by the time I notice the resemblance. Otherwise I will move on.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Heck yeah. If I picked up a book and saw little pipe-smoking guys with hairy feet going on a quest, I'd figure the writer was ripping off Tolkien. Sorry, no matter how good your "bobbits" story is, it's not going to be better than Tolkien, and I'd figure that if you can't come up with something more original, you must be no good. Plus, you must think your readers are stupid, and you have no respect for a master.

If I pick up your book and it's a love triangle between a human, a vampire and a werewolf- again, I assume you're an unoriginal copycat.... and maybe you're better than Meyer, but there are now dozens- if not hundreds- of vampire stories flooding the market, and I *like* vampires, but at this point I'm tired of the cliche and not interested in the retread.

If a book has glaring elements of a great classic- or of a recent blockbuster hit- it had better smack me with something interesting enough/original enough to keep me reading by the time I notice the resemblance. Otherwise I will move on.

Both of your examples are rather specific. I'd be hard pressed to find many books that are 100% original without going back thousands of years.

The fact is that many people have written about adventures involving small people, interactions between werewolves & vampires, or the case at hand, nomadic horseman tribes. If I were you Mindfire, I wouldn't worry about it one iota. The likelihood of similarities is low beyond the fact that we're talking about nomadic horsemen. Their dwellings, religion, physical appearance, enemies, all things like these can add levels of detail that make them almost entirely foreign to one another.


"Good writers borrow from other writers. Great writers steal from them outright." - AARON SORKIN

There is a similar quote, possibly attributed to Pablo Picasso. "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

 

[Reaver]

T.A.S. is right of course. It's all been done before. I believe that our goal as writers is to put as unique a spin on these "already been told" stories as we possibly can.

 

[Mindfire]

This seems a bit contradictory. If they detest cowardice, then they do have a code of honour: It is dishonorable to act cowardly, it is dishonorably to cheat, it is dishonorably to steal (but not to rob), etc.

By extension, they should also be very big on honesty, because lying is a form of deciet and can be considered a form of cowardice as well. (If for example you lie to avoid retribution or otherwise save your own skin.) Note that honesty was a very important virtue in European chivalry.

You really shouldn't mistake honor for some arbitrary rules of fair play that only hampers the warrior. Honor is "an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body." That is to say, honour is to act in an upstanding an respectable way as percieved by your society.

Well, that's where this gets tricky. With them, any code of conduct comes with a huge caveat: if you're strong enough to get away with it, it's okay. By their reasoning, if you lie to or betray someone weaker than you, it's fine because really, what are they going to do about it? But lying to someone stronger than you is a sign of cowardice, because you are attempting to take by deception what you could not by force.

Frankly, I don't think a society like the one you describe can actually exist without some sort of formalized honor - basically all warlike people develop a warrior code out of necessity, because even if violence is acceptable it still needs discipline and focus or it will damage the rest of your society. You need basic rules like: "Don't murder/rape women and children" or "Be loyal to your family and chieftain." If all that matters is being better at hitting people in the head with battle axes, your society basically ends up being the orcs from Lord of the Rings, who can't go five minutes without stabbing and eating each other.

Only, that almost never actually happens in reality, because humans are very social animals who typically value social harmony.

This is a very good point that I hadn't fully considered. If muscle is really the absolute only thing that matters, then this society is going to murder and pillage itself into oblivion. And you're right I was using an overly limiting definition of "honor". I guess you could say they have ethical standards, but their ideas of "good" and "evil" don't necessarily line up with the "traditional" view.

I'm thinking basically a polytheistic animism with some shamanist traditions. They would have a pantheon of actual gods who closely resemble their own society, sort of like the Norse or Roman. So, basically their gods are a divine tribe of warriors riding divine horses, probably spending their time battling giants or demons or something, while inhabiting a kind of spirit world modeled after the land these people inhabit. Shamans can communicate with these gods and other lesser spirits, acting as the medium between the mortal world and the spirit realm.

Possibly, the aboriginal people had a more traditional animistic religion, then the invaders brought with them their polytheistic faith, and the two eventually merged. The "old gods" of the original faith either got assimilated into the new pantheon, merging with an equivalent new god, or got "demoted" to trickster spirits, fairy-type creatures, etc.

EDIT: I like ThinkerX's idea about ancestor worship. Say, warriors who die in combat get to ride with the divine horde, einherjar-style, making them technically part of the extended pantheon. Historical warriors with particularly impressive legends would then be roughly the equivalent of saints.

I like the idea of their ancestors riding with the gods. It reminds me of the Wild Hunt myth and that song, "Ghost Riders in the Sky". And you're right their history and reaction to the foreigners should play a role in how they view their gods. The invaders are polytheistic, and information about the origins of their faith can be found here, if you're interested:

Spoiler: North Haldorian Faith

The North Haldorians (also known as the "White" Haldorians) practices a kind of ancestor worship of saint-like figures called the Champions, who are believed to have used their power to bring their race into a new world when the old one was torn by war and corruption and ultimately destroyed by dragons. The North Haldorians believe that the Champions ascended to a higher plane of existence and became fully gods, giving their blessing and urging them to conquer the new world and the inhuman "barbarians" who inhabited it. This is actually half-true. The Champions did exist, but they were only ordinary men with a command of magic, not gods or demigods. The "old world" was just a different continent (that still exists!) and they weren't forced to come to the "new world" because of war or dragons but simple religious persecution (like the Pilgrims). Dragons (and my dragons are slightly different than the usual kind) did exist once upon a time, but they had nothing to do with the reason the Champions and their followers fled the "old world". The Champions did not "ascend to godhood", most of them died when the ship carrying the refugees was wrecked on the shores of the "new world", and the last few died shortly after leading the others inland. They came to be reverenced as heroes and, over time, worshipped as gods. The sight of the wrecked ships that carried the North Haldorians' ancestors to the "new world" lies in the far northern tundra and is considered a sacred and forbidden place.

The culture the Horsemen split off from was actually monotheistic in nature, but when the invaders came and the initial attempts to fight them off failed, the ancestors of the Horsemen believed that the god had abandoned them. This was the cause of the schism between them and the other faction. Perhaps the Horsemen began to view Hakadosh (their ancestors' god) as a demon or an unreliable trickster and formed a new faith similar to the invaders? Or maybe they viewed Hakadosh similarly to Prometheus: he had helped their ancestors once before but could not do so again because he was being punished by other gods for interfering with mortalkind?

 

[Feo Takahari]

This is a very good point that I hadn't fully considered. If muscle is really the absolute only thing that matters, then this society is going to murder and pillage itself into oblivion. And you're right I was using an overly limiting definition of "honor". I guess you could say they have ethical standards, but their ideas of "good" and "evil" don't necessarily line up with the "traditional" view.

[Cultural relativist]With YOUR traditional view.[/Cultural relativist]

Seriously, I don't think you have to agree with their views--in fact, you can find them completely repulsive--but I don't think anyone can write an interesting society unless they're positive enough towards it to be capable of writing "good" characters who operate within its framework rather than rebelling against it. (Yes, I've read The Legend of Drizzt, and I'm still not convinced.)

Or, to approach this from another direction, there have always existed societies that do horrible things to outsiders, or even to some of their own members, but I don't think you can point to a functional society that lasted more than a hundred years and was essentially "evil", unless you get incredibly technical and start trying to argue that things like the British East India Company qualified as independent societies. For this reason, "evil" societies necessarily feel a bit abstract and mythic--but the more you explain something, the less mythic it feels, and the more awkward it gets if it doesn't make sense.

 

[Mindfire]

[Cultural relativist]With YOUR traditional view.[/Cultural relativist]

Seriously, I don't think you have to agree with their views--in fact, you can find them completely repulsive--but I don't think anyone can write an interesting society unless they're positive enough towards it to be capable of writing "good" characters who operate within its framework rather than rebelling against it. (Yes, I've read The Legend of Drizzt, and I'm still not convinced.)

Or, to approach this from another direction, there have always existed societies that do horrible things to outsiders, or even to some of their own members, but I don't think you can point to a functional society that lasted more than a hundred years and was essentially "evil", unless you get incredibly technical and start trying to argue that things like the British East India Company qualified as independent societies. For this reason, "evil" societies necessarily feel a bit abstract and mythic--but the more you explain something, the less mythic it feels, and the more awkward it gets if it doesn't make sense.

When I say traditional, I mean morality as defined by God and revealed to humanity through multiple sources, scripture and prophets chief among them. I say this because I believe in God, his scriptures, and his prophets, and I must refer to his truth as THE truth if I'm going to practice my faith with any kind of consistency or credibility. From your perspective as the cultural relativist this may in fact seem narrow-minded, but if one holds a belief as true, one cannot also hold contradictory beliefs as true because to do so would be illogical. That is why I say "the" traditional view, not merely "my" traditional view.

And I think that independent societies can be evil, though I agree they tend not to last long mostly. Now nobody outright sets out to be evil. That's not what I'm saying. I'm merely saying that overwhelming devotion to something like a rigid hierarchy, a religion, or a charismatic figure like a cult leader can cause people who might be otherwise nice or even decent to do utterly evil things. And if you have an entire society of these people bound together by that devotion and willing to do anything in service of it, then you have an evil society. If a culture is willing to burn their firstborn in order to assure good crops, I call that evil. If they willingly serve, summon, or sacrifice to demonic entities, I call that evil. If a society cannibalizes themselves or others, I call that evil too. Does this mean that these people do nothing but murder and pillage and twirl their sinister mustaches and kick puppies? No. Perhaps in different circumstances these people would be quite ordinary. Perhaps they believe sincerely that this is the natural order of the world. Perhaps they would gladly change their practices with the proper education. But the things they are doing are still wrong. And a society that has evil things codified into it is an evil one. Where exactly to draw the line is a hard question I grant you, for a human to judge another human fairly is always difficult. But the point remains. I know this must annoy your cultural relativist sensitivities greatly, but it's what I believe.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'll take this to PMs.

 

[Mindfire]

Sorry I rambled on so long I didn't address your actual point. Since it's too easy to get into a semantics battle about what "good" means, I'll use the word righteous instead. I agree that in general in order for a society to be developed meaningfully, and capture the reader's interest, it needs members that are likable in some fashion. But I would not say you need the group to have any righteous members. The group can be composed of nothing but scoundrels and still be likable enough for the audience to follow along. For example, the Decepticons in the Transformers cartoons (not great literature, I know). They're as cartoonishly evil as it gets and they still have avid fans.

 

[Shockley]

In my research, I've always found that barbarian groups tend to have more internal respect, harmony, etc. than most so-called 'civilized' groups. This is because they are usually smaller, and bad behavior tended to get you killed rather quickly. When dealing with out-groups it was an entirely different story, but even some of the most vilified groups in history (Norse raiders, Mongols, Huns, etc.) tended to have a better sense of 'traditional family values' than say, the settled Romans or Greeks. The leaders could get a little fratricidal, but that's almost a universal axiom.

Anyway, you might want to base it off the real world religions of the Huns, Magyars, Mongolians, Turks, etc. They tended to worship the sky in the way some other peoples could deify oceans, mountains, etc. When they had a personified god, it was usually a personified sky. This makes sense because when you are on the steppes, that's all you really have.

Tengrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mindfire]

In my research, I've always found that barbarian groups tend to have more internal respect, harmony, etc. than most so-called 'civilized' groups. This is because they are usually smaller, and bad behavior tended to get you killed rather quickly. When dealing with out-groups it was an entirely different story, but even some of the most vilified groups in history (Norse raiders, Mongols, Huns, etc.) tended to have a better sense of 'traditional family values' than say, the settled Romans or Greeks. The leaders could get a little fratricidal, but that's almost a universal axiom.

Anyway, you might want to base it off the real world religions of the Huns, Magyars, Mongolians, Turks, etc. They tended to worship the sky in the way some other peoples could deify oceans, mountains, etc. When they had a personified god, it was usually a personified sky. This makes sense because when you are on the steppes, that's all you really have.

Tengrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good points. There's a reason why "Noble Barbarian" and "Evil Aristocrat" are such universal tropes.

 

[Kit]

Both of your examples are rather specific. I'd be hard pressed to find many books that are 100% original without going back thousands of years. "

Again, the key is that it needs to have enough fresh elements that I'm not feeling like you slapped a new coat of paint on LOTR or Twilight and are trying to sell it to me as your new novel. See the "fanfiction" thread.

 

[Mindfire]

Anyhow, I finally looked at the Dothraki entry and found some happy surprises. My Horsemen (I've got to make a proper name) are different from the Dothraki in a few key ways:

-They have no horse-based deities.
-They laugh at petty superstitions and the idea of "luck".
-They consider the ownership of slaves to be a sign of weakness. The truly strong do not need to tie down their possessions in order to keep them, nor do they need to chain their subjects in order to command obedience. If you cannot command the respect or at least the fear of those below you and must resort to chaining them, perhaps you do not deserve obedience.
-Horses are considered important and special, but in a familial rather than religious sense. To kill one is considered murder and punishable by death. To eat one would be viewed in the same vein as cannibalism.
-Violent and bloodthirsty though they be, overall I like to think of them as a merry bunch while the Dothraki... are not.

I'm also rethinking the idea of making them nomads. I think I might have them live in small villages instead.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Again, the key is that it needs to have enough fresh elements that I'm not feeling like you slapped a new coat of paint on LOTR or Twilight and are trying to sell it to me as your new novel. See the "fanfiction" thread.

My point was, that in writing a work that is his, inspired by thoughts that are his, that work will yield a totally different story & culture with few actual similarities other than a horse based tribal society. You seemed to be urging Mindfire not to write about this because GRRM used nomadic horsemen in GoT.

In the post above, it's obvious that there are more differences than similarities. His own take will offer enough fresh elements by the nature of his unique mind. When we start telling other writers "Don't do that, it's been done before" we're potentially misleading people that their ideas aren't good enough or unoriginal.

 

[Kit]

My point was, that in writing a work that is his, inspired by thoughts that are his, that work will yield a totally different story & culture with few actual similarities other than a horse based tribal society. You seemed to be urging Mindfire not to write about this because GRRM used nomadic horsemen in GoT.

In the post above, it's obvious that there are more differences than similarities. His own take will offer enough fresh elements by the nature of his unique mind. When we start telling other writers "Don't do that, it's been done before" we're potentially misleading people that their ideas aren't good enough or unoriginal.

I'm pretty sure we have the *same* point, just some communication misfires.

I never urged Mindfire or anyone else "not to write about this".

Like it or not, part of writing something for sale or public consumption is considering the market- especially the well-loved classics and the recent commercial hits. Our market- our potential readership- has been affected by these books. We're not working in a vaccuum.