Action/behavior X

Possible values (basic paradigm):

-Prohibition
-Compulsion
-Indifference

(Complex paradigm):

-Absolute prohibition (i.e. it is physically impossible to do such thing)
-Absolute compulsion (i.e. it is physically impossible to not do such thing)
-Prohibiton with immediate punishment (e.g. it is forbidden to touch the fire with bare hands, the divine punishment is extreme pain)
-Compulsion with immediate punishment if the rule is broken (e.g. it is compulsory to NOT touch the fire with bare hands)
-Prohibition with delayed/non-certain punishment (e.g. it is forbidden to drink alcohol, the divine punishment is an increased chance of developing cancer)
-Compulsion with delayed/non-certain punishment
-Indifference
-Prohibition with no divine punishment, yet for some unclear reason humans are supposed to follow this rule (e.g. it is "forbidden" by Yahweh and Allah to be homosexual, yet there is no punishment (from those gods) for such action, as clearly seen in non-Islamic western countries, and all punishments against such action are carried out by humans, rather than by gods) (perhaps the consequences of following such divine rule are naturally beneficial? or perhaps not)
-Compulsion with no divine punishment if the rule is broken, yet for some unclear reason humans are supposed to follow this rule (perhaps the consequences of following such divine rule are naturally beneficial? or perhaps not)

-Atheist society:

Observation: atheism is the simplest among all theisms. Since there are no gods, and nothing divine exists, there are also no commands nor any divine laws (since, any law, whether subjective or objective, cannot be divine in atheism, since atheism claims the absence of the divine at any point in time, including in the past, and it denies the possibility of the existence of any future divinity), so for any action/behavior X, there is no divine command associated with it.

-Monotheist society:

Observation: monotheism is more complex than atheism, but less complex than duotheism or polytheism.

Commands of God:

1 Monotheist society (amoral God). God is not the giver of morality, so for any action/behavior X, there is no divine command associated with it.
2. Monotheistic society (indifferent God). God is indifferent to morality, so for any action/behavior X, the divine command associated with it is "indifference" (i.e. God is indifferent towards action/behavior X). (Same thing as allowance? Answer still not decided)
3. Monotheistic society. God is the giver of morality, and it prohibits action/behavior X.
3.1: it prohibits such action/behavior by making it physically impossible to perform (e.g. God has prohibited travelling faster than light)
3.2: it prohibits such action/behavior by immediately giving a punishment to the people performing it (e.g. God has prohibited touching fire with one's bare hands, the punishment for breaking such rule is extreme pain)
3.3: it prohibits (more like "discourages") such action/behavior by giving a delayed (though not necessarily certain) punishment to the people performing it (e.g. God discourages (or tries to discourage) people from drinking alcohol by giving increased possibility of cancer as a delayed/non-certain punishment for breaking that rule)
3.4: God claims to prohibit an action/behavior (or, alternatively, humans claim that God has prohibited it), but absolutely no punishment is given for breaking that rule, yet somehow it is expected that humans follow that rule, or that they enforce that rule on other humans by prohibiting them from doing such action. It is probable that a lesser god who is unable to enforce its own rules may tend towards this kind of pattern (e.g. Yahweh and Allah claim to prohibit homosexuality, however, as seen in non-Islamic western countries, there is absolutely no punishment from the gods for breaking that "rule", and in Islamic countries, the punishment is always carried out by humans, not by Allah nor any other god. Furthermore it seems like the quality of life in such countries that allow homosexuality is generally better than that of those which don't allow it)
4. Monotheistic society. God is the giver of morality, and it mandates action/behavior X.
4.x (same pattern as 3.x)
5: There used to be a divine morality (i.e. given by God), but God had destroyed it sometime in the distant past, and therefore there is currently no divine morality.
6: There used to be a divine morality (i.e. given by God), but God had destroyed it sometime in the distant past, and then God killed itself, so there is currently no divine morality and no God.
7: There is currently no divine morality, but God will give it sometime in the future, when humans will be advanced enough to understand it.
8: There is a divine morality but God has given it to very few, extremely religious people, and the divine morality must be kept secret from the other people. Following the divine morality will lead to great benefits that are not given to the vast majority of people on Earth.
9: There is currently no divine morality and no God, but God will start existing at some point in the future, and may or may not give a divine morality.
10: God had existed at some time in the past, but now does not exist anymore, but will exist again sometime in the future, and may or may not give a divine morality.
11: It is known that there is a divine morality, but the content of it is unknown.
12: It is unknown whether or not there is a divine morality.
13: It is known that there is no divine morality.
14: There is one God, and there is a plural finite integer number of moralities (plurimoral God)
14.n2: There is one God, and there are two divine moralities (bimoral God)
14.n3: There is one God, and there are three divine moralities (trimoral God)
14.n4: There is one God, and there are four divine moralities (quadrimoral God)
14.n5: There is one God, and there are five divine moralities (pentamoral God)
14.n6: There is one God, and there are six divine moralities (hexamoral God)
14.netc: etc.
14.1: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, no negative consequences will happen in any case.
14.2: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, some are free from negative consequences, the other ones have negative consequences (but perhaps the ones which have negative consequences are more appealing, so it is a question of whether the negative consequences are worth the price for that "better" morality)
14.3: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, none of them is free from negative consequences, but the nature of those negative consequences is different, so it's a matter of choice and proper evaluation.
14.4: Humans are not free to choose which one to follow.
14.4.1: A group of people must follow one set of rules, and another group must follow the other.
14.4.1.1: Elites must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people of lower social classes must follow the other.
14.4.1.2: People who have participated in some specific ritual (for example, paying a huge amount of taxes), must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people who did not participate in that ritual must follow the other.
14.4.2: The set of rules to follow varies according to the time (e.g. moon phase, season, year etc), not according to the groups of people.
14.5: Some moralities are less stringent than the others (which contain more obligations and more prohibitions)
14.6: No morality is "more" or "less" stringent, just different.
14.6.1: Following the more stringent moralities may be appealing despite the personal sacrifices because of certain benefit that deity will give to the follower.
14.7: The many moralities contradict each other, it is impossible to FULLY follow all of them simultaneously (though one can of course take bits and pieces of multiple moralities and follow a partial mix of them, the real question is whether one is allowed to do so).
14.7.1: Nobody is allowed to mix the many moralities, one must choose one. God gives a plurality of moralities, but mixing them is not permitted.
14.7.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities as they see fit.
14.7.2.1: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities, but not in ANY way. There are specific rules in WHICH patterns of mixing are allowed and which are not.
14.7.2.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities in any way they wish.
14.7.2: Only the higher classes have the privilege of being allowed to mix the many moralities.
14.7.3: Only the lower classes are allowed to mix the many moralities, with the idea that the lower classes, being inferior, are not expected to follow divine purity, while the higher classes are expected to.
14.7.4: The many moralities can be mixed in some circumstances (e.g. full moon, or depending on the season etc)
14.8: The many moralities do not contradict each other, some may simply be more stringent and some less stringent. In this scenario, it's possible to follow all moralities simultaneously, in that case one would simply be following the most stringent morality.
14.9: The many moralities do not contradict each other, but none of them is "more" nor "less" stringent than the others. It is possible to follow all moralities simultaneously, in that case, the obligations/prohibitions of all moralities are followed, resulting in an extremely authoritarian/restrictive morality that is a blend of the many moralities.
14.10: Among the many moralities of God, only one is the "true" one which must be followed, and it's up to humans to find out which moralities is the true one. How?
14.10.1: The King decides which morality is to be followed.
14.10.1.1: The mere decision of the King means that is the morality that is to be followed, i.e. that morality must be followed (and is the true one) because the King decided so.
14.10.1.2: The decision of the King means that is the morality that is to be followed, i.e. it is assumed that the King has some personal gnosis with God and is able to discern which of the many moralities of God is the true one.

Possible reactions of society:

1: Society obeys
1.1: Society obeys because that's what God commanded
1.1.1: Society obeys because that's what God commanded, and what God commands is always good, by definition
1.1.2: Society obeys because that's what God commanded, and what God commands is not necessarily always good, but it needs to be followed because otherwise there will be punishment
1.2: Society obeys, but not because that's what God commanded, but because they genuinely believe God's idea was good.
2: Society disobeys
2.1: Society disobeys, merely for the sake of disobeying God, not necessarily because they found God's idea to be bad
2.1.1: It is believed that disobeying the one monotheistic God for its own sake is good, because it gives humans independence from God, and freedom to make their own decisions
2.1.1.1: It is believed that there is no actual punishment for disobeying God, and that it was just a lie made by previous rulers, and/or by God itself.
2.1.1.2: It is believed that there is indeed a punishment for disobeying God, but that the punishment is worth the freedom that comes after rebelling against God, like some kind of sacrifice for a higher purpose.
2.2: Society disobeys, not for the sake of disobeying God, but because they genuinely found God's idea to be bad

Epistemology (how they know something is God's command):

1: The King (or Queen, but I'll imply male gender merely to save space) says something is God's command, and that's enough information.
1.1: It is implied that the King himself is in direct knowledge of God's will.
1.2: It is implied that the King himself is not in direct knowledge of God's will, but a very powerful and trusted shaman communicated his knowledge to the King, and then the King spreads that information to his kingdom.
2: The most powerful (singular) shaman in the society is the one who has direct knowledge of God's will, and therefore (s)he is the one who should be listened to.
2.1: The most powerful shaman is the one who conveys the information directly to the public.
2.2: The most powerful shaman conveys the information to the King, who then conveys the information to the public.
3: Democratic vote (Vox Populi, Vox Dei = The voice of the people is the voice of God i.e. implying that whatever "the people" vote for, is what God wills)
3.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
3.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
3.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
3.4: Females cannot vote
3.5: Males cannot vote
3.6: Young people cannot vote
3.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
3.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
3.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
3.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
3.11: Only shamans can vote
3.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
3.13: Only young people can vote
3.14: The voice of the people is the voice of God, because God's will is the same as the people's will (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
3.14.1: God's will is the same as people's will in a qualitative sense, i.e. they are two separate wills, but identical in content.
3.14.2: God's will is the same as people's will in an ontological sense, i.e. they are the same will, not just in content but also in identity.
3.15: The voice of the people is the voice of God, because "God" (and not merely its will) are actually the people, they are in fact ontologically equivalent (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
4: The King IS God
4.1: The King is entirely equivalent to God
4.2: The King is God only during his (entire) life. The Prince is also God. It can be said that the King, and whoever will become King, is God.
4.3: The King is God only during his ruling period (i.e. the King is God when and only when he is a King). The Prince will become God as soon as he becomes a King.
4.4: The King is not entirely equivalent to God, but he has a God-like essence, or is a direct manifestation of God (though not the "true form" of God, which remains transcendental/abstract).
5: The Shaman IS God
5.x: (more or less follows the same pattern as 4.x)
6: Horrible things start happening to whoever disobeyed God
6.1: There is a spectum between what may be considered "reasonable causal attribution" and "superstition" (i.e. unreasonable causal attribution). For example, if God prohibits touching fire with one's bare hands, and the punishment is immediate extreme pain, one may consider that "reasonable causal attribution", while thinking that if one doesn't practice human sacrifice then God will bring plagues may be considered a "superstition". However, it may often be the case that a belief is neither purely "reasonable causal attribution" nor purely "superstition", but somewhere in-between. Arguably, contemporary mainstream media coverage of "climate change" may fall in-between the two, for example.
7: Horrible things start happening (to the entire community) whenever God is disobeyed:
7.1: When God is disobeyed by even just one person
7.2: When God is disobeyed by a considerable amount of people, though not necessarily the majority
7.3: When God is disobeyed by the majority of that community
== (6 and 7 can be mixed with each other, for example it is possible that as long as God is disobeyed by the minority, only those who disobeyed suffer the punishment, but if the majority disobeys God, then the entire community will suffer the punishment, even those who did not disobey) ==

Epistemology (how they know whether a shaman is actually in contact with God, and/or whether that shaman is lying or telling the truth)

1: Whatever the King decides, it shall be believed and accepted.
1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
2: Democratic vote
2.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
2.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
2.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
2.4: Females cannot vote
2.5: Males cannot vote
2.6: Young people cannot vote
2.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
2.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
2.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
2.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
2.11: Only shamans can vote
2.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
2.13: Only young people can vote
3: The Shaman IS God
4: The various competing shamans try to prove to the population that they are truly in contact with God. How?
4.1: The various shamans fight to their deaths, using swords or whatever. The last shaman alive is the one who is truly in contact with God.

-Duotheist society:

Types of Duotheism:

1: Good/evil Duotheism
2: Male/female Duotheism
3: Strong/weak Duotheism
4: Creation/destruction Duotheism
5: Polarity Duotheism
6: Other types of Duotheism

Morality:

1: None of the two gods are givers of morality.
2: One of the two gods is a giver of morality, while the other one is not.
3: Both gods are givers of morality: the same morality.
4: Both gods are givers of morality: two different moralities.
4.1: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, no negative consequences will happen in either case.
4.2: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, one is free from negative consequences, the other one has negative consequences (but perhaps the one which has negative consequences is more appealing, so it is a question of whether the negative consequences are worth the price for that "better" morality)
4.3: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, neither is free from negative consequences, but the nature of those negative consequences is different, so it's a matter of choice and proper evaluation.
4.4: Humans are not free to choose which one to follow.
4.4.1: A group of people must follow one set of rules, and another group must follow the other.
4.4.1.1: Elites must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people of lower social classes must follow the other.
4.4.1.2: People who have participated in some specific ritual (for example, paying a huge amount of taxes), must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people who did not participate in that ritual must follow the other.
4.4.2: The set of rules to follow varies according to the time (e.g. moon phase, season, year etc), not according to the groups of people.
4.5: One morality is less stringent than the other (which contains more obligations and more prohibitions)
4.6: Neither morality is "more" or "less" stringent, just different.
4.6.1: Following the more stringent morality may be appealing despite the personal sacrifices because of certain benefit that deity will give to the follower.
4.7: The two moralities contradict each other, it is impossible to FULLY follow both (though one can of course take bits and pieces of both and follow a partial mix of both, the real question is whether one is allowed to do so).
4.7.1: Nobody is allowed to mix the two moralities, it is either one or the other. Both gods are jealous and do not permit such mixing.
4.7.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities as they see fit.
4.7.2.1: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities, but not in ANY way. There are specific rules in WHICH patterns of mixing are allowed and which are not.
4.7.2.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities in any way they wish.
4.7.2: Only the higher classes have the privilege of being allowed to mix the two moralities.
4.7.3: Only the lower classes are allowed to mix the two moralities, with the idea that the lower classes, being inferior, are not expected to follow divine purity, while the higher classes are expected to.
4.7.4: The two moralities can be mixed in some circumstances (e.g. full moon, or depending on the season etc)
4.8: The two moralities do not contradict each other, one may simply be more stringent and one less stringent. In this scenario, it's possible to follow both moralities simultaneously, in that case one would simply be following the more stringent morality.
4.9: The two moralities do not contradict each other, but neither is "more" nor "less" stringent than the others. It is possible to follow both moralities, in that case, the obligations/prohibitions of both are followed, resulting in a more authoritarian/restrictive morality that is a blend of the two moralities.
5: One god is amoral, and the other god is a bimoral god (giver of two moralities)
5.x: (largely similar to 4.x)
6: The total amount of moralities is three or more, despite there only being two gods.
6.x: (somewhat similar to 4.x and 5.x)

Reactions of society:

1: Both gods are amoral. Societal morality arises for cultural reasons.
2: One god is the giver of (one) morality and the other god is amoral.
2.1: The population obeys to that moral-giver god.
2.1.1: The population obeys to that god not merely for the sake of following that god's morality, but because they genuinely agree with the morality of that god.
2.1.2: The population obeys to that god not because they genuinely agree with the morality of that god, but merely for the sake of following that god's morality.
2.1.2.1: They follow that god merely for the sake of following that god, because they genuinely believe that god is the giver of the best possible moral system for humans, and they believe that god knows more than them, so, even if that god's morality may appear undesirable to society, it's actually good to follow it.
2.1.2.2: They follow that god merely for the sake of following that god, because they are afraid of divine punishment in the case they fail to adhere to that god's moral standards.
2.2: The population disobeys to that moral-giver god.
2.2.1: The population disobeys to that moral-giver god not merely for the sake of rebellion, but because they genuinely disagree with the morality of that god.
2.2.2: The population disobeys to that god not because they genuinely disagree with the morality of that god, but merely for the sake of rebellion.
2.2.2.1: The population believes that to rebel against a god's morality is good regardless of the content of that morality. Rebelling against a god is a symbolic act of freedom.
2.2.2.2: The population believes that to rebel against a god's morality is good unless the content of that morality is good. Of course, if the content of a god's morality is good, the population believes that they'd follow it despite (not because) its divine origins. They'd follow it without mentioning its divine origins, because rebellion against the gods is very important for such culture.
3: Both gods are moral-givers. There are two different moralities in total.
3.1: Through some kind of method, the King (and/or society) estabilishes which god to follow, and that decision is valid for the entire society.
3.1.1: The decision to follow that god's morality is based on the fact that morality is the best out of the two moralities.
3.1.2: The decision to follow that god's morality is based on the fact that god is for some reason considered "better" in some way than the other god, regardless of how good that god's morality is. Or, in the case of good/evil duotheism, they follow the morality of the good god and discard the morality of the evil god.
3.2: Both moralities are rejected.
3.2.1: Both moralities are rejected not merely for the sake of rebellion against the gods, but because they genuinely disagree with the two divine moralities. Society creates their own morality to follow, one that is different from either of the two divine moralities.
3.2.2: Both moralities are rejected not because the population genuinely disagrees with the two divine laws, but merely for the sake of rebellion against the gods. 3.3: Both moralities are accepted, but for different people and/or at different times.
3.3.1: There are two groups of people, and the two groups of people each follow a different morality.
3.3.1.1: One morality for men, the other for women.
3.3.1.2: One morality for the higher classes, the other for the lower classes.
3.3.1.3: One morality for the King, the other for the population.
3.3.1.4: One morality (perhaps more pleasant, less stringent than the other) is given by the King as a reward for people who have done something really beneficial for the King and/or for society, and those people are said to be blessed and/or chosen by the god that is the giver of that morality (granted to those people by that god through the King).
3.3.2: One morality is for certain time periods, the other morality is for other time periods.
3.3.2.1: One morality is for the years holy to one god, the other morality is for the years holy to the other god.
3.3.2.2: One morality is for the times of peace, stability and prosperity, the other morality is for the times of war, pandemics, unrest, poverty and/or disasters in general.

Epistemology (how they know something is a divine command):

In the case of no divine morality:

1: Nothing. There is no divine morality, and as non-existent, it cannot be known.
2: It is known that there is no divine morality.
3: It is not known whether there is a divine morality (but in truth, there is none).

In the case of existing divine morality (unless otherwise noted):

1: The King (or Queen, but I'll say King to save space) declares that something is divinely commanded/allowed/prohibited/etc
1.1: It is implied that the King himself is in direct knowledge of divine morality.
1.2: It is implied that the King himself is not in direct knowledge of the divine will, but a very powerful and trusted shaman communicated his knowledge to the King, and then the King spreads that information to his kingdom.
1.3: It is implied that, due to some sort of divine contract between the King and a god (or both gods) (perhaps it could also be that the King is in part divine or is some sort of emanation of the divine), whatever the King declares to be divinely commanded/allowed/prohibited/etc it is automatically the truth.
2: The most powerful (singular) shaman in the society is the one who has direct knowledge of the divine will, and therefore (s)he is the one who should be listened to. 2.1: The shaman is only in contact with one god
2.1.1: The god the shaman is in contact with prescribes no morality, and it is unknown whether the other god prescribes one.
2.1.1.1: The most powerful shaman is the one who conveys the information directly to the public.
2.1.1.2: The most powerful shaman conveys the information to the King, who then conveys the information to the public.
2.1.2: The god the shaman is in contact does prescribe a morality, but it is unknown whether the other god prescribes an alternative one.
2.2: The shaman is in contact with both gods
2.2.1: Of the two gods, one is known to prescribe a specific morality, and the other is known to NOT prescribe any kind of morality whatsoever.
2.2.2: Of the two gods, one is known to prescribe a specific morality, and it is not known whether the other god prescribes any kind of morality.
2.2.3: Of the two gods, it is known that neither prescribe any morality.
2.2.4: Of the two gods, it is known that both prescribe a (different) form of morality.
Which of the two gods' morality to follow?
2.2.4.1: It is not knowable which of the two moralities one has to follow. Confusion and uncertainty arises.
2.2.4.2: It is knowable which of the two moralities one has to follow. How?
2.2.4.2.1: It is simply known by the shaman, no method specified.
2.2.4.2.2: One can simply choose which morality to follow. Freely?
2.2.4.2.2.1: Yes, freely.
2.2.4.2.2.2: No, there is a 'default' (perhaps more stringent) morality that one must follow, and the morality of the other god can be chosen only if one satisfy certain requisites.
What requisites?
2.2.4.2.2.2.1: Paying the shaman will allow one to be able to choose the morality of the other god (perhaps a less stringent one, so paying the shaman is appealing in that case).
2.2.4.2.2.2.2: One must belong (or be born in) to a particular caste or social class in order to be able to follow the morality of the other god.
2.2.4.2.3: The morality of the god one must follow depends not on the person, but on the time, so it may vary according to the season, year, moon phase etc
2.2.4.2.4: Divination method to gain the knowledge of which morality to follow.
2.2.5: Of the two gods, it is not known whether any of them prescribe any form of morality.
2.2.6: There is a total of more than two moralities, either because one god prescribes two separate sets of moralities, or because the two gods' are not in conflict with each other but share the multiplicity of moralities with each other. How does one know which morality to follow?
2.2.6.x: (same pattern as 2.2.4.x)
3: Democratic vote (Vox Populi, Vox Dei/Deorum) = The voice of the people is the voice of the moral-giver god(s).
3.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
3.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
3.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
3.4: Females cannot vote
3.5: Males cannot vote
3.6: Young people cannot vote
3.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
3.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
3.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
3.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
3.11: Only shamans can vote
3.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
3.13: Only young people can vote
3.14: The voice of the people is the voice of the moral-giver god(s), because that/those god(s) will is the same as the people's will (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
3.14.1: The divine will is the same as people's will in a qualitative sense, i.e. they are two separate wills, but identical in content.
3.14.2: The divine will is the same as people's will in an ontological sense, i.e. they are the same will, not just in content but also in identity.
3.15: The voice of the people is the divine will, because "the divine (the two gods)" (and not merely its will) is actually the people, they are in fact ontologically equivalent (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
4: The King IS the moral-giver god.
4.1: The King is entirely equivalent to the moral-giver god.
4.2: The King is the moral-giver God only during his (entire) life. The Prince is also the moral-giver God. It can be said that the King, and whoever will become King, is the moral-giver God.
4.3: The King is the moral-giver God only during his ruling period (i.e. the King is that God when and only when he is a King). The Prince will become the moral-giver God as soon as he becomes a King.
4.4: The King is not entirely equivalent to the moral-giver God, but he has a moral God-like essence, or is a direct manifestation of the moral-giver God (though not the "true form" of that God, which remains transcendental/abstract).
5: The Shaman IS the moral-giver God
5.x: (more or less follows the same pattern as 4.x)
6: Horrible things start happening to whoever disobeyed the moral-giver God
6.1: There is a spectum between what may be considered "reasonable causal attribution" and "superstition" (i.e. unreasonable causal attribution). For example, if the moral-giver God prohibits touching fire with one's bare hands, and the punishment is immediate extreme pain, one may consider that "reasonable causal attribution", while thinking that if one doesn't practice human sacrifice then the moral-giver God will bring plagues may be considered a "superstition". However, it may often be the case that a belief is neither purely "reasonable causal attribution" nor purely "superstition", but somewhere in-between. Arguably, contemporary mainstream media coverage of "climate change" may fall in-between the two, for example.
7: Horrible things start happening (to the entire community) whenever the moral-giver God is disobeyed:
7.1: When that God is disobeyed by even just one person
7.2: When that God is disobeyed by a considerable amount of people, though not necessarily the majority
7.3: When that God is disobeyed by the majority of that community
== (6 and 7 can be mixed with each other, for example it is possible that as long as the moral-giver God is disobeyed by the minority, only those who disobeyed suffer the punishment, but if the majority disobeys that God, then the entire community will suffer the punishment, even those who did not disobey) ==

Epistemology (how they know whether a shaman is actually in contact with the moral-giver God, and/or whether that shaman is lying or telling the truth, and/or whether it is known whether there's only one moral-giver god, or whether both gods are moral givers and the shaman is only in contact with one of them etc. lots of possibilities will be explored)

1: Whatever the King decides, it shall be believed and accepted.
1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
2: Democratic vote
2.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
2.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
2.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
2.4: Females cannot vote
2.5: Males cannot vote
2.6: Young people cannot vote
2.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
2.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
2.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
2.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
2.11: Only shamans can vote
2.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
2.13: Only young people can vote
3: The Shaman IS the moral-giver God.
4: The various competing shamans try to prove to the population that they are truly in contact with the moral-giver God. How?
4.1: The various shamans fight to their deaths, using swords or whatever. The last shaman alive is the one who is truly in contact with the moral-giver God. 4.2: The various shamans participate in an olympic tournament. No death needed.
5: There is more than one moral-giver god (since duotheism is presupposed, both gods are givers of morality).
5.1: Whatever the King says about both gods' moralities, it shall be believed and accepted.
5.1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
5.1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
5.1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
5.1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
5.1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
5.1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
5.2: Democratic vote.
5.2.A1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
5.2.A2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
5.2.A3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
5.2.A4: Females cannot vote
5.2.A5: Males cannot vote
5.2.A6: Young people cannot vote
5.2.A7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
5.2.A8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
5.2.A9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
5.2.A10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
5.2.A11: Only shamans can vote
5.2.A12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
5.2.A13: Only young people can vote
5.2.B1: People in general can vote for both moralities.
5.2.B2: Only the people who worship a particular god can vote for its/his/her morality.
5.2.B2.1: People can only worship one god.
5.2.B2.2: People can worship both gods at the same time.
5.2.B2.3: There are requirements in order to be allowed to worship a god. For example, one god may have a more permissive (therefore more appealing to many) morality, but in order to worship that god, there may be some requirements, like paying an additional tax, doing some favor to the rulers of the land etc.
5.3: The Shaman is one of the gods (the physical one), and the other god is transcendent/metaphysical.
5.4: The Shaman is both gods at the same time.
5.5: The various competing shamans try to prove that they are the physical god (there can be only one physical god as the other is necessarily metaphysical).
5.6: The various competing shamans try to prove that they are a god (there can be two physical gods in this perspective, so two shamans can be gods at most).
5.B1: The competition is fighting with their swords until death.
5.B2: The competition is an olympics event, no death involved.

Polytheist society:

Coming eventually, MAYBE. Duotheism is already very complex, polytheism will surely be a mathematical clusterfuck. I'll work on different text files.