How to differentiate two deities in a neutral manner?

[snappdragon]

I'm currently deciding on the religion of Pletam (of course each realm, race, and kingdom will have its own spin on it, but this is the basis) and trying to do it in a neutral way.

The problem is describing and differentiating two of the deities in a neutral manner. We have Ehaťinol, the creator of Haethion, and Lozüqinol, the creator of Lozquion. Through the events of the religious timeline, Lozüqinol and their Lesser Deities have the races of Lozquion destroy a magi-physical barrier (which had been on the equator since the creation of Pletam) and invade Haethion. They are subsequently defeated and Lozüqinol is sent to a void prison of which there is no escape. Their Lesser Deities stay in Pletam's pantheon, as they are a necessary part of life (each Lesser Deity represents a temperament).

Now, how could I describe the two Major Deities in a neutral way?

[Salmoneus]

I'm currently deciding on the religion of Pletam (of course each realm, race, and kingdom will have its own spin on it, but this is the basis) and trying to do it in a neutral way.

The problem is describing and differentiating two of the deities in a neutral manner. We have Ehaťinol, the creator of Haethion, and Lozüqinol, the creator of Lozquion. Through the events of the religious timeline, Lozüqinol and their Lesser Deities have the races of Lozquion destroy a magi-physical barrier (which had been on the equator since the creation of Pletam) and invade Haethion. They are subsequently defeated and Lozüqinol is sent to a void prison of which there is no escape. Their Lesser Deities stay in Pletam's pantheon, as they are a necessary part of life (each Lesser Deity represents a temperament).

Now, how could I describe the two Major Deities in a neutral way?

I don't understand. How can a religion be 'neutral'? It's the religion of a particular group, and will be based on their own priorities and interests. If you're writing the religion of Haethion, obviously Lozuqinol is the god of evil (or doesn't exist and his followers have been conned by evil priests and need to be shown the light). If you're writing the religion of Lozquion, presumably Ehat'inol is the god of evil (or doesn't exist). If you're writing the religion of a third party, they probably both don't exist, or are both evil, or at least stupid.

[snappdragon]

I'm currently deciding on the religion of Pletam (of course each realm, race, and kingdom will have its own spin on it, but this is the basis) and trying to do it in a neutral way.

The problem is describing and differentiating two of the deities in a neutral manner. We have Ehaťinol, the creator of Haethion, and Lozüqinol, the creator of Lozquion. Through the events of the religious timeline, Lozüqinol and their Lesser Deities have the races of Lozquion destroy a magi-physical barrier (which had been on the equator since the creation of Pletam) and invade Haethion. They are subsequently defeated and Lozüqinol is sent to a void prison of which there is no escape. Their Lesser Deities stay in Pletam's pantheon, as they are a necessary part of life (each Lesser Deity represents a temperament).

Now, how could I describe the two Major Deities in a neutral way?

I don't understand. How can a religion be 'neutral'? It's the religion of a particular group, and will be based on their own priorities and interests. If you're writing the religion of Haethion, obviously Lozuqinol is the god of evil (or doesn't exist and his followers have been conned by evil priests and need to be shown the light). If you're writing the religion of Lozquion, presumably Ehat'inol is the god of evil (or doesn't exist). If you're writing the religion of a third party, they probably both don't exist, or are both evil, or at least stupid.

The reason I'm trying to describe the religion neutrally is because this ("Draft"? "Edition"? "Version"?) is a sort of template. Its a universal religion, and since each culture will interpret it a bit differently, a neutral standpoint would be useful as a reference point.

I do have to admit that you have a good point however :p

[mèþru]

Religions don't work like this. Each culture invents their own separate beliefs, and the religions spread with the roles of participants mostly intact. Re-interpretative religion in which the "bad guy" and "good guy" are flipped is somewhat of a modern invention with the theistic Satanists.

You might be interested in Ancient Egyptian mythology. For much of Egyptian history, Set was a god associated with the royal family. The Hyksos peoples invaded Egypt and started a new dynasty in the north. They saw resemblances between Set and their own chief deity, so they promoted heavily the cult of Set. After the Hyksos were defeated, Set became a villain in Egyptian mythology. But Set was never the chief god of the Egyptian pantheon, and the change would probably never have happened if he were.

[Zaarin]

Religions don't work like this. Each culture invents their own separate beliefs, and the religions spread with the roles of participants mostly intact. Re-interpretative religion in which the "bad guy" and "good guy" are flipped is somewhat of a modern invention with the theistic Satanists.

You might be interested in Ancient Egyptian mythology. For much of Egyptian history, Set was a god associated with the royal family. The Hyksos peoples invaded Egypt and started a new dynasty in the north. They saw resemblances between Set and their own chief deity, so they promoted heavily the cult of Set. After the Hyksos were defeated, Set became a villain in Egyptian mythology. But Set was never the chief god of the Egyptian pantheon, and the change would probably never have happened if he were.

I was going to point out Set as a counterexample, but you beat me to it. There were also cults devoted to Loki in Scandinavia, though Loki wasn't exactly regarded as evil--the jotun were the real bad guys in Norse mythology. More counterexamples: prior to becoming purely monotheistic, Judaism routinely portrayed Canaanite gods (El, Baal Hamon, Baal Hadad, Ashtarte) and even Babylonian gods (Marduk) as devils*; early Christianity would continue this theme. Where most forms of Hinduism regard Shiva as neutral and Shaivism elevates him above the other gods, I believe there are sects that emphasize his role as destroyer and depict him in a more negative light. So I don't think reinterpreting a deity's role in the mythos is anything new; the Greeks and Romans went so far as to just assume everyone else's gods were their own gods by other names.

*Though to be honest, from a modern perspective Canaanite and Babylonian gods were not nice deities...

[mèþru]

Yes, but these gods were reinterpreted as evil as part of new religious movements. Re-interpretation of the chief deity doesn't happen within the same religion. Rejection usually lead to the development of a whole new religion. Then again, using the loaded modern sense of religion to describe ancient beliefs is a bit like talking about the historic states of Indochina using the nation-state model without mentioning Mandala.

[Zaarin]

Fair, albeit with the caveat that organized religion is considerably older than the nation-state.

[WeepingElf]

There is also this (I am not sure whether this is correct, though):

Sanskrit deva 'god' (god), asura 'demon' (evil) vs.
Avestan ahura 'god' (good), daeva 'demon' (evil)

[Zaarin]

There is also this (I am not sure whether this is correct, though):

Sanskrit deva 'god' (god), asura 'demon' (evil) vs.
Avestan ahura 'god' (good), daeva 'demon' (evil)

It is correct, and as far as I know applies not only to Zoroastrianism (where one might expect the old gods to become demons [except I think many of them, like Mithra, become Yazatas instead]) but to Iranian paganism as well. I would suspect this simply reflects an interesting linguistic development in Indo-Iranian rather than the sort of theologically motivated vilification being discussed. (NB: the root behind deva/daeva gives us many Indo-European words for "god," but the root underlying asura/ahura also gives us Æsir, suggesting that it also originally referred to gods not demons.)

[mèþru]

I read that in older texts, both Sanskrit and Avestan used both terms to describe the same gods. I think that originally neither marked good/evil. Also, I can't find anything on whether any gods were vilified, or if it was just a change in terminology.

[Zaarin]

Avestan or Old Persian? Because the only god in Avestan would be Ahura Mazda (along with some lesser divinities who aren't quite gods), since Avestan is exclusively attested in Zoroastrian religious texts.

[Vijay]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but in an Indian cultural context, the deva vs. asura distinction is definitely not a neutral one and has long been associated with the distinction between North and South Indians (respectively).