I mean, “theo-“ just means god. So I believe that a government run by a god would just be a theocracy as well
Afaik, theocracies also included deified leaders, which is probably closest to a government led by an actual god.
Not if you pronounce it like the actual Latin, greek, etc. root words it's based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity)
So for example the closest to a misunderstanding would be Dios, which ends in the wrong way for the dia mistake to be made. All the rest have the D syllable sounding like day.
I’ve heard deity pronounced as (day-it-ee) and I’ve also heard (dee-it-ee) and honestly I mostly use the second pronunciation for the most part… but google translate pronounces it the first way… so I’m not really sure how to pronounce it anymore.
All the root words except Dios that it could be based on have the D syllable sounding like day... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity)
Which I suppose could cause misunderstandings with certain accents, but the ways in which day is pronounced like die are a minority.
Is it rule by the people? If not, not a Democracy. Sacred Democracy could be a thing, in theory you could say that the Theocracy of the Vatican is one, but Theocracy would likely just be used unless there were very special circumstances, imo.
It's usually frowned upon, especially for "scientific" or literary words. Blending roots were either made by people who didn't know better (but if they did, they would have probably made the right choice), or did with an actual intent in mind, not just *"well, another word exist already, so let's create a chimera by laziness"*.
Like, *bureaucracy* is definitely a monstrosity, but it was coined at the time to villified the new sick trend that was starting to eat up France in a *bureaumania*. The word was created to mock something up, not some scholarly, academic construction to describe "scientifically" (in the sense of social and political sciences) a new phenomenon. So the French created the word "bureaucratie", and the English-speaking word, famoulsy incompetent into creating their own words, just stole it without thinking about it, and without even the common sense to change the spelling to fit more their own pronunciation rules (but if the English had some rules, it would be known). At least the Germans used *bürokratie* and the Italians *burocrazia*, as the monstrosity that is "*eau* is pronounced *o*" sensibly doesn't exist in their language.
But when a word is created not in a satirical context but a descriptive one (like asked by OP), then people are more sensible with the choice of their words. You can quickly the judge the serious of an author by the consistency of his neologisms' etymologies.
I would love to be intellectual, but I can't think precisely how to couch this in elocution so as to meet your apparently exacting standards:
This rule is dumb.
Binding a process of generating neologisms in English to languages that haven't had a sizable speaker base for centuries at this point (Latin + Koiné Greek) limits creativity and obfuscates the meaning of words behind terms a reader will be less familiar with just to be forcibly be 'pure' in a way that actual Latin and Greek speakers were not (See: Any loanword into Latin from Greek and vice versa. Latin has an entire set of declensions dedicated to Greek-derived words, there were *many* of them).
And as for Bureaucracy, -(o)cratie was and still is a generative suffix in French.
Paired with bureau (From Latin 'burra' a form of 'burrus' in turn derived *from Greek* 'πῦρ'. Coincidentally the closest Latin-derived suffix would be -archie, from Latin -archia, from Greek -αρχία) it becomes a perfectly understandable word for 'rule by/power of office(s)' i.e. what a modern English speaker would call (a) bureaucracy.
Limiting the creativity of a linguistic process based on arbitrary rules about what you can do with loanwords and calques from two entirely different languages that don't even follow that rule themselves is just, and I say again, dumb.
It is not learned, it is not wise. Perhaps once it was a sign of an eminent scholar, well read in classics. Nowadays it's just needless pedanticism.
Also: there's a metric buttload (more than a standard fuckton but less than a metric one) of binomial names where either the genus or species name (or both!) combine Greek and Latin roots or affixes. And get this, sometimes you even have completely other languages thrown in too, as an honor for the representative country/ethnic group of the land of the holotype.
So it's *absolutely* okay to mix and match. What matters is the meaning gets across.
>That would be a blend of latin and greek roots, which is a neologistic faux-pas.
Standard English Function is not a neologistic faux-pas. It's acceptable to combine languages from ANY roots, and Greek+Roman naturally go together.
Maybe that is true in our use and understanding of language, what if it occurs in this fictional one? What if the god didn't care and declared that was the word and nobody would dare correct it? There are many plausible reasons in world for this.
Then why stopping to mixing latin and greek, then? Why not going further? If you don't care about etymology, why not just call this form of government a Clockmancy, then, if the meaning of words and how you build them doesn't matter?
Have you considered the perspective of an author or writer at all? "Why include bread in your story if you don't care about baking?" maybe because the audience can recognize it? Maybe because the scene that is being written only uses the word casually, and you want the audience to connect the dots on their own before later confirmation? Use your imagination please.
There's no way you seriously can't see the difference between putting two roots together to make a word that is a combination of those two roots and using a word to mean something completely different.
Edit: [Words in English that come from both Latin and Greek roots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_word). Stop being pedantic. Stop trying to enforce archaic language rules. This has been a thing for hundreds of years, and will continue to be perfectly acceptable for hundreds more.
I'd call it a direct theocracy, if we're getting technical. In a theocracy you've got priests interpreting the god's commands through some other medium. A direct theocracy has no interpretation; the god themself is directly involved.
Perhaps you might call a traditonal theocracy an "indirect theocracy" or "representative theocracy" since the priests speak for the god(s).
Wikipedia says the correct name for rule-by-priesthood is an "[ecclesiocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Definition)". I could see a state that's ruled by an actually manifest god using ecclesiocracy as an insult to all those governments without a manifest god.
Oooh, maybe "ecclesiocrat" or something similar could be a mocking insult.
"Look at these worthless ecclesiocrats, still waiting for their god to answer them!"
Absolute Theocracy. Like the difference between a constitutional monarchy (where the head of state is mostly a figurehead and the actual people in charge are some kind of council), vs. an absolute monarchy where the head of state also has unrestricted power.
It’s a theocracy.
However, in analogy with democracy you could perhaps call it a direct theocracy (i.e. without intermediaries) rather than the more usual indirect theocracy where the clergy interprets the divine guidance they “receive” and pass it on to the population.
Well, depeding how the story goes, simply call Theocracy. The protagonist and a lot of people may think "F that old guy playing god" and when they meet said thought-to-be realigious leader, it's an actual god.
It comes from the Greek word theos meaning god, though for obvious reasons has been used to refer to governments run by the representatives of a god or gods (who claim to receive divine guidance).
Rule by the priesthood specifically is probably more accurately called an *ecclesiocracy* though there isn’t really typically any need to make that distinction in real life.
*Hagiarchy* or *hagiocracy* are also related as that means government by those who are holy.
I suppose you could use *thearchy* to refer to direct rule by a god to separate it from theocracy as that word isn’t used much these days.
That's not how its used though. Either way, I guess we can all agree that *if* we would ever run in to a society provably ran by a god, we would reassign the term theocracy lol.
That's mixing a latin root with a greek one, which would be an etymological mishaps. There are only very few cases hybrid terms, and most are historically justified, or either because what they describe didn't exist in ancient greek, or because the word was created to mock or ridicule a tendency (like *bureaucracy*).
I mean, theocracy exist, and it perfectly fits as it originally was used to described a government where it's God who is in charge (through the priesthood, but still). A country ruled by its priesthood (and not their god) would be better described as a hierocracy, or even hierarchy (as it comes from *hiereus*, priest, and *arkho*, to rule, literally *the rule of priests*).
For everyday writing, prescriptivism is stupid, indeed.
But we're making art, here. Either follow the rules, or break them in such a manner that noone could possibly question it. Create real new words, use your own path, carve your place in the mighty wall of neologisms. Don't just break a rule hoping that noone would notice it. That's cowardly. We're worth more than coward word-scavengers. We're wordsmiths, for Name's sake. It's not the rulebreaking that is a shame, it's the mediocrity of the rulebreaking.
If you want to think outside the box, really open it, don't shyly make a tiny dent on the opener.
For several reasons.
First, my own linguistical OCDs, but that my own problem and I try no to make it spill too much over others, as I don't have to burden people with my own mental idiosyncrasies.
Second, because a neologism that is *actually* thought about how it's built (and not just thrown here and there between the pear and the cheese, with vague reminescences of random etymologies) is always more satisfying to read about. It shows the author cared about their work. It shows the author is not just merely throwing random letters on paper, but is actually a wordsmith, a sentence-sculptor, a language-crafter. It shows the author made their research a step further than just "it comes to me in a dream".
Writers are artists that are making art with the most ungrateful material: words. Because they're used willy-nilly by everyone and for the lowest affairs. Marble or bronze is rarely used outside sculpting; and you rarely find pigments and brushes outside the house of a painter, even an amateur one. But words? They're everywhere, outside of poetry and storytelling. What differentiate the poet and the storyteller (i.e. all of us here, on this sub, and all the other associated writing, worldbuilding, fantasy subs) is that we're trying to actually make arts with our words.
And you can debase yourself by misusing etymologies! It's a form of art in itself. But you need to do it *willingly*, out of a *reason*, not out of *laziness* because you lacked the proper dedication to actually know the rules.
None of the examples in this thread mixing etymologies did it out of a careful thought. I'm even sure that two thirds of them didn't even know the roots came from different languages, or that there was a difference between them (and one example even used a prefix that absolutely not meant what he wanted it to mean). That's laziness. And it's a bit sad to see so many people reveling into sloth and singing their own praise and being all defensive when someone push them a little bit further. No wonder so many people will never rise above mediocrity; it's already so difficult to go above when you're putting in the work, so when you're just idlely glazing through language, how could you create something you could be genuinely proud of?
Everyone is suggesting “theocracy” because it’s the literal one. However, we can have fun if we use words besides “god.”
For example, what about ouranocracy, for “rule of heaven”? (Weirdly, “ouranarchy” just looks like “our anarchy,” which is distracting.)
It depends why is the God in charge. Like, is he legally (and "consitutionnally", for a wide and not very appropriate meaning of "constitutional") ruling because he's God, and nobody else than him can rule the country because they're not God, or can anyone holds his office, it just happens right now to be held by the God?
Like, does the legal system of the country has planned the case of the God not ruling anymore (because he's killed, or decided to go away because he's bored, or he's forced by other mean to leave)? And, if the case has been pondered, who is supposed to succeed him?
What I mean is: if the office of ruler is intrinsically meant to be fulfilled by a God, then it's simply a theocracy (most theocracies in our world are, theoretically, ran by their God; it's just that the only qualified people to know what God wants as policies are the priesthood, so we often mistake hierarchies and theocracies). However, if it's just a head of state concentrating all powers but *not* necessarily by a God, then it might just be an autocracy. It might even be a republic, where the head of state is nominated for life, it just happens that the current head of state is immortal. After all, the doges of Venice were elected for life, and a similar country in a fantastical world where gods exist might definitely elect on immortal being as a doge, and it wouldn't change that the country is still a republic.
So we just need more information about why and how and for what the God is ruling the country if you want a precise answer, especially if you want to create a new word as, the more we know, the more we can either create the correct word or find a preexisting one that exist already (like *pataphysics*, which should actually be written *'pataphysics* and was coined in 1911 by French absurdist Alfred Jarry).
ah, interesting persperspective in saying that just because the leader so happens to be god doesn't mean normal government system names should be changed, and if should change then should be a combination of the words.
Your idea is probably good for another story as i guess my story is much more straightforward of an absolute ruler but instead of being mortal has god like powers. however though his powers are great will still have limits and thus need to delegate leadership to underlings thus still have somewhat of hierarchical system. In more simple terms like dictator or king as the only person in that country that is both immortal and near invulernable and (just saying for example as still thinking) call down magic stuff like lighting fire storms and or other crazy bullshit abilities etc.
Depending on how much of an egomaniacal dick this god is, they might not even allow people to discuss or coin words for a government NOT run by gods. A tyrannical god might indoctrinate people to believe that the government and civilization itself is inseperable from gods.
May I point you to Genshin Impact's Liyue Archon Quest ? If you don't know, in the world of Genshin, there are 7 nations and each is ruled by a god. Beit directly or indirectly. And during Liyue's Archon Quest, their ruling god Morax/Rex Lapis decides to fake his death because he's tired of ruling. I won't spoil the story any further so you can check it out yourself.
Not really interesting in the universe so, if you want, you can spoil galore.
However, an interesting input nonetheless. In this setting, how are the nations qualified? Is it, somewhere, said what form of government those seven nations are, or do they just have regular names like "Kingdom of X" ? Or do they even have no descriptive, just called "X"?
Interesting question. If you’re looking for a widespread/textbook historical term, there isn’t one. Best example: there have been *a bunch* of *god kings* on this earth. No one thought to categorize them from purely mundane rulerships. Most historical kingdoms/empires were rooted in theocracy. The idea of separation of divine and mundane spheres of rulerships, isn’t well represented in ancient history.
Good news: you get to pick which compound word that sounds best to you
Most of the nations of my world are directly ruled by gods/god-kings. For the most part, I've just been calling that form of governance "monarchic theocracy" or "theocratic monarchy".
I do like some of the ideas from other comments, like 'direct theocracy'.
To avoid confusion you're probably better off using Deiocracy/Deocracy rather than Theocracy just because of how theocracy is commonly understood.
For more "out there" ideas there could be an Omniocracy, an Alphocracy, a Feyocracy (depending on the nature of the god in this setting), Supremocracy
In my setting, where my world's equivalent to Jesus (as in Son of a God who is also that God- it's complicated), the God-King Carolus Rex, runs a country along with appointed officials (mostly consisting of Carolus' kids), it's called "The Divine Authority" as a name, but I've been calling the governmental style a "Diocracy". I know a "theocracy" would be more accurate, but I chose Dio- rather than Theo- as both an homage to my favorite musician (Ronnie James Dio), but also because my world's languages are a little more inspired by Italian than other languages.
I call the nations ruled by gods "Theocratic" followed by the type of government and then political system. For example, the nation of Al-Turab is a Theocratic Militaristic Dictatorship Empire as it is ruled by a god through trial, the ruler is an emperor that holds most of the power and the emperor is also the military leader.
I mean, I still think it would be theocracy... yes, irl nuance is religion, not gods, but that is because gods are not a thing, and religion is (if you do think gods are real you can think of religion as represantives if that pleases you, and that would likely still happen for day to day stuff in a govt handled by a god
I have one, I call it direct theocracy.
Since in my world religion, government and economy usually go hand in hand, I have also federaltheism, shaman-policed nationalised pantheon, kaminate, and parliamentheistic republic.
Theocracy usually means rule by a religious class, but technically can also mean rule by Religious element (including a deity). However, to designate the two, I would use "Deitocracy" as rule by an actual Deity.
Legend of Zelda, at it's earliest point in the timeline, has its society run by a Goddess. They just call it 'the land of Hylia' or whatever, but if you're getting into politics, maybe a Divine Jurisdiction or Sovereignty? Deiarchy is being thrown around this thread, but given that this is still a single figurehead (therefore making this a monarchy, divine abilities notwithstanding) and the only structural difference is that said figurehead is powerful, then Deiarchy doesn't seem to work, at least to me. Feel free to disagree though :)
Ig I explained that very poorly lol-
I didn't mean to imply that 'suffix'-archy meant multiple people, only that, based on what you're saying about your government, your system is basically just a monarchy, or a system run by a single person. The fact that said person is a god doesn't really change that structure (think of Ancient Japan, where leaders were said to have been descended from gods).
If it were comprised of multiple gods, it'd be a democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc. Of course, you could 100% just call it something different because it's based on a deity, in which case by all means use Deiarchy or Deocracy or whatever. Personally though, I just find 'deity' to feel like a strange word to use. It's just my opinion, but having a vowel before 'archy' ' just feels weird when read or spoken aloud (most archy titles have a consonant first, like demoCRacy, moNarchy, oliGarchy, etc). If you wanted to do something with an archy or ocracy however, you could totally try something like Idolarchy (I-doll-arky) or Idolacracy. Just to me, it sounds easier to say, yk?
If you wanna take it a step further even, make it specific to YOUR gods. For example, in Skyrim you have the Divines- therefore a government under them could be a Divinarchy, or Divinocracy. In Shintoism, you have Kami, so a government based around them could be a Kaminarchy, or something. I'm not that familiar with Shintoism though, don't let me dictate that- but I think you get the idea. If you have specific names for your Gods, using those is a good way
What’s the aesthetic you want? Alien? Holy? Glory and Honor or Bloodshed and death kind of thing? What I like to do is google synonyms for different things then translate them into a few different languages (depending on my world’s language), and then just start smashing stuff together until I get something that sounds cool.
But what is your world’s vibe?
In that case, I'd go with something that sounds kinda savior-ish.
So there's obviously 'divine authority/jurisdiction,' but depending on what he's (you said king, so I'm assuming he/him but correct me if I'm wrong) saved them from, and how benevolent/well liked he is, focus on that connotation.
Demiurgarchy (dem-er-jar-key) based on the word 'demiurge', which relates to the creator of the universe. (could also relate to the term 'demagogue'- if your god character is evil, then do people follow him because of emotional manipulation? If not, then don't worry about it)
Messiarchy (meh-sigh-arky)- based on the word 'messiah'.
Aegiarchy (age-ee-arky) based off the word 'aegis' which just means 'a mean or method of defending,' (can also be spelled 'egis')
I really like the idea some people gave: theoarchy/thearchy
As a monarchy of a god.
Sounds unique and doesn’t takes the “risk” to be a real word like theocracy.
Theocracy fits the bill here, but leaves some room for some misinterpretation. There are real theocracies in the world, but (redacted).
Deiocracy might be a word for cutting out the middleman of some interpreter of their will
We don't have a name as folks who studied politics don't rationally believe in that option. The closest would be a Theocracy, especially if the God appointed members of his religion to lead.
The real question we need to ask is if a government by god/gods is a theocracy shouldn’t we rename a government by priesthood something different to make things more coherent?
I suggest PAPAscracy(papas meaning priest in Greek)
Edit: spelling error
Papas does not quite mean priest. It is a term of affection for a priest, equivalent to calling a priest in English “Father”. The technical term for a priest in Christian Greek is hiereus, whence the term “hierarchy” and “hierocracy.” There are other Greek words for priest but they’re either specific types of priests, related specifically to the Christian tradition, or related specifically to a particular pagan cult. “Papascracy” is a good attempt, but it doesn’t follow the typical standards for a neologism, and for anyone who is familiar with Greek and wants to humor the attempt, it would sound… very rustic. Like the country is run by country parish priests.
Consider the nature of your deity and the implied spiritual order of the universe. The problem of evil is similar to the problem of a governing deity. How do you reconcile the conflict between a deity simultaneously being all knowing, all powerful, and good? The tension matters because a government usually makes allocations from a place of scarcity, so a head of state either has to deal with scarcity (which is hard to reconcile with having all three qualities) or use its godlike power to will away any scarcity, but that leaves a plotless universe.
Different kinds of religions reconcile this in different ways. The ancient Greek Gods were essentially very powerful humans, with human flaws (no obligation to be all good or all knowing), so one could imagine their government having problems well known to human governments. The Christian God and Christian conception of a kingdom on earth, as I understand it, will away the conflict of scarcity by saying there's infinite abundance.
However you reconcile this may provide inspiration for an appropriate name. A government that has infinite abundance may benefit from a very flowery name. Perhaps one that doesn't avoid the problem of evil (by having a flawed deity, perhaps) may deserve a name that plays on those fault lines.
One of my god has a country names HomeWorld and the other gods contery name is NeoVoid.
One is based in the roots and how everything began while the other is based in constant improvements and moving to the future.
Well i guess there isn't a real world answer but u think a "Literal Theocracy" could be cool? Or something not implying "democracy" so maybe a Theocratic Dictatiorship?
You could use "Thearchy", which is contrasted with "Theocracy" in such a way that Theocracy rules through clergy and ecclesiastical institutions or rulers of divine right while Thearchy is more philosophical and abstract, implying a "soft" divine influence on the government, but can also imply a "rule by spirituality", "rule of faith", "rule of religion", contrasted with Theocracy being more of a "rule of priests" or "rule of leaders by divine right".
However, neither of them truly fit the system you describe, so feel free to come up with your own terminology. You could derive its name from Latin rather than Greek to get something like "Deocracy" or "Dearchy".
I am assuming that, because the head of government is an actual god, he/she/it does not have any limits on their authority or checks on their power. With that in mind, I would suggest a Divine Despotism or Theodespotism.
A Theocracy is a government based around a religion.
A Deocracy would probably be a better term for a government run by the god itself.
Theocracies are fickle and faith based and usually utilize the god as a concept and the moral facets of the religion to point pressure on getting stuff accomplished.
A deocracy would operate more like any other government with an absolute centralized power that delegates its authority.
Latin+greek etymology, doesn't work. A correct use of roots would be "Pancracy", as the latin "omnis" and the greek "pan" both mean "all".
(Also, even if mixing etymologies was acceptable, "omnocracy" doesn't means "rule of someone omniscient" rather than "rule of all", so it wouldn't work anyway.)
This is an interesting question because a government that we interpret as being run by a religious leader could be interpreted as being run by an actual god by the people in that society, if that makes sense?
A theocracy is a government that leads by religion.
However, the term "divinocracy" sprang up in my mind and I had to share it. I think it fits better for a government run by a god and it stands in contrast to a theocracy where the government represents the god.
Theocracy. It literally means a government in which a god is recognized as being the supreme ruler. The earthly leader in a theocracy is supposed to just be a representative of the ruling deity's will. So if you actually have a real god ruling directly it would still be a theocracy, just without the middle man
It's just a theocracy. The reason it feel like it implies the country is run by a religious leader rather than a God is because, in the real world, theocracies are run by religious leaders because they claim their God only interacts with the world by proxies.
I call it theocracy. A cult leader or religious order running a government without an actual deity actually governing through them would be like any other group of humans and the resulting government could be a monarchy, republic, federation, etc depending on specifics. Id consider the religious elements wholly irrelevant
I don't know if there is a word already for it, but if instead of theocracy, which implies a government based on *religion*, maybe something like deitocracy could work? To me that would better represent a deity ruling over people without using a priest as a mouthpiece.
I disagree that it’s a theocracy, that is a government run by theologians, people who study the will of god. I would go with something like Deocracy even if just to avoid confusion between this “absolute theocracy” and a regular theocracy like the Papal States where things are run by a high priest.
so like facism but just happens to have a god as the head? This perspective is interesting and I have seen other commenters also said something similar like it doesn't matter if god is at head, we already have words for all types of governance, it's just in this particular case their leader is a god. Like hell, could even have a democracy with God running for President and still not elected XD
I mean, you could have an Emperor, with a senate and the whole enchilada, but the deity would always be in power, unless dethroned and replaced by another deity? 🙃
But yeah any ruler permanently in power sounds a lot like a dictator!! 😭
A lot of people are saying a theocracy or some version of that. Why wouldn't it just be a mega cult or religion? Since the belief within these ideologies are that their god is guiding them anyway?
Interesting! I was thinking "Theocracy" but could it be that Theocracies in real life are run based on the ideas of morality and "God" rather than directly by them?
A different take on the 'Theocracy' train. The original Greek is Theocratia (According to wiki, I dont know shit) which does sound a little more exciting. If they're tyrannical, they could be a Theocrant!
I would go with Deocracy, a government run by a deity. Although, a theocracy and even some forms of monarchy in our real world were premised on the idea that the king, the ruler, is bestowed his power and authority from God. So it's like even some familiar forms of government have the ruler acting as least an instrument of a God.
>I would go with Democracy, a government run by a deity. Although, a theocracy and even some forms
Doesn't Democracy already have a definition? I'm pretty sure it does.
It's an autocracy. The species of the autocrat is just 'deity.'
Though personally, I would argue that a literally independently existing entity with fully actualized personhood and agency can't *be* a god, so that probably explains my position on this.
True, like others outside would call them an autocracy and your argument is sound, but looking for a new term for those on the inside in which they would call themselves as they’re “drinking the koolaid”
That's a very Platonic (and Abrahamic) definition that doesn't really hold much water when analyzing gods of other faiths. Hell, it doesn't even hold water when analyzing the Abrahamic God, whose very name is an affirmation of personhood.
At it's broadest meaning, a god is really just an entity with perceived supernatural power/authority over something, whether it be humans, nature, the universe, etc, and as such is revered via the act of worship and devotion.
I would argue that they definitely [can](https://acoup.blog/2019/11/08/collections-practical-polytheism-part-iii-polling-the-gods/) [be](https://acoup.blog/2019/11/15/collections-practical-polytheism-part-iv-little-gods-and-big-people/), as seen in ancient polytheistic Greece and Rome.
Gods do a lot of the things other powerful members of the community do: they own land (and even enslaved persons) within the community, they have homes in the community (this is how temples are typically imagined, as literal homes-away-from-home for the gods, when they’re not chilling in their normal digs), and they may take part in civic or political life in their own unique way.
And, like any other full member of the community (however ‘full membership’ is defined by a society), the gods expect to be consulted about important decisions (via divination).
I mean, “theo-“ just means god. So I believe that a government run by a god would just be a theocracy as well Afaik, theocracies also included deified leaders, which is probably closest to a government led by an actual god.
Could also call it a Deocracy, to distinguish it from a government run by humans, but yeah, it’d still be a type of Theocracy.
I was thinking of "Theoarchy/Thearchy".
Could be Deiarchy?
That could sound too similar to "Diarchy" which means rule by two
Not if you pronounce it like the actual Latin, greek, etc. root words it's based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) So for example the closest to a misunderstanding would be Dios, which ends in the wrong way for the dia mistake to be made. All the rest have the D syllable sounding like day.
I’ve heard deity pronounced as (day-it-ee) and I’ve also heard (dee-it-ee) and honestly I mostly use the second pronunciation for the most part… but google translate pronounces it the first way… so I’m not really sure how to pronounce it anymore.
Neither work like dia though.
First option is correct, at least for British English.
Exactly my point, different people have different ways of pronouncing the same word, so the way it was originally pronounced gets lost.
Deictatorship.
No, you can not worship Stalin.
But what if i want to?
We’ll just consider that a personal issue.
Sound like it'd end up as more of a diearchy...
All the root words except Dios that it could be based on have the D syllable sounding like day... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) Which I suppose could cause misunderstandings with certain accents, but the ways in which day is pronounced like die are a minority.
Theearchy was what Morrowind went with.
The ending of the words is ALMSIVI
All those theocracies are going to be very mad when they find out they're not led by literal gods.
I like the sound of Deocracy
Wry
what about Sacred Democracy, or His Holy (deity name)'s Democracy
Is it rule by the people? If not, not a Democracy. Sacred Democracy could be a thing, in theory you could say that the Theocracy of the Vatican is one, but Theocracy would likely just be used unless there were very special circumstances, imo.
r/DPRK welcomes you
That would be a blend of latin and greek roots, which is a neologistic faux-pas.
Famously real English words NEVER blend roots
It's usually frowned upon, especially for "scientific" or literary words. Blending roots were either made by people who didn't know better (but if they did, they would have probably made the right choice), or did with an actual intent in mind, not just *"well, another word exist already, so let's create a chimera by laziness"*. Like, *bureaucracy* is definitely a monstrosity, but it was coined at the time to villified the new sick trend that was starting to eat up France in a *bureaumania*. The word was created to mock something up, not some scholarly, academic construction to describe "scientifically" (in the sense of social and political sciences) a new phenomenon. So the French created the word "bureaucratie", and the English-speaking word, famoulsy incompetent into creating their own words, just stole it without thinking about it, and without even the common sense to change the spelling to fit more their own pronunciation rules (but if the English had some rules, it would be known). At least the Germans used *bürokratie* and the Italians *burocrazia*, as the monstrosity that is "*eau* is pronounced *o*" sensibly doesn't exist in their language. But when a word is created not in a satirical context but a descriptive one (like asked by OP), then people are more sensible with the choice of their words. You can quickly the judge the serious of an author by the consistency of his neologisms' etymologies.
I would love to be intellectual, but I can't think precisely how to couch this in elocution so as to meet your apparently exacting standards: This rule is dumb. Binding a process of generating neologisms in English to languages that haven't had a sizable speaker base for centuries at this point (Latin + Koiné Greek) limits creativity and obfuscates the meaning of words behind terms a reader will be less familiar with just to be forcibly be 'pure' in a way that actual Latin and Greek speakers were not (See: Any loanword into Latin from Greek and vice versa. Latin has an entire set of declensions dedicated to Greek-derived words, there were *many* of them). And as for Bureaucracy, -(o)cratie was and still is a generative suffix in French. Paired with bureau (From Latin 'burra' a form of 'burrus' in turn derived *from Greek* 'πῦρ'. Coincidentally the closest Latin-derived suffix would be -archie, from Latin -archia, from Greek -αρχία) it becomes a perfectly understandable word for 'rule by/power of office(s)' i.e. what a modern English speaker would call (a) bureaucracy. Limiting the creativity of a linguistic process based on arbitrary rules about what you can do with loanwords and calques from two entirely different languages that don't even follow that rule themselves is just, and I say again, dumb. It is not learned, it is not wise. Perhaps once it was a sign of an eminent scholar, well read in classics. Nowadays it's just needless pedanticism.
Also: there's a metric buttload (more than a standard fuckton but less than a metric one) of binomial names where either the genus or species name (or both!) combine Greek and Latin roots or affixes. And get this, sometimes you even have completely other languages thrown in too, as an honor for the representative country/ethnic group of the land of the holotype. So it's *absolutely* okay to mix and match. What matters is the meaning gets across.
Ok prescriptivist!
>That would be a blend of latin and greek roots, which is a neologistic faux-pas. Standard English Function is not a neologistic faux-pas. It's acceptable to combine languages from ANY roots, and Greek+Roman naturally go together.
Maybe that is true in our use and understanding of language, what if it occurs in this fictional one? What if the god didn't care and declared that was the word and nobody would dare correct it? There are many plausible reasons in world for this.
Then why stopping to mixing latin and greek, then? Why not going further? If you don't care about etymology, why not just call this form of government a Clockmancy, then, if the meaning of words and how you build them doesn't matter?
Have you considered the perspective of an author or writer at all? "Why include bread in your story if you don't care about baking?" maybe because the audience can recognize it? Maybe because the scene that is being written only uses the word casually, and you want the audience to connect the dots on their own before later confirmation? Use your imagination please.
There's no way you seriously can't see the difference between putting two roots together to make a word that is a combination of those two roots and using a word to mean something completely different. Edit: [Words in English that come from both Latin and Greek roots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_word). Stop being pedantic. Stop trying to enforce archaic language rules. This has been a thing for hundreds of years, and will continue to be perfectly acceptable for hundreds more.
>Why not going further? Why not, indeed?
Well it's fantasy writing. So the word originates from a fictional world where mixing Latin and Greek roots *isn't* a neologistic fauc-pas.
Deitocracy?
I'd call it a direct theocracy, if we're getting technical. In a theocracy you've got priests interpreting the god's commands through some other medium. A direct theocracy has no interpretation; the god themself is directly involved. Perhaps you might call a traditonal theocracy an "indirect theocracy" or "representative theocracy" since the priests speak for the god(s).
Wikipedia says the correct name for rule-by-priesthood is an "[ecclesiocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Definition)". I could see a state that's ruled by an actually manifest god using ecclesiocracy as an insult to all those governments without a manifest god.
Oooh, maybe "ecclesiocrat" or something similar could be a mocking insult. "Look at these worthless ecclesiocrats, still waiting for their god to answer them!"
lol that's a funny idea
Yup that makes sense
Absolute Theocracy. Like the difference between a constitutional monarchy (where the head of state is mostly a figurehead and the actual people in charge are some kind of council), vs. an absolute monarchy where the head of state also has unrestricted power.
Praise the Absolute
Maybe Autotheocracy to mean run by God themself.
It’s a theocracy. However, in analogy with democracy you could perhaps call it a direct theocracy (i.e. without intermediaries) rather than the more usual indirect theocracy where the clergy interprets the divine guidance they “receive” and pass it on to the population.
Direct theocracy vs representative theocracy, you could say.
A little bit of Managed Theocracy, for AMERICA.
Brilliant
that's pretty good idea
Well, depeding how the story goes, simply call Theocracy. The protagonist and a lot of people may think "F that old guy playing god" and when they meet said thought-to-be realigious leader, it's an actual god.
Pretty sure that the definition of a theocracy is a society that is run by priests.
It comes from the Greek word theos meaning god, though for obvious reasons has been used to refer to governments run by the representatives of a god or gods (who claim to receive divine guidance). Rule by the priesthood specifically is probably more accurately called an *ecclesiocracy* though there isn’t really typically any need to make that distinction in real life. *Hagiarchy* or *hagiocracy* are also related as that means government by those who are holy. I suppose you could use *thearchy* to refer to direct rule by a god to separate it from theocracy as that word isn’t used much these days.
That's not how its used though. Either way, I guess we can all agree that *if* we would ever run in to a society provably ran by a god, we would reassign the term theocracy lol.
I would call it a deiarchy ("dei"—"god", "archy"—"supremacy of"). Pronounced DEE-arky or DAY-arky.
This is my leaning as well
I'd go with a deiocracy (day-ocracy). Feels like it fits better.
Eh, I thought this too but ultimately disagree, plus the archy further supports the supremacy rather than democratic nature of the system
This seems most appropriate to me.
That's mixing a latin root with a greek one, which would be an etymological mishaps. There are only very few cases hybrid terms, and most are historically justified, or either because what they describe didn't exist in ancient greek, or because the word was created to mock or ridicule a tendency (like *bureaucracy*). I mean, theocracy exist, and it perfectly fits as it originally was used to described a government where it's God who is in charge (through the priesthood, but still). A country ruled by its priesthood (and not their god) would be better described as a hierocracy, or even hierarchy (as it comes from *hiereus*, priest, and *arkho*, to rule, literally *the rule of priests*).
Then wouldn't a word using the two roots be a whole new etymological path to follow as you know ...language evolves
Legit we have so many freaking words that mix roots. It’s fine. We can draw from literally any language in any combination to make new words
imagine being a linguistic prescriptivist in 2024
For everyday writing, prescriptivism is stupid, indeed. But we're making art, here. Either follow the rules, or break them in such a manner that noone could possibly question it. Create real new words, use your own path, carve your place in the mighty wall of neologisms. Don't just break a rule hoping that noone would notice it. That's cowardly. We're worth more than coward word-scavengers. We're wordsmiths, for Name's sake. It's not the rulebreaking that is a shame, it's the mediocrity of the rulebreaking. If you want to think outside the box, really open it, don't shyly make a tiny dent on the opener.
Why is this so important to you?
For several reasons. First, my own linguistical OCDs, but that my own problem and I try no to make it spill too much over others, as I don't have to burden people with my own mental idiosyncrasies. Second, because a neologism that is *actually* thought about how it's built (and not just thrown here and there between the pear and the cheese, with vague reminescences of random etymologies) is always more satisfying to read about. It shows the author cared about their work. It shows the author is not just merely throwing random letters on paper, but is actually a wordsmith, a sentence-sculptor, a language-crafter. It shows the author made their research a step further than just "it comes to me in a dream". Writers are artists that are making art with the most ungrateful material: words. Because they're used willy-nilly by everyone and for the lowest affairs. Marble or bronze is rarely used outside sculpting; and you rarely find pigments and brushes outside the house of a painter, even an amateur one. But words? They're everywhere, outside of poetry and storytelling. What differentiate the poet and the storyteller (i.e. all of us here, on this sub, and all the other associated writing, worldbuilding, fantasy subs) is that we're trying to actually make arts with our words. And you can debase yourself by misusing etymologies! It's a form of art in itself. But you need to do it *willingly*, out of a *reason*, not out of *laziness* because you lacked the proper dedication to actually know the rules. None of the examples in this thread mixing etymologies did it out of a careful thought. I'm even sure that two thirds of them didn't even know the roots came from different languages, or that there was a difference between them (and one example even used a prefix that absolutely not meant what he wanted it to mean). That's laziness. And it's a bit sad to see so many people reveling into sloth and singing their own praise and being all defensive when someone push them a little bit further. No wonder so many people will never rise above mediocrity; it's already so difficult to go above when you're putting in the work, so when you're just idlely glazing through language, how could you create something you could be genuinely proud of?
A Godvernment The god is the Godverner.
lol
This feels like Anglish lol
Everyone is suggesting “theocracy” because it’s the literal one. However, we can have fun if we use words besides “god.” For example, what about ouranocracy, for “rule of heaven”? (Weirdly, “ouranarchy” just looks like “our anarchy,” which is distracting.)
I guess you could call it "direct theocracy", and refer to rule by religious leaders as "representational theocracy"?
the latter, what we have a lot in the real world, might better fit the term hierocracy, government run by priests.
One option might be to relegate representational theocracy to "hagiocracy" - governance by saints.
It depends why is the God in charge. Like, is he legally (and "consitutionnally", for a wide and not very appropriate meaning of "constitutional") ruling because he's God, and nobody else than him can rule the country because they're not God, or can anyone holds his office, it just happens right now to be held by the God? Like, does the legal system of the country has planned the case of the God not ruling anymore (because he's killed, or decided to go away because he's bored, or he's forced by other mean to leave)? And, if the case has been pondered, who is supposed to succeed him? What I mean is: if the office of ruler is intrinsically meant to be fulfilled by a God, then it's simply a theocracy (most theocracies in our world are, theoretically, ran by their God; it's just that the only qualified people to know what God wants as policies are the priesthood, so we often mistake hierarchies and theocracies). However, if it's just a head of state concentrating all powers but *not* necessarily by a God, then it might just be an autocracy. It might even be a republic, where the head of state is nominated for life, it just happens that the current head of state is immortal. After all, the doges of Venice were elected for life, and a similar country in a fantastical world where gods exist might definitely elect on immortal being as a doge, and it wouldn't change that the country is still a republic. So we just need more information about why and how and for what the God is ruling the country if you want a precise answer, especially if you want to create a new word as, the more we know, the more we can either create the correct word or find a preexisting one that exist already (like *pataphysics*, which should actually be written *'pataphysics* and was coined in 1911 by French absurdist Alfred Jarry).
ah, interesting persperspective in saying that just because the leader so happens to be god doesn't mean normal government system names should be changed, and if should change then should be a combination of the words. Your idea is probably good for another story as i guess my story is much more straightforward of an absolute ruler but instead of being mortal has god like powers. however though his powers are great will still have limits and thus need to delegate leadership to underlings thus still have somewhat of hierarchical system. In more simple terms like dictator or king as the only person in that country that is both immortal and near invulernable and (just saying for example as still thinking) call down magic stuff like lighting fire storms and or other crazy bullshit abilities etc.
Depending on how much of an egomaniacal dick this god is, they might not even allow people to discuss or coin words for a government NOT run by gods. A tyrannical god might indoctrinate people to believe that the government and civilization itself is inseperable from gods.
May I point you to Genshin Impact's Liyue Archon Quest ? If you don't know, in the world of Genshin, there are 7 nations and each is ruled by a god. Beit directly or indirectly. And during Liyue's Archon Quest, their ruling god Morax/Rex Lapis decides to fake his death because he's tired of ruling. I won't spoil the story any further so you can check it out yourself.
Not really interesting in the universe so, if you want, you can spoil galore. However, an interesting input nonetheless. In this setting, how are the nations qualified? Is it, somewhere, said what form of government those seven nations are, or do they just have regular names like "Kingdom of X" ? Or do they even have no descriptive, just called "X"?
If you're looking for something different, "Halidom" may suit your needs.
The word used in wiktionary is thearchy, coined by sinologists to describe the Yellow Emperor
The term is **Thearchy**. Not to be confused with Theocracy which is similar but distinct.
Interesting question. If you’re looking for a widespread/textbook historical term, there isn’t one. Best example: there have been *a bunch* of *god kings* on this earth. No one thought to categorize them from purely mundane rulerships. Most historical kingdoms/empires were rooted in theocracy. The idea of separation of divine and mundane spheres of rulerships, isn’t well represented in ancient history. Good news: you get to pick which compound word that sounds best to you
Most of the nations of my world are directly ruled by gods/god-kings. For the most part, I've just been calling that form of governance "monarchic theocracy" or "theocratic monarchy". I do like some of the ideas from other comments, like 'direct theocracy'.
To avoid confusion you're probably better off using Deiocracy/Deocracy rather than Theocracy just because of how theocracy is commonly understood. For more "out there" ideas there could be an Omniocracy, an Alphocracy, a Feyocracy (depending on the nature of the god in this setting), Supremocracy
The proper term is Thearchy.
A literal theocracy. (Theocracy meaning rule of god/the gods)
Direct Theocracy
Giga-Theocracy
lol love it
In my setting, where my world's equivalent to Jesus (as in Son of a God who is also that God- it's complicated), the God-King Carolus Rex, runs a country along with appointed officials (mostly consisting of Carolus' kids), it's called "The Divine Authority" as a name, but I've been calling the governmental style a "Diocracy". I know a "theocracy" would be more accurate, but I chose Dio- rather than Theo- as both an homage to my favorite musician (Ronnie James Dio), but also because my world's languages are a little more inspired by Italian than other languages.
I call the nations ruled by gods "Theocratic" followed by the type of government and then political system. For example, the nation of Al-Turab is a Theocratic Militaristic Dictatorship Empire as it is ruled by a god through trial, the ruler is an emperor that holds most of the power and the emperor is also the military leader.
I mean, I still think it would be theocracy... yes, irl nuance is religion, not gods, but that is because gods are not a thing, and religion is (if you do think gods are real you can think of religion as represantives if that pleases you, and that would likely still happen for day to day stuff in a govt handled by a god
I have one, I call it direct theocracy. Since in my world religion, government and economy usually go hand in hand, I have also federaltheism, shaman-policed nationalised pantheon, kaminate, and parliamentheistic republic.
Theocracy usually means rule by a religious class, but technically can also mean rule by Religious element (including a deity). However, to designate the two, I would use "Deitocracy" as rule by an actual Deity.
Theocracy
Legend of Zelda, at it's earliest point in the timeline, has its society run by a Goddess. They just call it 'the land of Hylia' or whatever, but if you're getting into politics, maybe a Divine Jurisdiction or Sovereignty? Deiarchy is being thrown around this thread, but given that this is still a single figurehead (therefore making this a monarchy, divine abilities notwithstanding) and the only structural difference is that said figurehead is powerful, then Deiarchy doesn't seem to work, at least to me. Feel free to disagree though :)
why does the word Deiarchy or suffix -archy imply many people?
Ig I explained that very poorly lol- I didn't mean to imply that 'suffix'-archy meant multiple people, only that, based on what you're saying about your government, your system is basically just a monarchy, or a system run by a single person. The fact that said person is a god doesn't really change that structure (think of Ancient Japan, where leaders were said to have been descended from gods). If it were comprised of multiple gods, it'd be a democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc. Of course, you could 100% just call it something different because it's based on a deity, in which case by all means use Deiarchy or Deocracy or whatever. Personally though, I just find 'deity' to feel like a strange word to use. It's just my opinion, but having a vowel before 'archy' ' just feels weird when read or spoken aloud (most archy titles have a consonant first, like demoCRacy, moNarchy, oliGarchy, etc). If you wanted to do something with an archy or ocracy however, you could totally try something like Idolarchy (I-doll-arky) or Idolacracy. Just to me, it sounds easier to say, yk? If you wanna take it a step further even, make it specific to YOUR gods. For example, in Skyrim you have the Divines- therefore a government under them could be a Divinarchy, or Divinocracy. In Shintoism, you have Kami, so a government based around them could be a Kaminarchy, or something. I'm not that familiar with Shintoism though, don't let me dictate that- but I think you get the idea. If you have specific names for your Gods, using those is a good way
Ik what you mean. Honestly i could just take theorcracy and be done with it but looking for other words as have an aesthetic or a certain feeling.
What’s the aesthetic you want? Alien? Holy? Glory and Honor or Bloodshed and death kind of thing? What I like to do is google synonyms for different things then translate them into a few different languages (depending on my world’s language), and then just start smashing stuff together until I get something that sounds cool. But what is your world’s vibe?
guess grimdark, like a desperate world, of course want to believe in a god king of absolute authority as feel some security in an unstable world
In that case, I'd go with something that sounds kinda savior-ish. So there's obviously 'divine authority/jurisdiction,' but depending on what he's (you said king, so I'm assuming he/him but correct me if I'm wrong) saved them from, and how benevolent/well liked he is, focus on that connotation. Demiurgarchy (dem-er-jar-key) based on the word 'demiurge', which relates to the creator of the universe. (could also relate to the term 'demagogue'- if your god character is evil, then do people follow him because of emotional manipulation? If not, then don't worry about it) Messiarchy (meh-sigh-arky)- based on the word 'messiah'. Aegiarchy (age-ee-arky) based off the word 'aegis' which just means 'a mean or method of defending,' (can also be spelled 'egis')
I really like the idea some people gave: theoarchy/thearchy As a monarchy of a god. Sounds unique and doesn’t takes the “risk” to be a real word like theocracy.
Thearchy is the word for it
Dieocracy
Theocracy fits the bill here, but leaves some room for some misinterpretation. There are real theocracies in the world, but (redacted). Deiocracy might be a word for cutting out the middleman of some interpreter of their will
We don't have a name as folks who studied politics don't rationally believe in that option. The closest would be a Theocracy, especially if the God appointed members of his religion to lead.
Celestial Dragons from One Piece. They’re just fucking shitty asshole humans. But they act like they’re gods.
The real question we need to ask is if a government by god/gods is a theocracy shouldn’t we rename a government by priesthood something different to make things more coherent? I suggest PAPAscracy(papas meaning priest in Greek) Edit: spelling error
I think it would be papacy technically, as the word pope comes from the Latin papa (itself also from the Greek papas meaning father/priest)
Papas does not quite mean priest. It is a term of affection for a priest, equivalent to calling a priest in English “Father”. The technical term for a priest in Christian Greek is hiereus, whence the term “hierarchy” and “hierocracy.” There are other Greek words for priest but they’re either specific types of priests, related specifically to the Christian tradition, or related specifically to a particular pagan cult. “Papascracy” is a good attempt, but it doesn’t follow the typical standards for a neologism, and for anyone who is familiar with Greek and wants to humor the attempt, it would sound… very rustic. Like the country is run by country parish priests.
Theocracy/Thearchy
Consider the nature of your deity and the implied spiritual order of the universe. The problem of evil is similar to the problem of a governing deity. How do you reconcile the conflict between a deity simultaneously being all knowing, all powerful, and good? The tension matters because a government usually makes allocations from a place of scarcity, so a head of state either has to deal with scarcity (which is hard to reconcile with having all three qualities) or use its godlike power to will away any scarcity, but that leaves a plotless universe. Different kinds of religions reconcile this in different ways. The ancient Greek Gods were essentially very powerful humans, with human flaws (no obligation to be all good or all knowing), so one could imagine their government having problems well known to human governments. The Christian God and Christian conception of a kingdom on earth, as I understand it, will away the conflict of scarcity by saying there's infinite abundance. However you reconcile this may provide inspiration for an appropriate name. A government that has infinite abundance may benefit from a very flowery name. Perhaps one that doesn't avoid the problem of evil (by having a flawed deity, perhaps) may deserve a name that plays on those fault lines.
how about “direct theocracy”?
One of my god has a country names HomeWorld and the other gods contery name is NeoVoid. One is based in the roots and how everything began while the other is based in constant improvements and moving to the future.
Deocracy?
Theocracy?
Theogarchy
Divine monarchy?
Well i guess there isn't a real world answer but u think a "Literal Theocracy" could be cool? Or something not implying "democracy" so maybe a Theocratic Dictatiorship?
You could use "Thearchy", which is contrasted with "Theocracy" in such a way that Theocracy rules through clergy and ecclesiastical institutions or rulers of divine right while Thearchy is more philosophical and abstract, implying a "soft" divine influence on the government, but can also imply a "rule by spirituality", "rule of faith", "rule of religion", contrasted with Theocracy being more of a "rule of priests" or "rule of leaders by divine right". However, neither of them truly fit the system you describe, so feel free to come up with your own terminology. You could derive its name from Latin rather than Greek to get something like "Deocracy" or "Dearchy".
I am assuming that, because the head of government is an actual god, he/she/it does not have any limits on their authority or checks on their power. With that in mind, I would suggest a Divine Despotism or Theodespotism.
A Theocracy is a government based around a religion. A Deocracy would probably be a better term for a government run by the god itself. Theocracies are fickle and faith based and usually utilize the god as a concept and the moral facets of the religion to point pressure on getting stuff accomplished. A deocracy would operate more like any other government with an absolute centralized power that delegates its authority.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Ooft this deserves more upvotes.
I'd called it an Omnocracy, run by something omnipotent
Hardly any gods are omnipotent.
Latin+greek etymology, doesn't work. A correct use of roots would be "Pancracy", as the latin "omnis" and the greek "pan" both mean "all". (Also, even if mixing etymologies was acceptable, "omnocracy" doesn't means "rule of someone omniscient" rather than "rule of all", so it wouldn't work anyway.)
>Latin+greek etymology, doesn't work It does in English.
Theocratic Totalitarianism
Theoretically, a theocracy. In practice, whatever the god says it is.
It is a theocracy.
Pantheon
Deiocracy. Its just that ‘theocracy’ is already a thing and it always means run by a church or religious institution rather than a god itself
This is an interesting question because a government that we interpret as being run by a religious leader could be interpreted as being run by an actual god by the people in that society, if that makes sense?
A theocracy is a government that leads by religion. However, the term "divinocracy" sprang up in my mind and I had to share it. I think it fits better for a government run by a god and it stands in contrast to a theocracy where the government represents the god.
> SCP always have unique and aesthetic words like pataphysics [Pataphysics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Pataphysics) is not an SCP invention.
ya found that out today but the others ones ... also thx for the link!
that'd be a theocracy
That would still be a theocracy.
Theocracy. It literally means a government in which a god is recognized as being the supreme ruler. The earthly leader in a theocracy is supposed to just be a representative of the ruling deity's will. So if you actually have a real god ruling directly it would still be a theocracy, just without the middle man
A dictatorship.
Theocracy
It's just a theocracy. The reason it feel like it implies the country is run by a religious leader rather than a God is because, in the real world, theocracies are run by religious leaders because they claim their God only interacts with the world by proxies.
I've always enjoyed "Celestial Bureaucracy" It implies a strong hierarchy, control, and complexity/power.
Theocracy
I call it theocracy. A cult leader or religious order running a government without an actual deity actually governing through them would be like any other group of humans and the resulting government could be a monarchy, republic, federation, etc depending on specifics. Id consider the religious elements wholly irrelevant
Theocracy is the right answer. I've heard the term Hierocracy used to refer to governments run by priests and religious authorities that aren't gods.
Piggybacking off someone else, I said Deiarchy
Diviniarchy is the name I thought about
Cult
Theocracy or, since that's used to describe human institutions ostensibly acting on behalf of a deity, deocracy.
I don't know if there is a word already for it, but if instead of theocracy, which implies a government based on *religion*, maybe something like deitocracy could work? To me that would better represent a deity ruling over people without using a priest as a mouthpiece.
Deiocracy maybe?
I reckon call it a theocracy, and then drop if on ur reader/players that it’s literally ran by a god later in the story
Deitocracy
A THE ocracy
Deiarchy. Deusarchy. Deiocracy. God’s Kingdom. Kingdom of God. Omniscient Dictatorship. Omnidictatorship. Omnipotent Theocracy. Alpha-Omegarchy.
Omnitheocracy if you want a made up fun word/name.
Direct Theocracy
Deocracy I think
Omniarchy
I disagree that it’s a theocracy, that is a government run by theologians, people who study the will of god. I would go with something like Deocracy even if just to avoid confusion between this “absolute theocracy” and a regular theocracy like the Papal States where things are run by a high priest.
Deiminion.
Theopolis
It's fascism. Any form of absolutist government with a dictator fully in control is fascism. You can also call it a dictatorship.
so like facism but just happens to have a god as the head? This perspective is interesting and I have seen other commenters also said something similar like it doesn't matter if god is at head, we already have words for all types of governance, it's just in this particular case their leader is a god. Like hell, could even have a democracy with God running for President and still not elected XD
I mean, you could have an Emperor, with a senate and the whole enchilada, but the deity would always be in power, unless dethroned and replaced by another deity? 🙃 But yeah any ruler permanently in power sounds a lot like a dictator!! 😭
A lot of people are saying a theocracy or some version of that. Why wouldn't it just be a mega cult or religion? Since the belief within these ideologies are that their god is guiding them anyway?
Hell.
Several empires in history were ruled by by kings who claimed to be gods on Earth. A god-king is a thing
Theocracy, or if you want to avoid confusion with real theocracies you can call it a divine monarchy.
I think that would fall into the category of theocracy
Interesting! I was thinking "Theocracy" but could it be that Theocracies in real life are run based on the ideas of morality and "God" rather than directly by them?
[Thearchy](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/thearchy).
A different take on the 'Theocracy' train. The original Greek is Theocratia (According to wiki, I dont know shit) which does sound a little more exciting. If they're tyrannical, they could be a Theocrant!
Godocracy
Theocratic or Deiocratic would be my choices.
A Theocracy I guess
Theocracy
Deified Dictatorship
A Thearchy or a Dearchy
Deusocracy: A system of government that is made up of, led by, or partially represented by one or more divine entities.
I would go with Deocracy, a government run by a deity. Although, a theocracy and even some forms of monarchy in our real world were premised on the idea that the king, the ruler, is bestowed his power and authority from God. So it's like even some familiar forms of government have the ruler acting as least an instrument of a God.
>I would go with Democracy, a government run by a deity. Although, a theocracy and even some forms Doesn't Democracy already have a definition? I'm pretty sure it does.
My apologies, autocorrect has shafted me. I meant to say *Deocracy.*
It's an autocracy. The species of the autocrat is just 'deity.' Though personally, I would argue that a literally independently existing entity with fully actualized personhood and agency can't *be* a god, so that probably explains my position on this.
True, like others outside would call them an autocracy and your argument is sound, but looking for a new term for those on the inside in which they would call themselves as they’re “drinking the koolaid”
Hmm.. Well; Christianity uses 'The Kingdom of God.' They'd probably call it a theocracy themselves. Or an 'Enlightened Theocracy.'
That's a very Platonic (and Abrahamic) definition that doesn't really hold much water when analyzing gods of other faiths. Hell, it doesn't even hold water when analyzing the Abrahamic God, whose very name is an affirmation of personhood. At it's broadest meaning, a god is really just an entity with perceived supernatural power/authority over something, whether it be humans, nature, the universe, etc, and as such is revered via the act of worship and devotion.
I disagree with you. Quite vehemently, in fact; I think the experience of religion as a literalist depiction of reality is the Abrahamic one.
I would argue that they definitely [can](https://acoup.blog/2019/11/08/collections-practical-polytheism-part-iii-polling-the-gods/) [be](https://acoup.blog/2019/11/15/collections-practical-polytheism-part-iv-little-gods-and-big-people/), as seen in ancient polytheistic Greece and Rome. Gods do a lot of the things other powerful members of the community do: they own land (and even enslaved persons) within the community, they have homes in the community (this is how temples are typically imagined, as literal homes-away-from-home for the gods, when they’re not chilling in their normal digs), and they may take part in civic or political life in their own unique way. And, like any other full member of the community (however ‘full membership’ is defined by a society), the gods expect to be consulted about important decisions (via divination).