foreshadowing: Durkon's opposite

[silas the monk]

Okay we know Belkar was wrong about his evil opposite, but could he be right about Durkon's? "Clean-shaven agnostic half-giant". What would agnostic mean in this world where divine magic is everywhere? And what about atheist?

[Geech]

Okay we know Belkar was wrong about his evil opposite, but could he be right about Durkon's? "Clean-shaven agnostic half-giant". What would agnostic mean in this world where divine magic is everywhere? And what about atheist?

Since the influence of Gods is repeatably and reliably demonstrable in the OOTS world, only a delusional person could be an atheist. So the terms would basically mean "delusional person".

[zimmerwald1915]

Since the influence of Gods is repeatably and reliably demonstrable in the OOTS world, only a delusional person could be an atheist. So the terms would basically mean "delusional person".
Eh, it could mean someone who has consciously rejected the gods, their teachings, and the mortals who preach them, rather than denying their existence.

[Geech]

Eh, it could mean someone who has consciously rejected the gods, their teachings, and the mortals who preach them, rather than denying their existence.

I suppose that's true if you don't include belief in gods as a component of the terms atheism or agnosticism in OOTS land. That's pretty good point, actually.

[sims796]

I suppose that's true if you don't include belief in gods as a component of the terms atheism or agnosticism in OOTS land. That's pretty good point, actually.

It is a good point, but if we take what Belkar said in this recent comic about what Durkon's opposite may be (807 as of this post) then the most you can be in the OOtS universe is agnostic.

That is, of course, if we take what he said literally (he was mubling to himself at the time), and even then, that's only if we take that as a clue.

[NerfTW]

Since the influence of Gods is repeatably and reliably demonstrable in the OOTS world, only a delusional person could be an atheist. So the terms would basically mean "delusional person".

He said AGNOSTIC. Not athiest. Those are two completely different terms.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't care one way or the other. Belkar is using it here to mean someone who simply doesn't care about religion, as in the opposite of a cleric.

[Tass]

Eh, it could mean someone who has consciously rejected the gods, their teachings, and the mortals who preach them, rather than denying their existence.

Then he would not be an atheist. At least not in the usual meaning of the word.

Of course it may mean something else in ootsworld.


He said AGNOSTIC. Not athiest. Those are two completely different terms.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't care one way or the other. Belkar is using it here to mean someone who simply doesn't care about religion, as in the opposite of a cleric.

An agnostic is not someone who doesn't care, but someone who doesn't claim to know, or who claims that absolute knowledge is impossible.

[Ladorak]

Then he would not be an atheist. At least not in the usual meaning of the word.

Of course it may mean something else in ootsworld.

This is someone trying very hard not to get the point. Being an atheist in D&D is like someone in the real world refusing to believe in cars and telephones. You would call this person crazy, because the evidence is everywhere. Therefore it would have to have a different meaning, not unlike the way in which D&D deities differ from our 21st century deities (Such as Simon Cowell)

[Manga Maniac]

Athiest is used in the sense that "believes that the God are real, but is firmly opposed to their worship" in some fantasy stories, but I reckon that Rich went with "agnostic" to preemptively stop any discussions about the use of the word athiest.

The poor soul.

[silas the monk]

Perhaps an atheist in ootsworld would be someone who wants the snarl to eat the Gods, and an agnostic is someone who does not care.

[Zevox]

Being an atheist or agnostic in the normal sense of the terms in a D&D setting like OotS's would require at least believing in (or accepting as plausible, in an agnostic's case) some conspiracy theory proclaiming divine magic to be no different from (or at least similar to) arcane magic and including explanations for things like the Commune spell. Most likely few who weren't rather thoroughly delusional or badly uneducated would fit.

One or both terms could perhaps be adapted to fit more with people who accept the existence of the gods but elect not to, or outright oppose, worshiping them (we even have an example of the former, Roy), but it would probably be better to have different terms for such people entirely in my opinion, to avoid confusion.

In either event, I doubt Belkar's remark was foreshadowing, just him making a crack about the Linear Guild's "opposites" themes.

Zevox

[NerfTW]

And yet, people keep discussing what "athiest" would mean in the OOTs World, despite the fact that it hasn't been used in the strip.

The word used is "agnostic", which has a different definition than athiest. Any posts pontificating on the meaning of Belkar's "athiest" comment are literally making up something that isn't in the comic to discuss.

[Ravens_cry]

Didn't we already meet Durkons opposite? Some dwarven priestess of Loki?
As I remember, they proved an old adage: Opposites attract (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0079.html).
I could see her coming back, but I don't see it being anyone new.

[Gift Jeraff]

It could be that Belkar isn't using agnostic in the sense most of us use it (That is, "you're either theist, atheist, or agnostic"), but rather in the sense that you're either gnostic (claims to have knowledge of) or agnostic (does not claim to have knowledge of). Thus, since Durkon is clearly gnostic, an agnostic would be an opposite.

But I don't think Belkar's comment was foreshadowing anything. I wouldn't be surprised if Durkon has no opposite this time around, but time will tell.

[Gnome Alone]

Leaving aside the admitted silliness in not believing in the D&D gods when they can't stop blatantly, obviously interfering with everything, "agnostic" is truer to the opposite of "religious" than "atheist" in that both religiosity and atheism are convictions of belief one way or the other, whereas agnosticism makes no such leap of faith.

To quote Life of Pi off the top of my head (so possibly missing a word or something), as the religious dude narrator says, "Atheists are my brothers of a different faith. They go as far as reason takes them and then they leap."

[Dr.Epic]

Okay we know Belkar was wrong about his evil opposite, but could he be right about Durkon's? "Clean-shaven agnostic half-giant". What would agnostic mean in this world where divine magic is everywhere? And what about atheist?

Unlikely. I don't see how a half-giant is an evil opposite of Durkon in the usual sense. All the evil opposites have been close to the same size. That, and I don't see Belkar being right.


Since the influence of Gods is repeatably and reliably demonstrable in the OOTS world, only a delusional person could be an atheist. So the terms would basically mean "delusional person".

Meh, sometimes this sort of thing happens. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlatEarthAtheist)

[silas the monk]

And yet, people keep discussing what "athiest" would mean in the OOTs World, despite the fact that it hasn't been used in the strip.

The word used is "agnostic", which has a different definition than athiest. Any posts pontificating on the meaning of Belkar's "athiest" comment are literally making up something that isn't in the comic to discuss.

Actually you didn't read the original post. I introduced the word "atheist" and I did not claim it was used in the strip. I asked, given that "agnostic" has been used, what both words would mean in ootsworld.

[Ravens_cry]

Guys, gals, and intersex of all ages, we are getting, super, super close, if not already breaching, the "No discussing real world religious matters." rule.
Also, I think you are all way, way over analysing what is very possibly a one off joke. Is it also foreshadowing? Maybe, The Giant does work in mysterious ways, but remember, as I posted earlier, we have already met Durkons opposite.
They had sex (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Beats_Pay-Per-View).

[Gift Jeraff]

Yes, but she's been replaced before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html), so why not again?

Though the commentary for books 1 and 3 leads me to believe Hilgya will return eventually, now doesn't feel like the time, in my opinion. Especially since Zz'dtri already returned.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but she's been replaced before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html), so why not again?

Though the commentary for books 1 and 3 leads me to believe Hilgya will return eventually, now doesn't feel like the time, in my opinion. Especially since Zz'dtri already returned.
No, not yet, but I do see her coming back eventually as well. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is a very, very old trope, and she seems like the type, considering she worships a god of fire, to burn hot with revenge.

[King of Nowhere]

There is another way to be agnostic or ateist in a D&D world: ok, the gods exist, but they can ascend and die and are far from perfect. So, maybe they are just some extremely high level guys, nothing holy about them.

[treyh37]

I'm hoping his opposite is a psionic, or someone who fights against the evils of alcohol

[Ravens_cry]

There is another way to be agnostic or ateist in a D&D world: ok, the gods exist, but they can ascend and die and are far from perfect. So, maybe they are just some extremely high level guys, nothing holy about them.
In short, denying the gods are gods and/or are worthy of worship. That's how a character I made played it.

[Blisstake]

Guys, gals, and intersex of all ages, we are getting, super, super close, if not already breaching, the "No discussing real world religious matters." rule.
Also, I think you are all way, way over analysing what is very possibly a one off joke. Is it also foreshadowing? Maybe, The Giant does work in mysterious ways, but remember, as I posted earlier, we have already met Durkons opposite.
They had sex (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Beats_Pay-Per-View).

There's a good chance that's being saved for the next arc (isn't the last gate near the dwarven lands?) That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it were Hilgya, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Raistlin82]

zimmerwald1915 is correct. An agnostic in the OotS world would be this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist).

Anyway, strange as it sounds, I'm starting to think they didn't bring an opposite for Durkon. Sabine says they can't face Durkon and Elan "without a spellcaster".
Unless she meant that they do have spellcasters (Z, of course, and Durkon's opposite), but they're positioned somewhere else in the city at the moment. That would make sense, too.


Maybe, The Giant does work in mysterious ways, but remember, as I posted earlier, we have already met Durkons opposite.
They had sex (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Beats_Pay-Per-View).
This again? :smallsigh:
Yes, and we've already met his second opposite, not to mention three of Belkar's opposites, and two of V's.

Zz'dtri NEVER STOPPED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html) working for Nale.
Leeky Windstaff and Pompey DID STOP (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) working for Nale.
Hilgya Firehelm? She NEVER STARTED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html).

[Dr.Epic]

Zz'dtri NEVER STOPPED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html) working for Nale.
Leeky Windstaff and Pompey DID STOP (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) working for Nale.
Hilgya Firehelm? She NEVER STARTED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html).

Well, if she never started, she couldn't have quit could she?:smallwink:

[KillingAScarab]

Zz'dtri NEVER STOPPED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0789.html) working for Nale.
Leeky Windstaff and Pompey DID STOP (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html) working for Nale.
Hilgya Firehelm? She NEVER STARTED (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0074.html).She could have started once she showed a strong enough desire to take disproportionate revenge over quasi-imagined slights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html). I think Durkon's rejection (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html) would count and I doubt Loki would have a problem with her attempting to kill a cleric of Thor.

However, I also suspect Malack, though currently there is not good evidence to support him working with Nale and he has good reasons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) not to do so. It would be a betrayal of both Durkon and Tarquin, though.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Am I the only one who thought of Dorfl the Clay golem in Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay?

Dorfl did not believe in the gods, and demanded proof. The gods responded by striking him with lightning. Dorfl shrugged it off as "Not much of an argument."

I am one of the people who believes Hilgya will be back before the end of the story, pregnant or having given birth to Durkon's child. Or twins, named Death and Destruction. :smallamused:

Anyways, enjoy your debate, but use extreme caution. The gods may ot may not exist, but Roland St. Jude certianly does!

[Tass]

This is someone trying very hard not to get the point. Being an atheist in D&D is like someone in the real world refusing to believe in cars and telephones. You would call this person crazy, because the evidence is everywhere. Therefore it would have to have a different meaning, not unlike the way in which D&D deities differ from our 21st century deities (Such as Simon Cowell)

How am I trying not to get the point? I said it could mean something else in ootsworld did't I? I don't know anything about traditional D&D meaning.

You are right of course that atheists in oots in the usual meaning of the word would be flat earth atheists (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlatEarthAtheist). And using the word in the other way does actually make some sense, looking at the roots of the word.

Using "agnostic" for someone who does not care about worshipping the gods does not make sense, given that it is based on the word for "knowledge".

I initially reacted like I did because it annoys me when people start thinking that is what the words mean in the real world.


Guys, gals, and intersex of all ages, we are getting, super, super close, if not already breaching, the "No discussing real world religious matters." rule.

How is discussing real world semantics against the rules?

Discussing the merits of the particular viewpoints in the real world would be against the rules, not their meanings.

I hardly think it is particularly of topic either, given the OP.

[mrmcfatty]

There is another way to be agnostic or ateist in a D&D world: ok, the gods exist, but they can ascend and die and are far from perfect. So, maybe they are just some extremely high level guys, nothing holy about them.

i think that this would best describe it. the atheist or agnostic would most likely be that guy you argue with whose only point is because you cant prove him wrong you cant prove your right.

Look at how many of the deities in D&D were normal people, who happen to die so powerful they ascended to god-hood.

the way i see that argument going is something like this.

"look there is thor, he is a god" "well how do you know he is a good, how do you know he isn't just a level 90 wizard who is so powerful he learned how to give others spells"

[Roland Itiative]

That's a little off-topic, but I've already seen a reasonable atheist character in a high fantasy RPG setting. The guy didn't deny the existence of the gods, just their refused to treat them any different from any other Outsider. On the matter of Clerics and other divine casters, he just treated them as a delusional bunch of casters. Sure, the setting I'm talking about had some differences that made this view more understandable (divine and arcane magic are very similar, and every powerful enough mortal can attain godhood by gathering enough followers, "cheapening" the term "god"), but I could see something similar working in a D&D setting.

[Kymme]

Ur Priest Epic B:smallwink:attle

[Cornelius Grim]

I do not believe that Belkar is correct.

As Roy said, to be an opposite you have to be similar but wildly different in one or two qualities. An agnostic, clean-shaved half-giant would be diverse in every trait when compared with Durkon.

As for speculation on what his opposite, if any, is... well, I am at a loss for ideas. Possibly Hilgya, but I guess we'll just have to wait for the new comic.

[martianmister]

As Roy said, to be an opposite you have to be similar but wildly different in one or two qualities.

But he's wrong. Thog is his opposite.

[Zevox]

But he's wrong. Thog is his opposite.
And Thog is a frontline fighter type who wields a two-handed weapon in battle, just like Roy. He's an opposite insofar as his mental abilities and status as a flunky to Nale goes, and as far as his class choices go (a more optimized Barbarian X/Fighter 2 vs Roy's pure Fighter). So similar in a few key ways, but opposed in a few other key ways.

Zevox

[theinsulabot]

its kind of funny, belkar actually came within a stone's throw of describing roy there.




and then roy turned out to be a linear guild plant the whole time.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eh, it could mean someone who has consciously rejected the gods, their teachings, and the mortals who preach them, rather than denying their existence.

So an Ur-Priest then?
:smalltongue:

[leakingpen]

Since the influence of Gods is repeatably and reliably demonstrable in the OOTS world, only a delusional person could be an atheist. So the terms would basically mean "delusional person".

how? anything done by the "gods" can be attributed to magic.

[rbetieh]

There is another way to be agnostic or ateist in a D&D world: ok, the gods exist, but they can ascend and die and are far from perfect. So, maybe they are just some extremely high level guys, nothing holy about them.

This is a good shot at the truth here. I would say in a world where gods fight other gods and gods can die, an agnostic probably just figures they aren't REALLY gods, and that there might or might not be a even higher entity out there. Maybe the Durkon opposite is actually an ex-Holey Brotherhood Snarl worshiper. Where there is big god-slaying power, there tends to be at least 1 loon looking to worship it for personal gain.

[NoobForHire]

This is a good shot at the truth here. I would say in a world where gods fight other gods and gods can die, an agnostic probably just figures they aren't REALLY gods, and that there might or might not be a even higher entity out there. Maybe the Durkon opposite is actually an ex-Holey Brotherhood Snarl worshiper. Where there is big god-slaying power, there tends to be at least 1 loon looking to worship it for personal gain.

You forget that only a select few are aware of the Snarl's existence.

[rbetieh]

You forget that only a select few are aware of the Snarl's existence.

That we know of....."Dun Dun Dunnnnnnnn" :smallamused:

What about Zoidberg? I bet he knows about the Snarl, he's a doctor.

[veti]

Am I the only one who thought of Dorfl the Clay golem in Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay?

No, you're not.

But I think this entire thread is missing the point. Belkar isn't "guessing" about what his and Durkon's opposites will be like; he knows his "opposite" will be some variant on the psychotic-kobold theme, he knows a running gag when he sees one. Rather, he's making a barbed joke about the lameness of "opposites" as a theme, by pointing out that Nale's so-called opposites have so much in common with the people they're meant to be opposing.

It's the same joke Sabine and Nale made here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html), but from a different perspective.

[Dr.Epic]

What about Zoidberg? I bet he knows about the Snarl, he's a doctor.

Yeah, in the same sense Dr Pepper is a doctor.

[TinyMushroom]

I'm actually hoping for an orcish cleric of giggles :smallbiggrin:

[rbetieh]

I'm actually hoping for an orcish cleric of giggles :smallbiggrin:

I don't think durkon can eat that many pies

[Porthos]

For all of the people complaining/stating that atheism is impossible in D&D, I will point out that there are canonical atheists in the game. Specifically, the Athar of the Planescape setting.

They don't deny the existance of the beings that claim that they are "gods". That'd be silly (and delusional as more than one poster has said). What they do claim is that those beings either aren't worthy of being worshipped as gods, or are "just" really really really powerful people/beings/whatever that have no more claim to Godhood than an Epic Level Mage. Or both.

Now some (though admittedly not all) Athar do claim there is some sort of "god" out there, far beyond anything reachable by any known ways. But it is so unreachable and unknowable (the Great Cosmic Tapioca Pudding Unknown) it might as well be said that there are no gods.

So, no, it is not impossible to be an Athiest in D&D. I ought to know, as I've played a couple.

Fun times. :smallwink: