Another argument for atheism in D&D [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

SangoProduction

2016-04-11, 11:16 PM

EDIT: Yeah, didn't point it out, but it came up. This wasn't a "Everyone should be atheist", but a counter argument against "nobody could be atheist". The following are my logical arguments, and reason 5 is just saying Flat-Earthers and Creationists are a thing. You don't even need logic to (dis)believe in something.
EDIT 2: And yeah. I'm saying "atheist" as in "doesn't believe in a god" / "doesn't worship a god", not as "hates anyone who associates with gods / religion / whatever".

I decided against derailing the base forum that this came from, so here I am.

Now see, I've always wondered how you can have a genuine atheist in a DnD world when you have clerics performing miracles, and demons and godly avatars running around all over the place. Especially in Forgotten Realms. I thought everyone had to be attached to a deity in some way or another. Sure, I can see someone being an agnostic- "those so-called gods are just another super powered immortal"- but not outright deny they exist.

There are multiple reasons to say "gods don't exist", and you mentioned one of them

1 - Definition. Deity really has no solid definition in our world, and even in D&D, it's simply anything with a divinity rating or whatever, which I know of nothing that can detect said rating.
So, someone comes up with some definition, and says the gods don't fit that definition. They don't believe they are gods, thus they don't believe in gods. There was some famous philosopher...started with an "A" I forget the full name though... who renounced the Roman/Greek gods because their definition of "god" did not include anything that portrayed petty wrath nor envy. Ironically, I think this guy was Christian, but don't quote me on that.
This would allow them to even know that a creature that's referred to as a god definitively exists, and still reject that gods exist.

2 - Not seeing them for themselves. Unless you're running a Frat-party or higher level of deity interaction (the level that generally describes Greco-Roman mythology), the vast majority never see gods directly.
(And hell, even in those frat-party settings, the deities seem to frequent places, so it's still possible the majority never see the gods simply because they don't visit.)

3 - Deities can grant powers to believers who can channel magic. Wizards can also grant powers to anyone who knows how to read their spells and channel magic.
A deity's clerics can heal...so can a bard who worships peacocks....and a cleric who does nothing but praise the sun and spread happiness, or one that is so self-conceited that his own belief in his power is granting him power.
Deities might have a greater strength, but they are by no means unique. And their most commonly seen actors - the clerics, are even less unique. So a cleric having magic powers is no great reason to believe in deities.

4 - Who is dictating what is "divine" and "arcane" magic? They both are affected by the same effects pretty much, with notable exceptions which I've not once seen come up in 15 years of gaming.
And with that said, even if you can point out differences through those exceptions...druids get divine magic, and don't have to worship deities, nor even Clerics for that matter, in 3.5, nor do Archivists if I remember correctly.
So this isn't an argument for deities' existence.

5 - Simply being willfully ignorant. People believe the Earth is flat when they can literally prove that it's round in their backyard if they wanted to. People will also hold on to their beliefs despite being (sometimes literally) slapped in the face with evidence. There's also people who just don't give a rat's patoot, but they don't deserve their own tick mark.
I imagine a similar number of people would just deny gods exist just 'cuz.

6 - The reason for belief in the first place. Religion started in our world because how else were you going to explain lightning? In this world, you've got wizards who cast lightning. Well, there's your superstitious explanation. It's some wizard. Or perhaps it's a god. Who knows. Both are equally likely, given no other information, but in many campaigns it's more likely to see a wizard than a god if you aren't a main character.

Psyren

2016-04-11, 11:28 PM

SangoProduction

2016-04-11, 11:30 PM

This kind of thing depends heavily on setting. Yes, you can be atheist in FR and believe that the gods are not worthy of worship, and nothing will stop you - but in the end, having no patron backing you up doesn't work out too well for you either.

Whereas in Eberron, it works more like this:

https://i.imgflip.com/12cxkh.jpg

lol. exactly. However, without resurrection magic, one could never know until it's too late, as there's not really any compelling argument besides "if you don't worship something, you will have x horrible thing happen".
Thankfully there is resurrection magic. I wonder how many people could afford it to see for themselves.

Unless one comes down in person. Then that could be a reason to believe.

Unless it's a polymorph or an illusion. In fact illusions in general are complete mind ****s. And those semi-real illusions...well damn.

We need true seeing at the moment of seeing the deity then. That should prove it.

Snowbluff

2016-04-11, 11:41 PM

Eloel

2016-04-11, 11:51 PM

Ur-Priest? Maybe Binder? They are, pretty much by nature, godless.

Illven

2016-04-11, 11:54 PM

This kind of thing depends heavily on setting. Yes, you can be atheist in FR and believe that the gods are not worthy of worship, and nothing will stop you - but in the end, having no patron backing you up doesn't work out too well for you either.

To be fair, just because it's not smart, doesn't mean it's not right. With the exception of one deity each, in FR and DL. I would say any sort of spell-binder crossover. I wouldn't allow good aligned or even neutral aligned clerics of their gods.

LudicSavant

2016-04-11, 11:55 PM

The first thing that I think a lot of people overlook is that believing that a being exists is not sufficient to disqualify you from being an atheist. For example, a real world man can believe that pharaohs exists and that pharaohs are very powerful beings known as gods, and still count as an atheist just because they don't think that the pharaoh is a god. That's not alatrism or misotheism or anything like that; the average atheist actually believes that pharaohs existed.

So, in order to stop being an atheist with respect to, say, Corellon Larethian, two hurdles must be overcome. First, the person must believe that Corellon Larethian exists (which is actually harder to prove in many D&D settings that it is given credit for; it would be very easy for a wizard to imitate Corellon or for a person to just never have an opportunity to see any evidence themselves or any of a number of other things). Second, the person must possess theistic beliefs about Corellon Larethian. This second step is all too often overlooked in these discussions, but it's a very important one. After all, if you didn't include it, then wizards and such would count as "gods" too.

Beyond this, there are also an awful lot of obstacles towards a proper skeptic believing in any given deity and the theistic religion surrounding them. A number of things which some posters claim constitute irrefutable evidence of gods don't actually meet basic standards of evidence. Here's a few arguments I've seen...

"You can meet the gods in person!"
How many D&D settings is this actually an easy thing to accomplish in? The average guy doesn't have Plane Shift. Even if you do have the ability to wander the planes... can you get in to meet Lolth herself? You might be able to walk to the emperor's palace, but that doesn't mean you are going to get in to have an audience.

But let's say you're one of the few who can meet Lolth in person. Even then... how do you know she's a goddess? Just seeing a big impressive drider-looking lady doesn't prove that she's a goddess. Maybe Lolth can do something impressive and magical, but clerics and wizards and monsters do that kind of thing all the time.

At the end of the day, what definitively makes Lolth a goddess rather than just a magic drider lady with 66hp (http://www.perverseosmosis.com/wp-content/uploads/lolth-gots-booty.jpg)? Few arguments ever actually address this.

Let's take Eberron as an example. You can, in fact, go and meet the gods of the Seren tribes. They're dragons. You can meet them in person, and they possess devastating powers. They can even grant spells to you directly (because there's a spell that does that, and dragons can cast that spell). But most gamers wouldn't say that dragons are gods, even though they accept that dragons are incredibly powerful beings you can meet in person.

"Divine magic proves deities!"
Uhm, no it doesn't. Demonstrating magical powers does not demonstrate where those powers come from, and indeed it is possible for non-religious characters to replicate divine spells in every setting I know of (including FR). If anything, the mechanics for spells provide evidence that there are ways to access such powers other than having faith in a deity.

"Afterlives prove deities!"
Again, no it doesn't. How would you tell the difference between an epic wizard setting up shop in Dolurrh and saying he's the Keeper who created this realm, and the actual Keeper? Simply visiting the afterlife and being told that the realm is ruled by said epic wizard and that that wizard is God would not constitute proof.

One of the problems with all of these arguments is that they do not establish any criteria by which you could discern the difference between a god and an epic Wizard or a powerful Outsider or a dragon-scale monster or whatever else.

Snowbluff

2016-04-12, 12:01 AM

Except when you use the label "god" to describe what you're doing, you've screwed it up.

Ur-Priest? Maybe Binder? They are, pretty much by nature, godless.

Uh, no. They are the opposite. The Ur-Priest is the first kind of cleric. Binders are not godless, and even utilize divine powers through deity based vestiges like Tenebrous.

Warpwolf16

2016-04-12, 12:04 AM

Remember in the pathfinder core setting of Golarion there is a whole country of Athiest 8D downside magical diseases hit hard. Faiths and Philosophies discuses atheism a bit since the iconic oracle is a atheist. You reject divinity, theyre nothing more then outsiders with to much power. When you die you enter the cycle or reincarnation or just putt around as a ghost in the astral.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 12:29 AM

In order to demonstrate that something is a god, you'd first have to have a solid definition of god which differentiates gods from non-gods (e.g. why an epic alien dragon wizard is not a god but Pelor is), and then you'd have to demonstrate that a being exists which meets that definition.

I rarely see this in fantasy settings. More often, one is just asked to take the author's word for it that some given magical being is a god, while some other magical beings aren't, with no reason given as to why one qualifies and the other doesn't. I am not currently aware of any D&D canon exceptions to this (if there are some, please tell me).

Given that, it's not atheists in fantasy settings I find odd... but people who are skeptical of atheists in fantasy settings.

Snowbluff

2016-04-12, 12:39 AM

Psyren

2016-04-12, 12:39 AM

THat's not atheism. That's alatrism.

Yeah, sure, that thing. The point is, no Patron, bad things happen. Whether you didn't pick one because you didn't think they existed, or because you did but didn't consider it worth your time, all in all you're just another brick in the Wall.

Again though, that's Faerun-specific, and other settings take different approaches.

Twrbs883

2016-04-12, 12:50 AM

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 12:52 AM

Let's take Eberron as an example. You can, in fact, go and meet the gods of the Seren tribes. They're dragons. You can meet them in person, and they possess devastating powers. They can even grant spells to you directly (because there's a spell that does that, and dragons can cast that spell). But most gamers wouldn't say that dragons are gods, even though they accept that dragons are incredibly powerful beings you can meet in person.
Oooh; what spell is that?

Tiri

2016-04-12, 01:19 AM

Oooh; what spell is that?

Not sure if it's the one he's referring to, but Imbue with Spell Ability does that. It is a cleric spell, but there's a few ways for dragons to get those, I think.

SethoMarkus

2016-04-12, 01:21 AM

Counterpoint: the deity in question need not be an actual god or goddess, followers only need to believe that they are. For example, in a low magic setting, a powerful wizard visits a small village and begins to exercise his might, claiming to be divine; could the villagers not begin to worship this mad mage as a deity?

The question is not whether gods actually exist, rather it is whether the populace finds anything worthy of being identified as a deity within their own scope of beliefs. Yes, it is entirely possible for an individual to be an atheist in the typical D&D setting. However, I find it much more likely that with so many powerful beings existing within that cosmos, that most individuals would fall into line worshiping at least one of those "deities", whether the being was a "god" as we would define it or not. The example with the dragons is a nice illustration of this. Sure, the dragons are not deities or gods, perhaps, but the tribe that worships the dragons are not atheists; they are polytheists that worship dragons (or possibly henotheists or kathenotheists or any other variant of). In a world with physical manifestations of deities, I find it even more difficult to assume that atheism would be widespread (although within the realm of possibility). Much more likely, such individuals that would question the deities would instead be deist or polydeist at the very least, believing that a deity or deities created the cosmos but play no more active role in it.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 01:38 AM

Oh man, it's like authors telling us things doesn't mean anything!

And also, gods have clearly defined traits in DnD.

1) Divine Ranks
2) Grants spells via prayer.
3) Domains.

That's really it. It's almost like we know what exactly we would be looking for. :smallconfused:

"It's like authors telling us things doesn't mean anything!"
Indeed it doesn't, if the thing that the author tells us is simply an informed attribute. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute) Show is far more important than tell, and it is rare in my experience for fantasy authors to actually demonstrate why something is a god.

For example, an author might tell us that Black Widow is the most powerful Avenger, but we needn't believe them because we do not ever see that demonstrated. That would be an example of an informed attribute.

But there's an even bigger reason why the author's word doesn't matter, and that reason is that the in-world characters don't get to hear the author's word. They need to see in-world evidence, and the author simply stating "Corellon Larethian is really a god" does not provide any in-world evidence.

"We know exactly what we're looking for! Divine ranks!"
Many D&D settings and editions do not have these. For the settings that do, it's largely just a power rating... and a power rating that can be exceeded by mortals.

"We know exactly what we're looking for! Granting spells via prayer!"
See the "divine magic doesn't prove gods" point above.

The first problem with this is that it doesn't differentiate gods from wizard dragon cults or what-have-you. A wizard can in fact grant you spells.

The second problem is that you would have to provide evidence that the prayer is in fact the thing causing the spell to be granted. In many settings there is actually counterevidence to this, given that divine spells can be replicated by people who do not pray to deities in every canon setting I know of.

"We know what we're looking for! Domains!"
First off, what exactly do you mean by "domain"? Clerics have domains and I don't think you're counting them as gods. Same goes for Domain Wizards and other folks.

Second off, after you've defined what you mean by "having domains" in a way that consistently differentiates gods from epic wizard monsters, how do you go and demonstrate that a being possesses these domains?

Can you give a specific example from a specific canon setting?

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 01:43 AM

"We know exactly what we're looking for! Divine ranks!"
Many D&D settings and editions do not have these.
We only care of two editions 3.0 and 3.5; any encounterable god has divine ranks. doesn't rule out false gods or god-impostors.
Varakhuts serve as evidence of gods being a real thing

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 01:47 AM

We only care of two editions 3.0 and 3.5; any encounterable god has divine ranks.

This is simply not true. Various 3.0 and 3.5e settings have encounterable gods but do not have divine ranks. Indeed, the entire concept of divine ranks isn't around in many 3.0/3.5e settings.

No idea where you got the idea that this wasn't the case, but you've been misinformed.

Varakhuts serve as evidence of gods being a real thing

Why?

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 02:02 AM

Why?
Beings of pure fundamental law that have as their task to safeguard Divinity; will work to stop deicides and ascensions, and serve no particular god. Their existence points at the universe itself recognizing there is such thing as gods

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 02:04 AM

Beings of pure fundamental law that have as their task to safeguard Divinity; will work to stop deicides and ascensions, and serve no particular god. Their existence points at the universe itself recognizing there is such thing as gods

The description you gave me just seems to point to Varakhuts believing that there is such a thing as gods.

Edit: Just looked up Varakhuts in the Fiend Folio. The description there seems to point to Varakhuts believing that certain entities, often claimed to be gods, are worth protecting. That's it.

I also note that Varakhuts are in no way immune to having false beliefs. You can Bluff them and everything!

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 02:21 AM

The description you gave me just seems to point to Varakhuts believing that there is such a thing as gods.
but as beings produced by the plane of law with the express purpose of maintaining the cosmos their convictions is worth a lot; same as the zelekhuts protect justice/judgement, kolyaruts oaths, maruts death, and quaruts space-time. Varakhuts are generated by the same cosmic force, and thus their ward (godhood/gods) is regarded by the Plane of Law as real as spacetime, entropy, oaths, or justice.
on inevitables

Inevitables are constructs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#constructType) whose sole aim is to enforce the natural laws of the universe.Each type of inevitable is designed to find and punish a particular kind of transgression, hunting down a person or group that has violated a fundamental principle.
The Varakhut may be fooled; but that they exist means that godhood is a fundamental property of the cosmos that can be violated.

Though one can still believe the inevitables are deluded or part of a 'divine' conspiracy or something. One'd be wrong, but one could reasonably believe it with the evidence available to the average character.
One could even believe the inevitables are correct; they will stop any being from becoming a True God, and have succeeded so far. the "gods" aren't gods; aren't even close enough to warrant the inevitable trying to kill them, OR are strong enough they can keep the inevitable at bay, but ultimately arent real bonafide deities and merely powerful outsiders.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 02:37 AM

Though one can still believe the inevitables are deluded or part of a 'divine' conspiracy or something. One'd be wrong

Yet you give no evidence for why this would be wrong.

I, however, can provide evidence that inevitables are deluded. Let's go back to the Fiend Folio entry where Varakhuts are from, shall we?

Inevitables are constructs whose sole aim is to enforce the natural laws of the universe. They hunt down those that violate certain laws that the inevitables deem inviolate.
See the problem in that sentence? It's a whopper.

If the laws were truly the inviolate natural laws of the universe, there would be no violators to hunt down.

Indeed, natural laws are actually inviolate, because they are defined by what happens. E.g, if someone cheats death, the fact that someone cheated death demonstrates that the cheating of death is part of natural law. If someone can say some magic words and throw a fireball, that too would be a part of the natural law of that setting. Inevitables claiming to be rectifying violations of natural law are suffering from some serious doublethink... or at least a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term "natural law" means. They are, in fact, following their own hokey belief system rather than the principles of rationalism.

The very second that a Marut comes up to me and says that I, by cheating death, have violated the inviolate natural law of the universe, he is expressing an irrational, self-contradictory belief. If the natural law of the universe did not allow me to become a lich or whatever, then I could not have become one. Likewise, if the rule that I could not become a lich was inviolate, then once again, I could not have violated the rule. QED.

Now I'm imagining an anti-inevitable going around slaying inevitables for violations of the second law of thought. Ha.

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 02:54 AM

Indeed, natural laws are actually inviolate, because they are defined by what happens. E.g, if someone cheats death, the fact that someone cheated death demonstrates that the cheating of death is part of natural law. If someone can say some magic words and throw a fireball, that too would be a part of the natural law of that setting. Inevitables claiming to be rectifying violations of natural law are suffering from some serious doublethink... or at least a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term "natural law" means. They are, in fact, following their own hokey belief system rather than the principles of rationalism.

Now I'm imagining an anti-inevitable going around slaying inevitables for violations of the second law of thought. Ha.
Nope.
In a magical setting magic makes natural law not inviolate; that's why there's a plane of chaos and all. a plane of Chaos that is as closely related to the natural world as that of Law. The Plane of Law produces inevitables as agents of its fundamental laws to rectify the transgressions the Chaos inherent in creation has made possible.

By your reasoning Abominations and Elder Evils would not be "unnatural" as they exist in the world, they happen.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 02:57 AM

By your reasoning Abominations and Elder Evils would not be "unnatural" as they exist in the world, they happen.

Correct. They would not be exceptions to natural law, by the actual definition in the scientific (rather than religious) sense of the term. And if you were using the religious sense of the word, well, that would reinforce the idea that inevitables have hokey belief systems, rather than the other way around.

So, let's look at what a law means in science.

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.

There are several definitions of the words "natural" and "unnatural." However, when scientists are talking about the concept of natural law, we are referring to a specific definition.

That definition is:

5. the universe, with all its phenomena:
Conservation of energy is a universal law of nature.

Fireballs, liches, aberrations, and the like are all phenomena which exist as a part of the universe.

Likewise, the inevitable's argument fails on two counts. Not only does the inevitable fail to understand what natural law means, they also fail to understand what inviolate means. There are four definitions of inviolate on dictionary.com, and all of them make the hypothetical inevitable's statement contradictory.

1. free from violation, injury, desecration, or outrage.
2. undisturbed; untouched.
3. unbroken.
4. not infringed.

1: Free from violation? Well, if a law has not been violated, then there are no violators to hunt down.
2: Undisturbed and untouched? Well, if it hasn't been disturbed or touched, then there are no violators to hunt down.
3: Unbroken? If the law has not been broken, then there are no violators to hunt down.
4: Not infringed? If the law has not been infringed upon, then there are no violators to hunt down.

In short, by definition, if a lich has broken a Marut's law, the law was not inviolate, and it was not part of natural law.

Seto

2016-04-12, 04:06 AM

LudicSavant, in our world you'd be right, but that's because most of us have a monist conception of the world where nothing exists outside "nature" and its laws. In a worldview like Descartes', eternal truths are such that God could make them different and he is not bound by the rule that 2+2=4. In this paradigm, there is a being existing outside nature.

Now the question becomes: what is D&D's paradigm? I'd say it's an open one. You've got Laws of the cosmos, represented by Law (and thus the Inevitables want to enforce it), but its hold on the multiverse is incomplete, because Chaos represents an opposite, equally strong anomic force. D&D's worldview is inherently dualist (pluralist, in fact), so I contest your argument that there is anything like "laws of nature" wherein "inviolate" is a part of their definition. There are laws of the cosmos, though, but they're not inviolate.
Law wants there to be Gods, Chaos doesn't care. (And these principles predate Gods chronologically and ontologically.) Therefore, as demonstrated by the Zalakhuts, there is something called divinity and its existence is a cosmic law. There is objectively a definition of what a God is (whatever that definition may be) ; we're dealing with a theistic world.

That being said, there's no evidence that this definition is available in-universe. And I find the arguments relating to in-world atheism that OP and yourself provided amply convincing.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 04:20 AM

I'm not going to address Descartes, because when we're talking about Inevitables we're not talking about guys who are making sure that 2 and 2 equals 4, so much as we're talking about metal men who fly around and beat up people who violate contract law.

So, reading the descriptions of all of the inevitables, it seems to me like they could best be described as incarnations of overzealous enforcement of arbitrary ethical dogmas. They are representatives of dogmatism, not reason. Oh, they may indeed be lawful, but that doesn't mean that their laws are arrived at by any sort of logical means.

Seriously, look at this stuff. Maruts: "Do not extend your lifespan." Kolyaruts: "Do not break contracts." Zelekhuts: "Do not be a fugitive." They just pick up some arbitrary ethical code and say that everyone must follow it or else they will punch them.

Why? Their justification ("It's natural law!") has no more merit than shouting "it's God's law!" It is a straightforward example of dogmatism, through and through. The claim that their laws are inviolate is even sillier. You don't need a magical world to break a contract, and you definitely aren't prevented from doing so in a fantasy world.

All the claims about their duty to the universe just makes it look even more like a hokey religion full of self-righteous greyguards. And that's cool and it makes for fun fantasy stories and all that. It just means that believing something because an inevitable said it is a rather poor reason to believe something.

Seto

2016-04-12, 04:33 AM

Well, I agree with all of that, because I'm anti-dogmatic. But the intuition behind D&D is that "reason", as you say, or anything we would find reasonable, is not something different than dogmatism or nihilism, but results from a clash and a balance between the two. (That's why I'm so interested in Neutrality).
Logic is definitely on the side of Law, though. Law just has those axioms that sometimes seem weird to us. But ultimately, axioms can always be denounced as arbitrary if one tries hard enough.

Florian

2016-04-12, 04:34 AM

5 - Simply being willfully ignorant. People believe the Earth is flat when they can literally prove that it's round in their backyard if they wanted to. People will also hold on to their beliefs despite being (sometimes literally) slapped in the face with evidence. There's also people who just don't give a rat's patoot, but they don't deserve their own tick mark.
I imagine a similar number of people would just deny gods exist just 'cuz.

6 - The reason for belief in the first place. Religion started in our world because how else were you going to explain lightning? In this world, you've got wizards who cast lightning. Well, there's your superstitious explanation. It's some wizard. Or perhaps it's a god. Who knows. Both are equally likely, given no other information, but in many campaigns it's more likely to see a wizard than a god if you aren't a main character.

I think you mix up Inside and Outside View on these matters. A lot.

Taking the Outside View, we can actually talk about the truth of things, because we do possess that knowledge. It is enough for us to know the truth of this matter and whether gods exist and how that divinity is expressed.

Let´s just say that there is a "god of rain" and if you kill it, then rain stops. Hard to fathom, as we´re used to think in physical causality, but that is divine causality for you.
As a concrete example: The Golarion setting had a god of human superiority and prophecy. When that god was killed, human empires fell and prophecy stopped to be reliable and a race with superior prophetic power went mad and into decline. Kill the god, you kill the thing.

Based on us knowing the truth and also knowing how the divinity is expressed in the setting, we can now take a closer look at the Inside View of things.

Now going with the Golarion example, Belief is knowing and quite a rational thing to do. But, and that is important, the expression of divinity here is pretty much akin to acknowledging how physics work. You don´t disbelieve gravity, do you? The rather important question then is: do you worship it?

Things get less clear-cut if looking at setting like Forgotten Realms, where no clear expression of divinity is given and gods simply exist.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 07:12 AM

Given that, it's not atheists in fantasy settings I find odd... but people who are skeptical of atheists in fantasy settings.

ACtually, I'm not sure the concept of atheism exists in Generic Setting or its remotely close cousins.

Atheism is a negative, a negation. IOW, the negation of belief in a more-or-less anthropomorphic, pretty-much all-powerful god.

Without that monotheistic tradition, influenced by Aristotelian and NeoPlatonist theology, proving that the Olympian gods do/don't exist is a feasible goal. But proving that Hermes is or is not a "god" requires a definition of "god."

And, if you're thinking that through while sitting around a table with a bunch of folks from GEneric Setting with significant ranks in Knowledge: Religion, Knowledge: Planes, Knowledge: Arcana plus a couple of Bards for an alternate perspective, you're going to get suggested definitions of "god" based on what is known about the generally-agreed-upon gods.

If a RW atheist sneaks in from Sigil, shouting "The gods are NOT ineffable!" he would get, at best, confused looks followed by an equally confused argument about what exactly ineffable MEANS.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 07:47 AM

Atheism is a negative, a negation. Perhaps more precisely, atheism is the lack of a specific trait. Considering it a belief system in and of itself is like considering "off" a TV channel. Atheist means literally "not theist," and it's absurd to argue that there aren't going to be atheists in any given D&D setting because of the absolute most common and most obvious reason for people to be atheists:

Babies are not theists. Theism must be learned.

I didn't even bother to mention that one, because there are already strong arguments for why a rational adult would be a skeptic in most D&D worlds.

Florian

2016-04-12, 07:54 AM

Indeed it is. Atheist means literally "not theist," and it's absurd to argue that there aren't going to be atheists in any given D&D setting because of the absolute most common and most obvious reason for people to be atheists:

Babies are not theists. Theism must be learned.

That is pretty much unreasonable, as it is strictly based on our real world and experiences, amongst other things the believe in either some higher power or higher meaning.

That alone breaks down if we move away from modern religions and take a look at either animalistic or similar older religions.
Is, say, Zeus a god? What defines a god, especially of you compare Zeus to the abrahamitic version of god?

Theism and believe go hand in hand. In a way, gnosis does, too. Believe is pretty much the akzeptance of something unproven to still be true and in a regular, plain vanilla fantasy world, the existence of the gods is simply proven to be true.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 07:59 AM

That is pretty much unreasonable, as it is strictly based on our real world and experiences

Uhm, no it isn't. Theism has to be learned in Eberron or Forgotten Realms just as much as in the real world.

Either you meet the qualifications for being a theist, or you're not a theist. This isn't a world-specific declaration, it's true due to the Law of Excluded Middle. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle)

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 08:13 AM

Theism and believe go hand in hand. In a way, gnosis does, too. Believe is pretty much the akzeptance of something unproven to still be true and in a regular, plain vanilla fantasy world, the existence of the gods is simply proven to be true.

No, the existence of powerful beings that claim themselves to be gods is proven true. Your average person doesn't have access to the metagame abstract of "divine ranks", and the resultant divine powers can be emulated (or in same cases, exceeded) with high-level magic. Your average person can't really delineate between "Zeus, God of Thunder" and "Pual, an Archivist with megalomania, Control Weather, and too much time on his hands".

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 08:14 AM

Perhaps more precisely, atheism is the lack of a specific trait. Considering it a belief system in and of itself is like considering "off" a TV channel.

Bad analogy. It's not a trait. Atheism is a particular opinion (justified or not) on the question of the existence of god. PArticularly, in western cultures, an all-powerful omniscient omnipotent eternal creator of the universe.

It comes in two flavors, true atheists who believe that the concept of god is incoherent and therefore a false creation of human minds, and claim knowledge that "there is no god" and agnostics, who do not claim to know. Agnostics divide into "strong agnostics", who believe that the question is inherently impossible to answer, and "weak agnostics", who make no claims except that they themselves don't know (and therefore don't believe.)

Atheist means literally "not theist," and it's absurd to argue that there aren't going to be atheists in any given D&D setting because of the absolute most common and most obvious reason for people to be atheists:

Babies are not theists. Theism must be learned.

I didn't even bother to mention that one, because there are already strong arguments for why a rational adult would be a skeptic in most D&D worlds.

The problem is we're equivocating on the definition of "a god." If we're talking about the god of Aristotle and Aquinas, then none of the D&D deities qualify, and EVERYONE in a D&D universe is at least implicitly atheist, because the question hasn't come up. (Carve out an exception for Forgotten Realms and the overgod Ao.) IF we're talking about "the gods in D&D", then our definition of what a D&D god is is going to be based on what is common to Correllon Latherian and Pelor and Hextor and Miekilli and Thor and Hermes and Isis and Ishtar and the rest.

I'd argue that, in Generic Setting, scholars and thinkers on the question would start with a rough definition by a few criteria:
1. Divine spellcasting for selected worshippers.
2. Answers questions under certain circumstances.

If #2 is accepted as a necessary criteria, then you'd exclude things like clerics-of-a-philosophy, and Eberron's Undying Court.

Although, since magic is on the table, take whatever contact-your-deity spell you want to use, bump it up a level, and cast it by throwing bags of scrabble tiles into an inscribed circle and you can say #2 is taken care of.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 08:20 AM

Bad analogy. It's not a trait. Atheism is a particular opinion

You realize possessing an opinion is a trait, right? *facepalm*

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 08:26 AM

You realize possessing an opinion is a trait, right? *facepalm*

Trait has a connotation of being more deeply rooted than an opinion or a knowledge claim--I read "trait" as "inherent quality", which in this case inclines you towards or away from religion. Some pop science news program had something about a part of the brain that MRI scans show heightened activity during religious experiences, and hypothesized that larger or smaller brain-part could relate to levels of religious belief.

But withdrawn, the precise meaning and connotation of "trait" is not the interesting part of this discussion.

I put it to you, LudicSavant, that, by RW Aristotelian philosophical standards, *most* D&D characters are atheists or agnostics. They do not believe in an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful god who creates the universe by an act of volition.

(I think you're working off of an Aristotelian type definition of theism and atheism--First Cause, Prime Mover, St Anselm's argument from perfection etc. If not, please clarify your definition of "god" so we can work on what exactly folks in Generic Setting do or do not believe.)

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 08:48 AM

(I think you're working off of an Aristotelian type definition of theism and atheism--First Cause, Prime Mover, St Anselm's argument from perfection etc. If not, please clarify your definition of "god" so we can work on what exactly folks in Generic Setting do or do not believe.)

Nope, I'm working off the definitions of atheism that atheist organizations give themselves. https://www.google.com/search?q=google+what+is+an+atheist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=what+is+an+atheism

I really, really could not care less about Aristotle's ideas about god.

Psyren

2016-04-12, 08:55 AM

I don't think referencing/linking to actual real world atheist organizations is the smartest road for this thread to go down. Nor is discussing whether babies are born atheist/theist.

Sticking purely to D&D, I agree with the idea that Varakhuts may only believe that the entities they serve are deities. The problem is that in some D&D settings, that belief is enough to actually make them deities. Whereas in others, whether said beings even exist is a matter of debate, much less what their attitudes toward themselves are and whether the attitudes of mortals towards them matter.

So to go back to my opening post in this thread - atheists can exist in any setting. The consequences of that outlook however (if any) depend on that setting.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 09:07 AM

I don't think referencing/linking to actual real world atheist organizations is the smartest road for this thread to go down. Ah, so you would prefer to have a discussion about atheism where we're not allowed to actually say how atheists themselves define the term.

Segev

2016-04-12, 09:07 AM

I have three points I'd like to play with in this post, responding to this thread. Please bear with me. Will spoiler-block them for ease of organization.

It's interesting, but the majority of the gods of most fantasy settings - if not all of them - would actively be denied by the worldly, advanced space explorers of Star Trek and other sci-fi sagas. How often do you see a primitive (i.e. pre-20th-century) world where a provably powerful, near-reality-warping entity is demanding worship and granting power to his followers, but is "proven" to be a false god by the crew of the Enterprise because they can label it, categorize it, and undermine or replicate its magical powers with their own technology? Even beings like Q are derided as "false gods." Never mind that Q claiming to be a god would be imminently believable in just about any setting that didn't reject his claim on the grounds that he's "a reality-warping extradimensional being of immense power, not a real god."

But compare him to most myths and legends, and he really fits the bill. He more than fits it, in fact, in some ways; Q never would have had to sacrifice his eye and hang himself upside-down over a well to gain wisdom. Nor trick dwarves into forging a hammer for him. He would just create the dwarves and compel them to forge it, if he didn't flash it into existence directly.

Stargate, and particularly SG-1, really brings this to the fore: the goa'uld are aliens with superscience technology, but are very obviously dependent on those external tools if you know what to look for. They're worshipped as gods because they demand it and raise and shape societies to believe it. But they're imminently defeatable with 20th century US technology, and even more so as the SG-1 crew begins capturing tech that is reverse-engineered.

In fact, beings like the goa'uld would be considered "false gods" in most D&D settings. And yet, with their tech and the way it's locked to their use (at least insofar as mere mortals can't use it without sufficient technical know-how to bypass technological locks), they do, again, seem to fit the bill almost as much as the Greek gods. (Admittedly, they're not really shapeshifters on that level.)

So it's interesting that the definition of "god" vs. "false god that is an extradimensional reality warper" is so...genre-specific.

One of the things that was mentioned earlier in this thread is the notion that a "god" might need to be outside the natural order in some sense, lest it otherwise merely be a very powerful entity using its natural gifts and a technical understanding of the laws of nature (through magic or technology) to do impressive things.

A "god," then, might be something which was above, beyond, or outside of such laws. Under this definition, most D&D gods would fail and falter. They're merely extremely powerful entities with strong ties to certain domains and a job in the cycles of life and death.

This definition actually lends a certain chilling credence to the mad prophets and madder mages that speak of and seek out the power of the Far Realm. After all, the definition of a Far Realms entity is that it is completely alien to the laws of the multiverse. It should not exist, and really cannot without immense magical power warping the rules of reality to twist its way in. So by that definition, perhaps, Eldritch Abominations really are gods, and...may be the only example of legitimate ones in most settings! This despite them not behaving in many ways like we expect "gods" to, so perhaps...this is a poor definition.

I don't mean, here, the "nature" which druids worship, not strictly. I mean as in "the laws of everything" and "the nature of reality." If we look at gods mythically, the pantheons typically have a "god of _____" title for all the gods. At least all of the major ones. Zeus and Odin are gods of lighting; Thor and Hephaestus are gods of thunder. Aphrodite is a goddess of love/beauty/lust, as is Frigga. Loki, Coyote, and Raven are "the trickster" for their respective pantheons. Hera is the goddess of marriage. Ra the god of the sun. Shiva, I believe, a goddess of war, or maybe slaughter (though the Hindu take on gods is somewhat different from the Greek, Norse, and Egyptian natures, I think).

So, too, with most D&D-style gods. Pelor is the god of the sun. Ilmatyr is the goddess of martyrdom. Vecna is the god of secrets. Tiamat and Bahamut are gods of dragons. Wee Jas is a goddess of death.

They also often (though not always) feature in the creation myth, whether as the originators of their Concept being injected into the world as it was made, or as exemplars of the Concept who invented it or so mastered it that they took over as its god. They have mastery and prowess over their Concept, and they grant blessings and boons related to it.

Underlying this seems to be almost an assumption that they are intrinsically linked to their Concept in a manner which is unique to their nature: they either ARE their concept given sentience, or they are the source of it or the administrators of it who keep it functioning and determine where, how, and with what strength it applies and is used. There is usually give and take: they can strengthen it locally, but they seem to draw strength from how pervasive it is. In some D&D settings, the gods are dependent on worship, and this empowers them in their Concept to try to gain more worshippers. In others, the Concept is what empowers them and they simply control where and how it is used. Its spread is something for which they rely on their clergy and followers.

So perhaps that is the key component of "godhood:" that you be a god OF something, and that you truly derive your power from that Concept and are its master (with allowance made for rival gods of the same thing also being masters of it, which can lead to divine turf wars).

If the Enterprise comes into orbit around a world with your pantheon worshipped as its, well, gods, they should be able to be convinced of your divinity by virtue of you actually being somehow tied to the creation not just of that world, but of the very fundamental concept(s) you embody. If you are the god of the sun, then not only should you be able to do impressive things with the nearby star, but you should be able to demonstrate some fundamental tie to its functioning. In ways that will raise questions about whether there are sun gods for EVERY star. Or why you're only worshipped here.

Not to delve too much into real world religion, but I think a lot of the "false god" vs. "real god" recognition is rooted in modern Western society's Judeo-Christian foundation. The Christian God is the Creator of all; whether you believe in God-as-Clockmaker, Who built it and set it into motion then left it to its own devices, or a more proactive God who must will each individual thing to happen as it happens (and just happens to always will that things will fall when dropped in a fashion commensurate with the measured laws of gravity), or somewhere in between, God is both "outside and above" nature, and tied into its creation. It isn't "merely" that He is omnipotent and omniscient (and argument could be made from various denominations' takes on Him that He might have limits in some areas, especially if you take the passages that have Him asking for information and seeming not to already know the answer as Him really being uninformed, rather than Him asking for the benefit of the ones to whom He is talking). It's that He is the Creator, and that the laws of Nature exist because He wrote them. At least according to those faiths which believe it. But that's where they derive their justification of the Christian God being God, and not merely a sufficiently advanced being, possibly from another dimension.

Note, I am not trying to represent nor denigrate any particular faith, here. I make no comment as to truth or falsehood of these beliefs, and hope I have not misrepresented any. However, for Western-influenced culture, the "real god" definition seems to stem, at least in part, from the notion that a real god should be intrinsic, in some way, to the functioning of reality. Whether an administrator or an originator, a real god seems to have to be tied to the concept of which he is a god in a manner which makes them necessary to its functioning, and their control over it "inherent" to their being, rather than some trick they pull that anybody could learn to do.

Mystra is the goddess of magic on Faerun not because she's a super-powerful wizardess who managed to gain control of tools with which she can manipulate available magical energy for others. She's the goddess of magic because she is intrinsic to magic's functioning; without her, it becomes disordered at best and stops working entirely at worst. A god or goddess must be appointed or take the reins when she is destroyed, or Terrible Things happen.

Exalted gods are much the same; not necessarily all that powerful, a god is simply an entity whose literal job it is to overlook the function of some concept, from a single object's least god ensuring that it is kept within the laws of Fate and that causes effect it properly, to a god of broad concepts making sure that the flow of, say, trade in a quarter of Creation (known as a Direction) is properly maintained and that the laws of nature are flowing smoothly around it.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 09:13 AM

Nope, I'm working off the definitions of atheism that atheist organizations give themselves, such as this one: https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

I really, really could not care less about Aristotle's ideas about god.

The only part of that which comes close to a definition of atheism is "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. " Which leaves the question of what, exactly, "gods and supernatural beings" are. And for that matter, what constitutes "belief in" (does it require worship, or simply recognition of existence).

It's also questionable how representative American Atheists (the owners of atheism.org) are of atheists in general. The atheist/agnostic distinction is pretty widely accepted, because specificity helps clarity. Atheists don't tend to organize too much, any more than "Non Yankees Fans" tend to organize.

Psyren

2016-04-12, 09:16 AM

It is impractical to have a topic about atheism without being allowed to define what atheism is. If you do not agree with allowing atheists to define what their own beliefs are (which seems extraordinarily disrespectful), what source would be acceptable?

That's easy - describe what you think it means in a D&D context without bringing in real-world organizations. For example, Snowbluff earlier brought up the idea of alatrism vs. atheism (i.e. does a given D&D person believe the gods exist but are unworthy of worship/not really deities, or does that person think these entities truly don't exist and the universe as a whole - or at least the churches and outer planes of the setting - are playing a huge con? Are there people in both camps in a given setting, and is there support for their beliefs?)

In FR, it would be hard to argue that these entities don't exist at all. Thus I'd expect more alatrists than atheists. But the existence of the Wall, which any high-level spellcaster can go take a look at and empirically verify its existence, would lead me to believe that there aren't many alatrists either. You can argue that the construct as a whole is unjust, but that's The Rules for that particular dimension.

In Eberron, you have a much stronger argument that they don't exist. I'd thus expect more atheists, though there would likely be some alatrists too. And their beliefs ultimately wouldn't matter either way.

In Ravenloft, the gods are almost completely unreachable at all and I'd expect even more atheists than in Eberron. And so on.

In that whole post I didn't need to bring up real-world organizations or how they define things.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 09:24 AM

Which leaves the question of what, exactly, "gods and supernatural beings" are. Indeed it does.

Wikipedia defines it thus:

Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]
Which is pretty much the same as what the other site said.

Which leaves the question of what a "deity" is. So, we can click on deity, and we get...

In religious belief, a deity is either a natural or supernatural being, who is thought of as holy, divine, or sacred.

Which... is a problematic definition, really, because I suspect most atheists would consider that the pharaohs of Egypt were thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, and that they they existed, and that this doesn't stop them from being atheists.

Bobby Baratheon

2016-04-12, 09:33 AM

Doesn't one of the planescape factions also reject the gods as unworthy of worship?

Also, it seems (to me, at least) that the average person in a D&D world is going to err on the side of erroneously worshiping a non-god rather than rejecting all powerful beings as non-gods. There are so many things in D&D that could be termed "gods," especially from the perspective of a low-level npc, that it seems it would be safer to pay lip service and get some measure of protection rather than reject them all and get nothing. Sure, the peasant might not understand the academic differences between Zeus and Merlin, but from the perspective of the peasant it doesn't matter all that much. In D&D, beings of massive power absolutely and undeniably exist. Whether or not they count as "gods" seems to be a rather academic distinction that most people in a D&D setting are either not sufficiently informed to make, or simply don't care.

EDIT: Also, not to quibble, but by bringing in pharaohs and other real world arguments for atheism it kind of seems like this thread is just an argument for atheism in general rather than an argument for atheism in D&D.

Murk

2016-04-12, 09:36 AM

Most reasons mentioned here are of very strong, passionate opinion. Someone who actively disbelieves that gods exist.

In a D&D world, I would see atheism easier as indifference. Someone thinking "Gods? Meh." and that's about it.

For a real world analogy, ehm, say, string theory. String theory might be real. Maybe it's proven? I don't know. And honestly, I do not actually care. It's this wacky. meta-, abstract and just too insignificant theory, that doesn't effect my life in any way. I do not feel passionate about it at all. If someone asks: "do you believe in string theory?", my reaction would probably be "Uh. Dunno. Don't care."

And that is what I think you'd find a lot in D&D worlds. The gods are powerful, sure, but do they ever directly impact your life? Aren't there other powerful beings much closer? The Owlbear that lives in the hills has a direct influence on your life. The gods do not. You've never seen a god, or talked to one - sure, there's arguments for them existing and all, and these passionate clerics and all that, but, meh. Just meh. You do not really care about them.
So, once again, if someone asks you: "do you believe in the gods?", you'll probably say "Uh. Dunno. Don't care."

[Disclaimer: I do care about string theory, but it's easy to imagine someone who does not]

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 09:38 AM

Which... is a problematic definition, really, because I suspect most atheists would consider that the pharaohs of Egypt were thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, and that they they existed, and that this doesn't stop them from being atheists.

Now we're making some kind of progress. If you want to use the holy/divine/sacred standard, you could go a half-step further and say that a deity is holy/divine/sacred *to you*. But that just moves us one step further back--what does holy/divine/sacred mean.

Best definition of holy/divine/sacred would be "something people worship". So you'd have a certain number of atheists in a generic setting, anyone who didn't worship a particular god.

Unless you count sporadic, as-needed worship as worship--there are very few people in Generic Setting who would turn down clerical healing or assistance. So we're back to "god" meaning "anything that can grant cleric spells."

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 09:48 AM

So, once again, if someone asks you: "do you believe in the gods?", you'll probably say "Uh. Dunno. Don't care."

If the question is, do you believe in the gods, then the analogy isn't string theory. It's physicists. Yeah, physicists exist, what do you mean do I believe in physicists?

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 09:57 AM

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 09:57 AM

Now we're making some kind of progress.

To the contrary, I feel like we went in a circle. I mentioned the "definition of deities" issue earlier in the thread.

So we're back to "god" meaning "anything that can grant cleric spells."

Clerics of philosophies are granted cleric spells, so that definition doesn't work.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 10:10 AM

Clerics of philosophies are granted cleric spells, so that definition doesn't work.

A deity is that which grants cleric spells (or divine spells).

Philosophies grant spells. Therefore philosophies are gods.

Unless you give your definition of "deity", I don't see why a philosophy that is powerful enough to grant spells to its dedicated worshippers isn't a god. Why isn't it?

In religious belief, a deity is either a natural or supernatural being, who is thought of as holy, divine, or sacred.

Holy/divine/sacred? Check. NAtural or supernatural? Well it has to be one or the other. Being?

Are you going to argue that a creed is not a deity because it's not a being? OK, what's a "being/thing/entity"?

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 10:14 AM

Unless you give your definition of "deity", I don't see why a philosophy that is powerful enough to grant spells to its dedicated worshippers isn't a god. Why isn't it?

If that's the definition, a D&D world skeptic could hypothetically say "How do you know that it's actually the philosophy that's granting the power? Maybe it's the rituals, the mental focus, or (any number of other things)."

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 10:16 AM

The problem is we're equivocating on the definition of "a god." If we're talking about the god of Aristotle and Aquinas, then none of the D&D deities qualify, and EVERYONE in a D&D universe is at least implicitly atheist, because the question hasn't come up. (Carve out an exception for Forgotten Realms and the overgod Ao.) IF we're talking about "the gods in D&D", then our definition of what a D&D god is is going to be based on what is common to Correllon Latherian and Pelor and Hextor and Miekilli and Thor and Hermes and Isis and Ishtar and the rest.

If we are using the definition argument, then it would only make someone an atheist if they believed that nothing fit the definition, and believed the definition to be valid. For instance, just using that argument I brought up, one could believe it's valid that a god can't be a being that possesses petty wrath, and still believe in a wrathful god because it wasn't petty.

However, there aren't really that many definitions, in-game, which would fit all the proposed gods in D&D.

I'd argue that, in Generic Setting, scholars and thinkers on the question would start with a rough definition by a few criteria:
1. Divine spellcasting for selected worshippers.
2. Answers questions under certain circumstances.

If #2 is accepted as a necessary criteria, then you'd exclude things like clerics-of-a-philosophy, and Eberron's Undying Court.

Although, since magic is on the table, take whatever contact-your-deity spell you want to use, bump it up a level, and cast it by throwing bags of scrabble tiles into an inscribed circle and you can say #2 is taken care of.

1. Divine casting isn't unique to worshippers, or even worshippers of a deity.
2. Wizards can divine answers as well.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 10:18 AM

If that's the definition, a D&D world skeptic could hypothetically say "How do you know that it's actually the philosophy that's granting the power? Maybe it's the rituals, the mental focus, or (any number of other things)."

If you're engaging in radical (as in to-the-root) skepticism, then nothing can be proven to the skeptic at all, under any circumstances, with the possible exception of his own existence. After all, he might just be an imaginary figment, a part of a game played by beings who have imagined him.

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 10:19 AM

If that's the definition, a D&D world skeptic could hypothetically say "How do you know that it's actually the philosophy that's granting the power? Maybe it's the rituals, the mental focus, or (any number of other things)."

Archivists help support this position very well. Divine caster, no requirement to worship anything. Just a book full of cliff notes for "how to divine magic".

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 10:19 AM

Oh God. I'm really glad I started a new thread about this. This is taking so long to read.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 10:27 AM

1. Divine casting isn't unique to worshippers, or even worshippers of a deity.
2. Wizards can divine answers as well.

1. You need to be some kind of a divine caster to get divine casting. That requires allegiance to someone, or adherence to something, as a power source. That power source is your god, for all intents and purposes. (Unless someone gives me a better definition of D&D deity than "a possible source of divine spells", I'm sticking with it.)
2. Wizards can cast divination spells. But there are a handful (or probably more if you go through all the splat) of cleric-specific "Ask your deity" spells, which without a workaround, would not work for clerics-of-a-philosophy.

IF you want to include that in the definition, that's fine. I was just anticipating an objection--an epic paladin-cleric of Honor could just cast a very similar spell by using something like the I Ching and in a magical universe, it should work just fine.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 10:39 AM

Archivists help support this position very well. Divine caster, no requirement to worship anything. Just a book full of cliff notes for "how to divine magic".

Yup!

See also: Druids, Artificers, Nagas.

That's easy - describe what you think it means in a D&D context

That's exactly what I did. Most words do not, in fact, have an extra double special D&D-only meaning. For example, if you asked me to clarify what I thought the word "sword" meant in D&D, I would just link you to the general definition of sword.

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 10:41 AM

1. You need to be some kind of a divine caster to get divine casting. That requires allegiance to someone, or adherence to something, as a power source. That power source is your god, for all intents and purposes. (Unless someone gives me a better definition of D&D deity than "a possible source of divine spells", I'm sticking with it.)
2. Wizards can cast divination spells. But there are a handful (or probably more if you go through all the splat) of cleric-specific "Ask your deity" spells, which without a workaround, would not work for clerics-of-a-philosophy.

IF you want to include that in the definition, that's fine. I was just anticipating an objection--an epic paladin-cleric of Honor could just cast a very similar spell by using something like the I Ching and in a magical universe, it should work just fine.

1. Sorry I was responding before reading the whole thing. I think I'll leave this argument to you guys. There's just too much for me to go through and personally respond to.
"A possible source of divine spells." Definition runs in to many of the "definitions" proposed for life, where, no matter what they suggest, they either don't get all of what is thought to be life, or include things that are thought to not be life (like viruses and fire and so on).
In this case, it would be the latter, but yes, this is the best proposed definition I have seen for a god in D&D.

2. On a sort of meta-game aspect, this is a great argument. If you have a spell that asks your deity, then anyone who can't cast it doesn't have a deity, thus, at least disproving false gods...unless they aren't a high enough level, or aren't granted that particular power by what they believe in.
I don't think Druids can cast them even if they believe in Wee Jas or whatitsface.
Many take the belief that it's much more abstract in the D&D world than it is on your character sheet, so it's hard to tell the difference between a Cleric of Nature and a Druid. Except if you place metal in their pockets (in one edition or the other). And likewise, their "level" and thus the spells that they "should" be able to cast.
As well, spells aren't cast the same way by everyone, else why would Wizards need to translate another Wizard's spell book in order to prepare them, as well as other oddities in spell casting?

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 10:46 AM

2. Wizards can cast divination spells. But there are a handful (or probably more if you go through all the splat) of cleric-specific "Ask your deity" spells, which without a workaround, would not work for clerics-of-a-philosophy.

2. On a sort of meta-game aspect, this is a great argument.

Spells like Commune actually specify that they still work if you don't worship a deity.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm

Murk

2016-04-12, 10:47 AM

If the question is, do you believe in the gods, then the analogy isn't string theory. It's physicists. Yeah, physicists exist, what do you mean do I believe in physicists?

Hm. I'd say the clerics are the physicists: they study some kind of mythical, weird, hard to understand mojo. You just nod and smile while they perform miracles that you don't really understand. You don't understand gods, after all. You don't need to, either. Never seen a god. Got clerics for that.

Segev

2016-04-12, 10:48 AM

I think, functionally, that the colloquial definition of "god" must include that third point I brought up: some representation of, mastery over, or stewardship for a Concept or group thereof. The god must be fundamentally tied to it, either in that his metaphysical job is to manage and control and guide it (and him going on vacation, dying, or otherwise slacking leads to disastrous consequences for that concept), or in that he is, on some level, that concept-given-sentience, and again, if anything happens to him, that concept suffers.

Conversely, gods derive a significant portion of their power from the pervasiveness, spread, and importance of their Concept. Either in an indirect, abstract sense that they're just mightier if their Concept is more important/widely worshipped, or in a direct form such that having their Concept be more important means their influence over it leads to more ripple effects and ability to effect other things more directly, due to proximity and cause-and-effect.

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 10:51 AM

Starmage21

2016-04-12, 11:00 AM

Based on the discussion in this thread, I think it may be nice to actually haphazardly toss out the PLANESCAPE method of dealing with deities: Powers. Powers exist, everyone knows it. You can even travel to their domains and chat them up if they'll bother to pay you any attention at all. Not everyone necessarily agrees that theyre beings worthy of worship, though.

There is a separation between belief and faith and it is discussed at least at minor length in the campaign setting. It may be useful to reference in this discussion.

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 11:01 AM

Spells like Commune actually specify that they still work if you don't worship a deity.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm
You do contact a deity though; one that shares your philosophical alignment.

Yup!

See also: Druids, Artificers, Nagas.

Artificers don't divine cast. Don't arcane cast either.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 11:03 AM

That's exactly what I did. Most words do not, in fact, have an extra double special D&D-only meaning. For example, if you asked me to clarify what I thought the word "sword" meant in D&D, I would just link you to the general definition of sword.

You defined atheist. But you never particularly defined "god" or "deity", which makes the definition of atheist fairly pointless.

If you ask me, if the dragon cult gets enough followers and worships hard enough that the cult leader gets divine spells, then that dragon is a god of some sort. (The Dragon God may or may not be identical to the actual dragon, somewhat like Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea.)

The druids worshipping nature, similarly, that makes nature a god.

Archivists are just variant wizards. That's not divine magic--it doesn't have a divine power source and it's limited to the spells in the book. That's not a divine caster, that's an arcane caster with a different spell list. :biggrin:

You worship, that puts divine energy in the black box. If there's energy in the black box, then priests can cast spells. That black box, in D&D is a deity.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 11:05 AM

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 11:10 AM

You defined atheist. But you never particularly defined "god" or "deity", which makes the definition of atheist fairly pointless.

If you ask me, if the dragon cult gets enough followers and worships hard enough that the cult leader gets divine spells, then that dragon is a god of some sort. (The Dragon God may or may not be identical to the actual dragon, somewhat like Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea.)

The druids worshipping nature, similarly, that makes nature a god.

Archivists are just variant wizards. That's not divine magic--it doesn't have a divine power source and it's limited to the spells in the book. That's not a divine caster, that's an arcane caster with a different spell list. :biggrin:

You worship, that puts divine energy in the black box. If there's energy in the black box, then priests can cast spells. That black box, in D&D is a deity.

Arcane and divine have some differences though. ASF for example, and the capacity to use Eternal Wands.

Also not all D&D Powers (the planescaper term does seem better) need worship. Faerunian Powers do need belief; Ravenloft's Dark Powers don't, but they can covertly provide spells; iirc Krynnish deities don't either

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 11:13 AM

Arcane and divine have some differences though. ASF for example, and the capacity to use Eternal Wands.

Also not all D&D Powers (the planescaper term does seem better) need worship. Faerunian Powers do need belief; Ravenloft's Dark Powers don't, but they can covertly provide spells; iirc Krynnish deities don't either

Yeah.

To make this easier, let's say that you can have a definition that works for all of the gods of only one canon setting. Can you then come up with a definition of god that fits all of the gods of that setting (and does not fit any non-gods in that setting), and can be demonstrated to an in-world skeptic who knows about standards of evidence?

Curious if there's any canon D&D settings that can pass that test.

SethoMarkus

2016-04-12, 11:17 AM

In 3.5, yes. As the spells come from belief, rather than the deities themselves. They can even honestly believe that their pet peacock is the ruler of the universe, and get powers from it.

Well, this is the 3.x subforum...

Really though, what's with all this talk of whether deities exist for real (in D&D) or not? It is irrelevant to the discussion. You can't think of the possibility of atheism/theism in terms of looking in from the outside, but from the perspective of the commoners in the game world itself. As long as the average commoner has reason to believe that a being is worthy of worship, and they worship that being, they are theist.

In the default (Greyhawk) setting, the world is supposed to be low magic, at least on the Prime Materia. This doesn't mean that poweful magic does not exist, but it is rare. The default setting also is roughly a horribly unhistoric version of our Middle Ages. If a powerful being that could cast actual magic were to have appeared in our historical Middle Ages, there most likely would have been a religion surrounding tat entity.

In other settings, such as Forgotten Realms' Faerûn, magic is a bit more common, but so is the prevalence of powerful beings identifying themselves as deities. When so-called gods and goddesses or their direct representatives walk among mere mortals, and make that known, it becomes difficult to deny their existance (as beings, not as deities) out right, and for a commoner that does not have any higher understanding of the working of the cosmos it is very easy to view such a being as something to be worshiped.

Take for example a mid level cleric casting Create Food and Water and saying, "Lo, behold the benevolence of Yondolla! Praise to Her and Her bounty!" Mechanically, we know that this is a cleric casting a spell. Perhaps the spell is derived from a divine being, perhaps it is derived from a concept or other cosmic force. In character, the cleric knows that they are the one creating the food and water, perhaps they believe it is their god's will or perhaps they merely see their god as a font of power to be used for a purpose that aligns with the deity's own. But, from the perspective of the commoners that witness the spell, they have witnessed a miracle brought about by the grace of Yondolla. Even in a world where magic is commonplace, that just means that miracles are more frequent. A constant reminder that the work of a greater power or powers is in play.

Atheism is a relatively new development in the history of human religious thinking. For most of human history there has been some mythology that we have followed, in a myriad of forms. Theism still persists today in a world that is, in the West at least, very science and technology centric. We have scientific understanding of physics and the world's natural laws. We have technology that was pure science-fiction only 50-60 years ago. And still, atheism is not the common belief. Still theism pervades every culture as the dominant belief.

I am not trying to make a political statement or elevate one opinion over any other, just making a point that humans seek to believe in something, whether they put that faith in religion or science or something else entirely.

Yes, atheism could exist in a typical D&D (3.x) setting, but I very much doubt that it would be a large practice. It would be the exception. Atheists would most likely be seen as a bit mad, and almost definitely as heretical. "What do you mean you don't believe in gods?! The Dragon just flew down, obliterated half the town, transformed into a woman, waved her hands about and the town magically rebuilt itself, and She's claiming to be divinity - and you don't think She's worthy of worship?!" Sure, it's easy for us to deny it, but what about for Farmer Bob and Blacksmith Joe from the hamlet of "Backwater-Medieval-Village-Shire?

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 11:23 AM

I'm still wondering if anyone knows of an example of a canon D&D setting where they present a definition of what gods are, and where the existence of beings that meet that definition can be demonstrated to an observer, and that this demonstration and definition does not also work for epic casters / monsters.

Failing that, it could be fun to come up with some homebrew setting ideas where that's possible without straight up changing the generic D&D rules (such as making it so that only clerics of deities get spells). I believe this is the case in Krynn or Faerun. Iirc extraplanar visitors need to convert to one of the local pantheon to get their magic to work.

If we're going by metagame information, you also potentially contact an Outsider. Gods are Outsiders... For the most part. Representative works just fine though. If you're willing to take important advice from someone then one probably believes their credentials. If one is using commune and heeds the divine advice as more valuable than that of a Hound Arching (Summon Monster V) one is tacitly accepting that the outsider contacted is Special in some way or Special by proxy to a Special being.

Without metagame information, how do you know who you're contacting? You ask them

Yes, but they can replicate divine spell effects.

From magic items. Just like the rogue can.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 11:27 AM

You ask them They could just, you know, lie.

I believe this is the case in Krynn or Faerun. Iirc extraplanar visitors need to convert to one of the local pantheon to get their magic to work. I believe some issues with Faerun specifically were raised earlier in the thread. I am not familiar with Krynn, though. Is there some reason that those issues wouldn't come up in Krynn?

Atheism is a relatively new development in the history of human religious thinking.

Fact check! This is not true. Check out ancient philosophies like Charvaka.

Yes, atheism could exist in a typical D&D (3.x) setting, but I very much doubt that it would be a large practice. It would be the exception. Atheists would most likely be seen as a bit mad, and almost definitely as heretical. "What do you mean you don't believe in gods?! The Dragon just flew down, obliterated half the town, transformed into a woman, waved her hands about and the town magically rebuilt itself, and She's claiming to be divinity - and you don't think She's worthy of worship?!" Sure, it's easy for us to deny it, but what about for Farmer Bob and Blacksmith Joe from the hamlet of "Backwater-Medieval-Village-Shire?

I don't think Sango was arguing otherwise. He was responding to a poster who was wondering how you could reasonably have atheists at all. As was I.

As far as I can tell, nobody's saying that there wouldn't be any religious people in a D&D setting.

NichG

2016-04-12, 11:33 AM

Immortals handbook gods are at the least a distinguishable subset of entities, in that their power is directly, causally dependent on worshippers. There are thresholds where the power of an immortals handbook deity will suddenly change due just to the raw number of worshippers they have. So that particular subtype of power could be objectively verified in that setting, and could be experimented with.

So that might count for what LudicSavant is asking. Epic wizards would lack that vulnerability, and so could be distinguished.

It's independent from whether you want to bind that property to the term 'divinity' though.

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 11:35 AM

For a Lawful believer this is not a problem. Yes L- outsoder might give half truths but wouldn't outright lie and people know this: L outsiders have had aeons to build their reputation. Also if you think they'd lie then why are you asking them.
It's like going to a doctor and asking them for a diagnostic all the while suspecting their degree is phony.

As to why the issues don't come up in Krynn: iirc the Faerunian faith dependency is a punishment by the overgod to the Toril gods for goofing off.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 11:35 AM

Immortals handbook I'm not familiar with that one. Is it third party?

For a Lawful believer this is not a problem. Yes L- outsoder might give half truths but wouldn't outright lie and people know this: L outsiders have had aeons to build their reputation. Also if you think they'd lie then why are you asking them.

Inevitables don't seem to have any trouble making false claims, as established on page 1.

It's like going to a doctor and asking them for a diagnostic all the while suspecting their degree is phony.

No, it isn't. We're not talking about whether or not an average guy will believe it. I have no doubt that average people will believe just about anything.

Also, the doctor's medical practices didn't come out of nowhere. They came from things that passed rigorous scientific standards of evidence. A better analogy would be a doctor trying to publish a paper and pass peer review, and his reputation and credentials isn't going to get him very far with that.

Remember, the thing I was responding to in the first place was a guy claiming that it would never be rational to be an atheist in D&D. In order for that to be even remotely close to true for even one person in the whole D&D world, evidence of gods would have to pass rigorous standards of evidence... not just get the approval of some random guy.

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 11:41 AM

I'm not familiar with that one. Is it third party?

Yes. Third party book most well known for having creatures with numbers so big as to be meaningless.

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 11:45 AM

Well, this is the 3.x subforum...

Really though, what's with all this talk of whether deities exist for real (in D&D) or not? It is irrelevant to the discussion. You can't think of the possibility of atheism/theism in terms of looking in from the outside, but from the perspective of the commoners in the game world itself. As long as the average commoner has reason to believe that a being is worthy of worship, and they worship that being, they are theist.

That's what we are discussing...

In the default (Greyhawk) setting, the world is supposed to be low magic, at least on the Prime Materia. This doesn't mean that poweful magic does not exist, but it is rare. The default setting also is roughly a horribly unhistoric version of our Middle Ages. If a powerful being that could cast actual magic were to have appeared in our historical Middle Ages, there most likely would have been a religion surrounding tat entity.

OK and? We are talking about D&D. Not our history. Look at point 6 in the OP. If a powerful being casted magic in our world, that'd be a pretty huge freaking deal because that's not something that can normally be done. In D&D world, magic is possible by mortals.

In other settings, such as Forgotten Realms' Faerûn, magic is a bit more common, but so is the prevalence of powerful beings identifying themselves as deities. When so-called gods and goddesses or their direct representatives walk among mere mortals, and make that known, it becomes difficult to deny their existence (as beings, not as deities) out right, and for a commoner that does not have any higher understanding of the working of the cosmos it is very easy to view such a being as something to be worshiped.

This still doesn't refute the arguments presented. Particularly number 1 in the OP, because if you believe these "beings" exist, but not that they are deities, then you still don't believe in deities.
OK. So you can convince the country bumpkin that Pealor exists. Congratulations? That's still not an intellectual argument for why gods exist.

Take for example a mid level cleric casting Create Food and Water and saying, "Lo, behold the benevolence of Yondolla! Praise to Her and Her bounty!" Mechanically, we know that this is a cleric casting a spell. Perhaps the spell is derived from a divine being, perhaps it is derived from a concept or other cosmic force. In character, the cleric knows that they are the one creating the food and water, perhaps they believe it is their god's will or perhaps they merely see their god as a font of power to be used for a purpose that aligns with the deity's own. But, from the perspective of the commoners that witness the spell, they have witnessed a miracle brought about by the grace of Yondolla. Even in a world where magic is commonplace, that just means that miracles are more frequent. A constant reminder that the work of a greater power or powers is in play.

But, how do you justify to that same commoner that someone else who worships their own beauty can do the same thing Yondolla's priest can?

Atheism is a relatively new development in the history of human religious thinking. For most of human history there has been some mythology that we have followed, in a myriad of forms. Theism still persists today in a world that is, in the West at least, very science and technology centric. We have scientific understanding of physics and the world's natural laws. We have technology that was pure science-fiction only 50-60 years ago. And still, atheism is not the common belief. Still theism pervades every culture as the dominant belief.

Because theism was a great, easy way to explain ****, when nothing else could. See point 6 in the OP. It has become rooted in the cultures of most people. I still would love to see someone successfully convert a Christian to some other religion.

Yes, atheism could exist in a typical D&D (3.x) setting, but I very much doubt that it would be a large practice. It would be the exception. Atheists would most likely be seen as a bit mad, and almost definitely as heretical. "What do you mean you don't believe in gods?! The Dragon just flew down, obliterated half the town, transformed into a woman, waved her hands about and the town magically rebuilt itself, and She's claiming to be divinity - and you don't think She's worthy of worship?!" Sure, it's easy for us to deny it, but what about for Farmer Bob and Blacksmith Joe from the hamlet of "Backwater-Medieval-Village-Shire?

If that's all that's required, then every wizard can be called a god....and there are plenty of wizards and magical casters, let alone magical beings, in the standard setting. See point 6 in the OP. People in this world would have a higher standard for "what is a god" than our world.
"Great? You can shoot fire from your hand? Yeah, some beggar on the street corner can as well. Big whoop."

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 11:47 AM

Inevitables don't seem to have any trouble making false claims, as established on page 1.
Mmmm... No. You contended that their mission was either paradoxical or based on lies; I contended that there is no paradox, natural laws are bendable and breakable because of the existence of natural chaos.

Furthermore while Inevitables are Constructs produced by pure cosmic Law (meaning their existence and mission are Lawful, but their methods needn't be); Outsiders are that Law, they are extrusions of their native planes, their being is their ideology, a Modron can no more lie than a fire elemental be cold to the touch.

True; angels can fall, demons lawfulized, fiends redeemed etc... But all those processes involve a powerful source altering the outsider's nature.

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 11:53 AM

I contended that there is no paradox Yes, and you did so very poorly indeed, because your own statements contradicted the claims of the inevitables when you said that the natural laws could be violated (when the inevitables said that they were inviolate).

In a magical setting magic makes natural law not inviolate

If the natural laws were not inviolate, then the inevitable would be making a false claim when they claim that they are inviolate.

Either way you turn it, the inevitable is wrong.

SethoMarkus

2016-04-12, 11:55 AM

SangoProduction

2016-04-12, 12:09 PM

Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist. It is not proof that deities do not exist. I think you are mixing up terminology in the title of this thread. Neither atheism nor theism require deities to actually exist/not-exist, just a belief of such. What you are arguing for, then, is "Another argument that deities don't really exist in D&D".

Not neccesarily true. Atheism can be positive assertion that deities no exist, which is going to require far too much knowledge and information to be sure about.
Or Atheism could simply be one that is not convinced by assertions that deities exist.

In modern Atheism, we can discern for a fact that the god presented in the Christian Bible does not exist because of self-contradictory assertions within itself.
This would be a positive assertion that this particular deity does not exist. However, the second Atheism applies to every god which you have not been convinced of yet.

Beyond your first sentence, I'm not sure what you are trying to say, sorry.

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 12:19 PM

Yes, and you did so very poorly indeed, because your own statements contradicted the claims of the inevitables when you said that the natural laws could be violated (when the inevitables said that they were inviolate).

If the natural laws were not inviolate, then the inevitable would be making a false claim when they claim that they are inviolate.

Either way you turn it, the inevitable is wrong.

They are inviolate because they are safe from being violated. Should a violation occur it will be summarily dealt with.

As to why they can be violated: natural law is a property of the plane of Law. From it emanate orderly systems, such as logic, causality, systematic processes, and all human laws; the plane of Law is the platonic ideal of law and order.
However it's counterpart, the plane of Chaos, is just as tight with reality and does not care for any laws: causality, logic, consistency... They all are ideas Chaos rejects and subverts. Thus the natural world has laws, but also ways around them.
To try to apply a real-world definition of natural law to a world where the concepts of order and chaos are real objective forces is as sensible as trying to apply a real world understanding of fire to a world where Fire and Cold are fundamental building blocks of the world.
Commoners in the PMP needn't accept this but any planar traveler or dabbler will have seen and felt the fundamental reality of that. A spellcaster that casts a lot of [law] or [chaos] spells will find their behavior and outlook on the world shifting to be more in line with that force: their alignment will shift.

Furthermore the metagame rules are the fundamental physical laws (in the real world sense, rules for short) of the world.
We can assume that since they are the reality they are discoverable: "commune contacts a deity or representative thereof" is a rule. Through some manner of experimentation the characters of the world can become aware of this rule, though it might take time for it to become accepted as truth.

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 12:30 PM

Furthermore the metagame rules are the fundamental physical laws (in the real world sense, rules for short) of the world.
We can assume that since they are the reality they are discoverable: "commune contacts a deity or representative thereof" is a rule. Through some manner of experimentation the characters of the world can become aware of this rule, though it might take time for it to become accepted as truth.

As a sidenote, fluffwise I don't like commune and its cousins referring deity-less clerics to an appropriate deity, which I didn't realize until today. If you were that sympatico with Pelor or whoever, you should go cleric for him. I'd say that deity-less clerics, who are supposed to be in tune with an aspect or philosophy or what have you, should use something like a ouija board or the I Ching or a magic 8-ball, some random process that under the influence of magic produces meaning.

EDIT: Or reading bird entrails, or tarot cards, or any number of real-world divination magics people have believed in.

Gildedragon

2016-04-12, 12:36 PM

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 12:43 PM

As a sidenote, fluffwise I don't like commune and its cousins referring deity-less clerics to an appropriate deity, which I didn't realize until today. If you were that sympatico with Pelor or whoever, you should go cleric for him. I'd say that deity-less clerics, who are supposed to be in tune with an aspect or philosophy or what have you, should use something like a ouija board or the I Ching or a magic 8-ball, some random process that under the influence of magic produces meaning.

EDIT: Or reading bird entrails, or tarot cards, or any number of real-world divination magics people have believed in.

For the Blood of Vol in Eberron, I fluffed it as them believing they were tapping into the collective wisdom of the Divinity Within... essentially, the collective unconscious of all mortals on the material plane.

For the Valenar, they believed they were channeling the spirits of their long-dead ancestors.

Another idea off the top of my head is that one is achieving a deeper understanding of the world by contemplating the Way of their philosophy, achieving understanding of their question through meditation or some similar exercise.

Another idea would be, as you mentioned, pretty much any of the countless means of divination people have used throughout history to ask questions, and read answers. Wikipedia has a big list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_divination

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 12:52 PM

For the Blood of Vol in Eberron, I fluffed it as them believing they were tapping into the collective wisdom of the Divinity Within... essentially, the collective unconscious of all mortals on the material plane.

For the Valenar, they believed they were channeling the spirits of their long-dead ancestors.

Another idea off the top of my head is that one is achieving a deeper understanding of the world by contemplating the Way of their philosophy, achieving understanding of their question through meditation or some similar exercise.

Another idea would be, well, pretty much any of the countless means of divination people have used throughout history to ask questions, and read answers. Wikipedia has a big list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_divination

Curious: Are those beliefs true? And/or, have you as DM decided whether those beliefs are true?

LudicSavant

2016-04-12, 12:58 PM

Curious: Are those beliefs true? And/or, have you as DM decided whether those beliefs are true?

I don't make a habit of answering questions like this for my players; they must investigate in game if they wish to discover the answers to such mysteries. More fun that way. Same reason why Keith Baker doesn't come out and straight up tell you what caused the Mourning. If I have decided, I won't say anything about it, because my players lurk sometimes.

Anyways, you can do it either way. Maybe the cleric of the Blood of Vol really is tapping into the collective unconscious of humanity... or maybe they're really tapping into the draconic Prophecy etched into the fabric of the universe for glimpses of knowledge, or having their questions answered by an anonymous Vestige, or reaching into the dream realms of Dal Quor, or any of a hundred other possibilities.

The Cleric knows that Commune works, but they don't necessarily know who is on the other side of the call. If you ask who's on the other side of the call, the kind of answers you can get are rather limited (you can only ask simple yes/no questions), and the answers you get are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Segev

2016-04-12, 02:20 PM

To make this easier, let's say that you can have a definition that works for all of the gods of only one canon setting. Can you then come up with a definition of god that fits all of the gods of that setting (and does not fit any non-gods in that setting), and can be demonstrated to an in-world skeptic who knows about standards of evidence?

Curious if there's any canon D&D settings that can pass that test.

I think the definition I've given actually achieves this to at least 85% completion. The one aspect which might be questionable is whether a skeptic who knows the scientific method and understands standards of evidence would be irrefutably shown that, for example, "Artaxus the god of Machines" really is a god, while "Minicon the goddess of Artifice" is actually just a powerful sentient magical item with a great deal of magical power to create things.

The only test I can think of, using my definition, is in seeing if taking one or the other "offline" (killing them, knocking them out, imprisoning them...somehow preventing them from doing their 'divine job') caused detrimental effects to the setting.

In at least that sense, Dream of the Endless (from Neil Gaiman's Sandman stories) is a god. Without him, sleep doesn't happen.

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-12, 05:04 PM

Whether you didn't pick one because you didn't think they existed, or because you did but didn't consider it worth your time, all in all you're just another brick in the Wall.
http://i.imgur.com/nido04b.png

"We know exactly what we're looking for! Divine ranks!"
Many D&D settings and editions do not have these. For the settings that do, it's largely just a power rating... and a power rating that can be exceeded by mortals.
I'd probably argue that a deity from any setting has at least the SRD divine rank system applied to them. However, this goes for my settings as well, it might have been in the setting's best interest not to stat its deities because of that player mentality of "if it has stats, it can be killed". Red Fel.

As far as exceeding a deity's power, that sounds incredibly hard to do. Especially since those who did plan to do such a thing would probably find themselves inside a sphere of annihilation.

I'm still wondering if anyone knows of an example of a canon D&D setting where they present a definition of what gods are...
I'll stick to the Forgotten Realms, since it's what I'm good at. It may be a faux pas to quote 4e material here, but the "Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Guide" states:

The Faerûnian pantheon is dominated by the greater gods, masters of their own domains and allied with or served by ranks of other gods, exarchs (divine beings of extraordinary power), and other extraplanar servitors. Much like their mortal worshipers, the gods seek and break alliances, fight, love, hate, and even kill, absorb, or resurrect each other.
This statement makes sure to humanize the deities. But definitely makes sure to let us know they are not human, even if they once were. Red Fel!

Looking throughout the FR lore, the thing that differentiates a 20th level Wizard from a deity, is that a wizard is just a slightly more powerful commoner if Mystra (Midnight? Mystryl?) decides she doesn't want you to use her weave.

...and where the existence of beings that meet that definition can be demonstrated to an observer, and that this demonstration and definition does not also work for epic casters / monsters.
The book goes on to state that the deities are actively demonstrating their works in the world...

The gods take an active interest in the affairs of Toril, exerting pressures both subtle and overt...
... making it sound like all you truly have to do is step outside to be an observer. RED FEL!

I'd be a poor paladin if I entered a thread about the deities of D&D and didn't spread the word of Torm, so remember kids, Uncle Torm needs you!

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 05:27 PM

As far as exceeding a deity's power, that sounds incredibly hard to do. Especially since those who did plan to do such a thing would probably find themselves inside a sphere of annihilation. Not all dieties are Greater Dieties. The lower rungs of divinity honestly aren't all that hard to exceed with level 9 spells or epic spells. And planning to overthrow a god isn't an auto-fail, it's happened several before. Wasn't Bane once a mortal who ganked a god, then split his portfolios among two 'friends'?

Looking throughout the FR lore, the thing that differentiates a 20th level Wizard from a deity, is that a wizard is just a slightly more powerful commoner if Mystra (Midnight? Mystryl?) decides she doesn't want you to use her weave. Though if you're an StP Erudite instead, Mystra's will has exactly didly on your ability to cast, since psionicists don't need the Weave. Or casters who can use the Shadow Weave (though admittingly, that just shifts the position to Shar).

ShurikVch

2016-04-12, 06:35 PM

Not all dieties are Greater Dieties. The lower rungs of divinity honestly aren't all that hard to exceed with level 9 spells or epic spells.Noooope!!!
Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character.Hand Of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#handOfDeath):
If the attack kills the mortal (either through a failed saving throw or through damage), the mortal cannot be raised or resurrected afterward, except by a deity of equal or higher rank using the Gift of Life, Life and Death, or Mass Life and Death salient divine ability.Craft Artifact (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#craftArtifact)

Though if you're an StP Erudite instead, Mystra's will has exactly didly on your ability to cast, since psionicists don't need the Weave.Not in FR
Dead Magic Zones are work like AMF, and you can't manifest in AMF
Magic and psionics in FR are not just transparent, they are the one and the same

Illven

2016-04-12, 07:01 PM

I'd be a poor paladin if I entered a thread about the deities of D&D and didn't spread the word of Torm, so remember kids, Uncle Torm needs you!

And yet. Apparently if I'm stronger then Torm, he'll try to stick me in a sphere of annihilation. Not surprised, since he apparently thinks punishing atheist even if they are exalted good is a-okay. :smallannoyed:

Maybe that's the main difference because a deity and a non-deity.

If a good character slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent lives because one of their followers went off the deep end, I've yet to meet the DM that wouldn't make them fall to evil immediately.

But when a god does it. That's a-okay. :smallannoyed:

johnbragg

2016-04-12, 07:05 PM

Not all dieties are Greater Dieties. The lower rungs of divinity honestly aren't all that hard to exceed with level 9 spells or epic spells. And planning to overthrow a god isn't an auto-fail, it's happened several before. Wasn't Bane once a mortal who ganked a god, then split his portfolios among two 'friends'?

That doesn't really count, because between Editions all the gods lost their powers and walked the earth as vulnerable Avatars.

Necroticplague

2016-04-12, 07:07 PM

Noooope!!!Hand Of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#handOfDeath):Craft Artifact (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#craftArtifact)
Er, not sure what these have to do with anything. Are these supposed to be things mortals can't match?

Hand of Death just simulates a spell (that one can be easily immune to, I might add), and tacks on "really hard to resurrect". Necrotic Termination can do the same thing (and doesn't even say dieties can bring it back, so Necrotic Termination is actually harder to come back from). And lacks the [death] tag, so it's effective against more things.

Voidstone has the same stats as a Sphere of Annihilation, and occurs completely naturally. It's just a trip to the NEP away for an enterprising plane-hopper.

Any sufficiently advanced wondrous item is indistinguishable from an artifact.

Or is it about how mortals can't bring back people from those? Because a suffeciently skilled Epic Caster could re-make an identical copy to how someone used to be, which, for most intents and purposes, is effectively the same thing as resurrecting them.

Not in FR
Dead Magic Zones are work like AMF, and you can't manifest in AMF
Magic and psionics in FR are not just transparent, they are the one and the same

Player's guide to Faerun has a few worlds on that topic:

Psionics and the Weave

Unlike spells, which derive their power from Faerûn's Weave (or the Shadow Weave), psionic ability taps only the inner reservoirs of the manifester. In a sense, each psionic creature is its own Weave, using the magic of its own lifeforce and mind to create psionic effects. Mystra and Shar have no ability to deny psionic creatures access to powers, and they do not control the promulgation of psionic lore and ability throughout the populace of Faerûn.

While psionics does not require the Weave to function, psionic powers are magical in nature. Spells such as detect magic can also detect psionic abilities at work, and spells such as dispel magic or antimagic shell can negate, suppress, or completely cancel psionic manifestations. In Faerûn, psionics and magic are not transparent to each other; they interact exactly as magic interacts with other magic.
I'm not sure what AMFs have to do with this. We were talking about Mystra cutting of your access to psionic abilities, not AMFs.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 12:06 AM

Any sufficiently advanced wondrous item is indistinguishable from an artifact.

I like that way of putting it. You could probably even shorten it to "Any sufficiently wondrous item is indistinguishable from an artifact." :smallsmile:

As far as exceeding a deity's power, that sounds incredibly hard to do. Especially since those who did plan to do such a thing would probably find themselves inside a sphere of annihilation. It has precedent in the Forgotten Realms setting, as has been mentioned by other posters.

What it comes down to is that if a non-god can achieve power level X and still doesn't count as a god, then "achieved power level X" cannot be the definition for being a god.

The book goes on to state that the deities are actively demonstrating their works in the world... Yes, but the demonstration must demonstrate that they fit a definition of god that does not also describe epic wizards, monsters, etc. To answer the question you have to give a specific example of such a demonstration.

See the bits on why just meeting Corellon Larethian alone isn't sufficient. Corellon Larethian can't just show up and show that he's a handsome elf guy and do some magic, because people who are not Corellon Larethian can do that.

So, specifically what does an FR god do to prove to everyone that they are a god and the epic wizard saying he is a god is not a god?

In order to make a claim like "nobody can rationally be an atheist in Forgotten Realms," first you'd have to offer a specific demonstration that confirms that something is in the god category and not in the non-god category. Moreover, unless said demonstration is the sort of thing that you can easily show to a great many people, then most of the believers in the Forgotten Realms will be operating on faith and there could still be rational atheists running around.

ShurikVch

2016-04-13, 02:46 AM

Any sufficiently advanced wondrous item is indistinguishable from an artifact.OK, go craft me, say, Sphere of Annihilation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#sphereofAnnihilation)...
No? :smallconfused:
Then how about the Crystal Hypnosis Ball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#crystalHypnosisBall)?
Still no?
Laaaame! :smalltongue:

Or is it about how mortals can't bring back people from those?Yes.
Because a suffeciently skilled Epic Caster could re-make an identical copy to how someone used to be, which, for most intents and purposes, is effectively the same thing as resurrecting them.By the RAW - no, "only" means "only", no leeway here
But if you seek for more creative interpretations, there is the quote from thread "Recreating a soul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?135487-Recreating-a-soul)":
Wish lets you create things de novo, so that might work, but I think you'd run a strong risk of resurrecting your image of the person rather than the person themselves- eg. if Roy Wished Haley back to lfe we'd get "Greedy Haley" rather than "Ransom-paying Haley" because he doesn't know about her dad.
.

Player's guide to Faerun has a few worlds on that topic:

I'm not sure what AMFs have to do with this. We were talking about Mystra cutting of your access to psionic abilities, not AMFs.Explanation:
What is Dead Magic Zone fluff-wise?
It's a tear in the Weave.
What is Dead Magic Zone RAW-wise?
It's an AMF (except Shadow Weave stuff still works).
Psionics-Magic Transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y):
Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.
Thus, you still need Weave in order to actually use your psionics (and Mystra control Weave)

Mr Adventurer

2016-04-13, 02:52 AM

Whereas in Eberron, it works more like this:

https://i.imgflip.com/12cxkh.jpg

:D

Do people still get that reference? It's an old film now!

(I agree with your post though)

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 03:42 AM

OK, go craft me
There is precedent that artifacts can be created by mortals in D&D settings. Just because there's a "Craft Artifact" ability for deities doesn't preclude non-deities from doing it.

Moreover, any definition separating deities from non-deities would have to exclude all non-deities and include all deities. e.g. if your taxonomic condition was "can make artifacts" then all deities would have to be able to do it, and all non-deities would have to be unable to do it.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 04:47 AM

OK, go craft me, say, Sphere of Annihilation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#sphereofAnnihilation)...
No? :smallconfused:
Already pointed out, you can just grab some Voidstone, mechanically identical to Sphere of Anhialation, from the NEP, where it naturally occurs. Or use an Epic Spell to make an Umbral Blot.

Then how about the Crystal Hypnosis Ball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#crystalHypnosisBall)?
Still no?
Laaaame! :smalltongue:
Cursed use-activated item of Suggestion (user only), drawback Fascinates user, Delusion sees scrying attempt.

Yes.By the RAW - no, "only" means "only", no leeway here
But if you seek for more creative interpretations, there is the quote from thread "Recreating a soul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?135487-Recreating-a-soul)":
.Unless you can actually show me a citation for where that risk exists, I think assuming such is true is highly questionable. Magic can do things based on information the caster isn't entirely aware of (you don't necessarily know if your Charm Person target is actually Humanoid, doesn't matter, magic still does its own thing). So an Epic Spell to recreate a person who is unable to be actually resurected is pretty reasonable. How hard such a spell would be is based on the characteristics of the person you're trying to bring back.

Explanation:
What is Dead Magic Zone fluff-wise?
It's a tear in the Weave.
What is Dead Magic Zone RAW-wise?
It's an AMF (except Shadow Weave stuff still works).
Psionics-Magic Transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y):
Thus, you still need Weave in order to actually use your psionics (and Mystra control Weave)
I admire your ability to ignore where the rules flat-out state your wrong. I'm not sure where the ambiguity in the section I quoted earlier is. To reiterate: if all of this is true, why does the book explicitely state:

Unlike spells, which derive their power from Faerûn's Weave (or the Shadow Weave), psionic ability taps only the inner reservoirs of the manifester. In a sense, each psionic creature is its own Weave, using the magic of its own lifeforce and mind to create psionic effects. Mystra and Shar have no ability to deny psionic creatures access to powers, and they do not control the promulgation of psionic lore and ability throughout the populace of Faerûn.

While psionics does not require the Weave to function, psionic powers are magical in nature. Spells such as detect magic can also detect psionic abilities at work, and spells such as dispel magic or antimagic shell can negate, suppress, or completely cancel psionic manifestations. In Faerûn, psionics and magic are not transparent to each other; they interact exactly as magic interacts with other magic.

ShurikVch

2016-04-13, 06:13 AM

Already pointed out, you can just grab some Voidstone, mechanically identical to Sphere of Anhialation, from the NEP, where it naturally occurs. Or use an Epic Spell to make an Umbral Blot.Voidstone is not a Sphere of Annihilation - it allow Fort save and don't controlled by mind.
Umbral Blot don't have nothing in common with Sphere of Annihilation besides superficial similarity of appearance - it disintegrate on touch (to which number of creatures are immune), can be destroyed by hp damage
I don't accept this fakes
Swiss watch shouldn't say "Made in China"
You failed there

Unless you can actually show me a citation for where that risk exists, I think assuming such is true is highly questionable.What's you want - it's the Wish for you: 5% RAW, 95% Rule 0

Magic can do things based on information the caster isn't entirely aware ofTo quote your one words: "Unless you can actually show me a citation.., I think assuming such is true is highly questionable."

you don't necessarily know if your Charm Person target is actually Humanoid, doesn't matter, magic still does its own thingEh? What's fizzle of spell for incorrect target have to do with "9th level spell can do something RAW explicitly says it can't"? :smallconfused:

So an Epic Spell to recreate a person who is unable to be actually resurected is pretty reasonable. How hard such a spell would be is based on the characteristics of the person you're trying to bring back.Considering RAW flat out says it's impossible, DC should be "Nope!"

I admire your ability to ignore where the rules flat-out state your wrong. I'm not sure where the ambiguity in the section I quoted earlier is. To reiterate: if all of this is true, why does the book explicitely state:Absolutely nothing it that text says psionics can be used in the AMF, so your quote don't actually prove anything

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 06:49 AM

Voidstone is not a Sphere of Annihilation - it allow Fort save and don't controlled by mind.
Umbral Blot don't have nothing in common with Sphere of Annihilation besides superficial similarity of appearance - it disintegrate on touch (to which number of creatures are immune), can be destroyed by hp damage
I don't accept this fakes
Swiss watch shouldn't say "Made in China"
You failed there. And tell me, how does an average person tell the difference? "Oh, this black sphere that disintegrates everything it touched is completely different from this different sphere that disintegrates everything it touches."

Eh? What's fizzle of spell for incorrect target have to do with "9th level spell can do something RAW explicitly says it can't"? :smallconfused: Who said anything about level 9 spells? I've been saying you could re-create someone using Epic magic. Not technically resurrecting them, so its gets around the 'no resurrection' clauses, buts its similar enough for most people's care.

Considering RAW flat out says it's impossible, DC should be "Nope!" the rules only say you can't flat-out ressurect the person slain by those methods. It is incredibly silent on your ability to create identical copies of how they used to be.

Absolutely nothing it that text says psionics can be used in the AMF, so your quote don't actually prove anything
At no point was I ever discussing the ability of psionics to be used in an AMF. The point was that Mystra can't take away an erudites ability to manifest (like she can with a wizard).

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 07:55 AM

Magic can do things based on information the caster isn't entirely aware of

To quote your one words: "Unless you can actually show me a citation.., I think assuming such is true is highly questionable."

Necrotic already gave you a perfectly good example in the form of Charm Person not requiring the caster to know whether or not a character is a humanoid. Seriously, it was the second part of the very line you quoted. :smallannoyed:

Magic can do things based on information the caster isn't entirely aware of (you don't necessarily know if your Charm Person target is actually Humanoid, doesn't matter, magic still does its own thing).

ShurikVch

2016-04-13, 08:21 AM

And tell me, how does an average person tell the difference? "Oh, this black sphere that disintegrates everything it touched is completely different from this different sphere that disintegrates everything it touches."If said "average" person know at all about existence of Sphere of Annihilation (incredibly rare item), then he probably can differ it from cheap lookalikes.
Off the top of my head: Umbral Blot is bigger than Sphere of Annihilation, leave dust from disintegrated stuff, tougher creatures are able to actually survive it's touch (and some are immune outright), and Blackball itself can be destroyed by hp damage
And about the Voidstones: 99.(99)% probably wouldn't be of appropriate size (and I seriously doubt all Voidstones are of spherical form)

Who said anything about level 9 spells?You did.
The lower rungs of divinity honestly aren't all that hard to exceed with level 9 spells or epic spells.

I've been saying you could re-create someone using Epic magic.You could - if you have divine rank... :smallamused:

Not technically resurrecting them, so its gets around the 'no resurrection' clauses, buts its similar enough for most people's care. the rules only say you can't flat-out ressurect the person slain by those methods. It is incredibly silent on your ability to create identical copies of how they used to be.Sphere of Annihilation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#sphereofAnnihilation):
Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character.Where is it says "resurrection"? :smallconfused:
It says "restore".
Thus deities - even a lowest 0th-rank ones - are still able to do something which is beyond the capabilities of even 1000th level mortal Wizard

At no point was I ever discussing the ability of psionics to be used in an AMF. The point was that Mystra can't take away an erudites ability to manifest (like she can with a wizard).Let's see:
1. Dead Magic Zone works like AMF sans Shadow Weave
2. You can't manifest in AMF
3. Dead Magic Zone is tear in the Weave
4. Mystra control Weave
5. Mystra can disconnect from the Weave any caster - because she control it
6. Mystra can't disconnect from the Weave any manifester - because..?

Mehangel

2016-04-13, 10:31 AM

If said "average" person know at all about existence of Sphere of Annihilation (incredibly rare item), then he probably can differ it from cheap lookalikes.
Off the top of my head: Umbral Blot is bigger than Sphere of Annihilation, leave dust from disintegrated stuff, tougher creatures are able to actually survive it's touch (and some are immune outright), and Blackball itself can be destroyed by hp damage
And about the Voidstones: 99.(99)% probably wouldn't be of appropriate size (and I seriously doubt all Voidstones are of spherical form)
As for some creatures being immune to umbral blot, the same could be said about spheres of annnihilation (which a tenth level Entropomancer is immune to).

Sphere of Annihilation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#sphereofAnnihilation):Where is it says "resurrection"? :smallconfused:
It says "restore".
Thus deities - even a lowest 0th-rank ones - are still able to do something which is beyond the capabilities of even 1000th level mortal Wizard
While RAW an Epic Wizard may not be able to "restore" someone destroyed by a Sphere of Annihilation, nothing is stopping him from creating a perfect clone of the original.

Let's see:
1. Dead Magic Zone works like AMF sans Shadow Weave
2. You can't manifest in AMF
3. Dead Magic Zone is tear in the Weave
4. Mystra control Weave
5. Mystra can disconnect from the Weave any caster - because she control it
6. Mystra can't disconnect from the Weave any manifester - because..?
Except Specific trumps General. So while generally speaking, Mystra can disconnect the Weave from any caster; Mystra is explicitly unable to disconnect the weave from manifesters.

Segev

2016-04-13, 11:06 AM

Mystra can disconnect the Weave from any caster; Mystra is explicitly unable to disconnect the weave from manifesters.

Which means that casters are chumps for not being psions. Especially arcane casters, who could have studied a less patron-dependent course for the same or greater power (than you, StP Erudites).

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 11:31 AM

Red Fel.

*SNIP*

Red Fel!

*SNIP*

RED FEL!

Hmm? Wossat now? What do...

This? Again? Seriously?

No. Ugh. This discussion is overdone. Look, in a world where everyone can plainly see the work of deities, an atheist simply comes across as a loonie. In a world where deities actively persecute those who blaspheme them, he is a suicidal loonie. It's not complicated.

Can you have a character who disbelieves? Sure you can. He won't make many friends. As a rule, most people in the various D&D universes worship something, if not actively; they offer at least token praise. And they have, generally, just enough common sense to avoid ticking off omnipotent beings. As a rule, gods aren't fond of being ignored; they take active offense with those whose continued existence serves to prove the gods' own nonexistence.

Frankly, the fact that I don't get nearly enough genuflection out of this forum makes me somewhat smite-prone at times. And by "at times" I mean "constantly." And by "somewhat" I mean "particularly." And by "smite-prone" I mean... Well, that's actually exactly what I mean.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that I did not account for worlds in which the work of deities cannot be seen. Okay, let me clarify. In a world where everyone can plainly see the work of deities, an atheist simply comes across as a loonie. In a world where everyone cannot plainly see the work of deities, we're no longer discussing D&D/PF, and this thread needs to move to an appropriate subforum.

hamishspence

2016-04-13, 11:52 AM

Wasn't Bane once a mortal who ganked a god, then split his portfolios among two 'friends'?

While that's not how The Three got their portfolios - they did kill a god, as mortals.

Supposedly, the god with the portfolios (Jergal) decided "I'm not doing this any more" and put his portfolios up for grabs:

Baldur's Gate computer game:

In ages past there was but one god of strife, death, and the dead, and he was known as Jergal, Lord of the End of Everything. Jergal fomented and fed on the discord among mortals and powers alike. When beings slew each other in their quest for power or in their hatred, he welcomed them into his shadowy kingdom of eternal gloom. As all things died, everything came to him eventually, and over time he built his power into a kingdom unchallenged by any other god. Eventually, however, he grew tired of his duties for he knew them too well.

Without challenge there is nothing, and in nothingness there is only gloom. In such a state, the difference between absolute power and absolute powerlessness is undetectable. During this dark era, there arose three powerful mortals - Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul - who lusted after the power Jergal wielded. The trio forged an unholy pact, agreeing that they would dare to seek such ultimate power or die in the attempt. Over the length and breadth of the Realms they strode, seeking powerful magic and spells and defying death at every turn. No matter what monster they confronted or what spells they braved, the three mortals emerged unscathed at every turn. Eventually the trio destroyed one of the Seven Lost Gods, and they each seized a portion of his divine essence for themselves. The trio then journeyed into the Gray Waste and sought out the Castle of Bone.

Through armies of skeletons, legions of zombies, hordes or noncorporeal undead, and a gauntlet of liches they battled. Eventually they reached the object of their lifelong quest - the Bone Throne. "I claim this throne of evil," shouted Bane the tyrant. ''I'll destroy you before you can raise a finger," threatened Bhaal the assassin. ''And I shall imprison your essence for eternity," promised Myrkul the necromancer. Jergal arose from his throne with a weary expression and said, "The Throne is yours. I have grown weary of this empty power. Take it if you wish - I promise to serve and guide you as your seneschal until you grow comfortable with the position."

Before the stunned trio could react, the Lord of the Dead continued, "who among you shall rule?" The trio immediately fell to fighting amongst themselves while Jergal looked on with indifference. When eventually it appeared that either they would all die of exhaustion or battle on for an eternity, the Lord of the End of Everything intervened. "After all you have sacrificed, would you come away with nothing? Why don't you divide the portfolios of the office and engage in a game of skill for them?" asked Jergal. Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul considered the god's offer and agreed. Jergal took the heads of his three most powerful liches and gave them to the trio that they would compete by bowling the skulls. Each mortal rolled a skull across the Gray Waste, having agreed that the winner would be he who bowled the farthest.

Malar the Beastlord arrived to visit Jergal at this moment. After quickly ascertaining that the winner of the contest would get all of Jergal's power, he chased off after the three skulls to make sure that the contest would be halted until he had a chance to participate for part of the prize. Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul again fell to fighting, as it was obvious their sport was ruined, and again Jergal intervened. "Why don't you allow Lady Luck to decide so you don't have to share with the Beast?"

The trio agreed, and Jergal broke off his skeletal finger bones and gave them to the players. When Malar returned form chasing the skulls, he found that the trio had just finished a game of knucklebones. Bane cried out triumphantly, "As winner, I choose to rule for all eternity as the ultimate tyrant. I can induce hatred and strife at my whim, and all will bow down before me while in my kingdom." Myrkul, who had won second place, declared, "But I choose the dead, and by doing so I truly win, because all you are lord over, Bane, will eventually be mine. All things must die - even gods."

Bhaal, who finished third, demurred, "I choose death, and it is by my hand that all that you rule Lord Bane will eventually pass to Lord Myrkul. Both of you must pay honor to me and obey my wishes, since I can destroy your kingdom Bane, by murdering your subjects, and I can starve your kingdom, Myrkul by staying my hand." Malar growled in frustration, but could do nothing, and yet again only the beasts were left for him. And Jergal merely smiled, for he had been delivered.

Illven

2016-04-13, 12:35 PM

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that I did not account for worlds in which the work of deities cannot be seen. Okay, let me clarify. In a world where everyone can plainly see the work of deities, an atheist simply comes across as a loonie. In a world where everyone cannot plainly see the work of deities, we're no longer discussing D&D/PF, and this thread needs to move to an appropriate subforum.

Ebberon is a D&D world. Pretty sure that one is ambiguous.

RolkFlameraven

2016-04-13, 12:40 PM

It has precedent in the Forgotten Realms setting, as has been mentioned by other posters.

No it hasn't. There has only been three (confirmed) cases of deicide by mortals, one was Karsus and its impossible to do what he did now, and the other was Cyric who was wielding Mask as a sword anyway, and Mask is a god himself, and that god (Bhaal) was massively weakened at the time. The other god to die at a 'mortals' hands was Myrkul but Midnight was using Mystra's power at the time so that is debatable.

So even here its gods killing gods not mortals as the weapon or power used was THAT OF THE GODS save for Karsus and even he didn't kill Mystral he just forced her to suicide to save the world.

Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul, the three cited, didn't kill Jergal, he is very much alive, but 'beat' him in a game of knuckles of most of his power, a game that he cheated in to LOOSE.

Finder Wyvernspur also killed a 'god' but it was reduced to a demigod at the time but he only had to use an artifact and not a god to kill the thing so I guess their is that?

As for Psionics being used against Mystra. It could work but A) Auppenser is under her umbrella and might try to stop you if he can (he is asleep after all) B) if Mystra can make this (http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/magister.shtml) then why couldn't she just give herself Mystra's shield and laugh at you?

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 12:50 PM

Ebberon is a D&D world. Pretty sure that one is ambiguous.

This is actually a fair point. Particularly when you consider the existence of Warforged - artificial life whose existence raises the question of souls - and the Lord of Blades, who may or may not be a god or godlike being. And then you have the Sovereign Host, who are fairly uninvolved by D&D standards. I'll give you that.

But then you also have Dragonmarks, lightning rails, and airships. At a certain point, you're dealing with power levels to such an extent that just about anybody could make an argument for godhood. And if you don't have a Dragonmark or similar power yourself, who are you to argue?

That said, Eberron has a different standard for godhood - Dragons. Let's be honest, they're already almost-gods; ageless, titanic beings of inconceivable power and intellect. Kobolds already worship them, as do the Seren barbarians. And in Eberron, they basically assume the role of gods; enigmatic beings playing chess with the fates of the mortal races. For all intents and purposes, they are killable gods. (And in D&D, most gods are killable, too.)

And guess what? If you visit Argonessen, or if a Dragon decides to stop by your home town for some reason, you can see them and know that they exist.

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 01:00 PM

Ebberon is a D&D world. Pretty sure that one is ambiguous.

The flamekeep does give direct view of a "god"
And then there's the problem of the Rakshasa Rajahs: if there is no Power opposing them then joining them us the only sensible choice. But there is a power opposing them, Eberron and by extension all life. Not a very involved deity but a present one.
In Eberron skepticism about the proclaimed gods is understandable; faithlessness too, but inquiry leads to belief, at least in the abstract, in the progenitors

Segev

2016-04-13, 01:09 PM

In a world where everyone can plainly see the work of deities, an atheist simply comes across as a loonie. In a world where everyone cannot plainly see the work of deities, we're no longer discussing D&D/PF, and this thread needs to move to an appropriate subforum.He will, as long as there's an agreed-upon definition of "deity" which accepts that those beings whose work we're observing fit the bill. I draw your attention to the SG-1 gua'uld, once again: their works are plainly visible, and they ARE worshipped as deities...but there are rebel factions who think they can fight or hide, and the Tau'ri certainly don't accept the claims of divinity.

Yes, not D&D, but the point stands.

We can plainly see the works of wizards, too, and a lich claiming to be a god would not only have plainly visible works, but be nigh-unkillable by any standard most of the setting could bring to bear, as well as being immortal. But if the "god" of a cult that ran a small nation-state was revealed to be "really a lich," the PCs, at least, would call him a false god.

This is actually a fair point. Particularly when you consider the existence of Warforged - artificial life whose existence raises the question of souls - and the Lord of Blades, who may or may not be a god or godlike being. And then you have the Sovereign Host, who are fairly uninvolved by D&D standards. I'll give you that.

But then you also have Dragonmarks, lightning rails, and airships. At a certain point, you're dealing with power levels to such an extent that just about anybody could make an argument for godhood. And if you don't have a Dragonmark or similar power yourself, who are you to argue?

That said, Eberron has a different standard for godhood - Dragons. Let's be honest, they're already almost-gods; ageless, titanic beings of inconceivable power and intellect. Kobolds already worship them, as do the Seren barbarians. And in Eberron, they basically assume the role of gods; enigmatic beings playing chess with the fates of the mortal races. For all intents and purposes, they are killable gods. (And in D&D, most gods are killable, too.)

And guess what? If you visit Argonessen, or if a Dragon decides to stop by your home town for some reason, you can see them and know that they exist.
Let's also take a look at Sigil in Planescape. Gods are acknowledged existences there, but the Lady of Pain has plainly visible works and is treated with the awe and reverence usually reserved for the divine, but explicitly is not a goddess and will not be worshipped.

So it still remains a valid question: what is a "god?"

But yeah, if you're setting is a world under the rule of a gua'uld god-king who demonstrates his divinity regularly, it's understandable that you'd have the denizens of that setting all accept "he's a god." And view anybody who claimed otherwise as nuts...unless that "anybody" could replicate or mimic the god's effects to similar efficacy.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 01:11 PM

I think that in almost any D&D cosmos, anything we IRL would term an atheist would be analogous to the "Sovereign Citizens Movement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement#Legal_status_of_theorie s), which asserts that the authority of the US federal courts and government is somehow legally defective, and by stating the correct legal formula one becomes a "Sovereign Citizen" of your state. (Also something about a flag with gold fringe on it being an "admiralty flag" and I'm not in the NAvy so *blows raspberry*.)

Even if, in some Platonic legal sense, the arguments of the "Sovereign Citizen Movement" were somehow intellectually demonstrated to be true, they would still be nearly-universally regarded as bonkers.

(And racist, too, but that's less relevant than the case of a small group denying, on grounds of highly debatable definitions, something that is nearly-universally accepted as a fact, and making a point of it at significant cost to themselves--they always lose these cases and end up going to jail or being bankrupted by fines. They may or may not believe that they will pay the cost, but it is clearly forseeable to a reasonable observer.)

EDIT: Link added, for connoisseurs of crazy.

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 01:13 PM

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 01:20 PM

This is actually a fair point. Particularly when you consider the existence of Warforged - artificial life whose existence raises the question of souls - and the Lord of Blades, who may or may not be a god or godlike being. And then you have the Sovereign Host, who are fairly uninvolved by D&D standards. I'll give you that.

But then you also have Dragonmarks, lightning rails, and airships. At a certain point, you're dealing with power levels to such an extent that just about anybody could make an argument for godhood. And if you don't have a Dragonmark or similar power yourself, who are you to argue?

Any number of actual canon Eberron NPCs?

That said, Eberron has a different standard for godhood - Dragons. Let's be honest, they're already almost-gods; ageless, titanic beings of inconceivable power and intellect. Kobolds already worship them, as do the Seren barbarians. And in Eberron, they basically assume the role of gods; enigmatic beings playing chess with the fates of the mortal races. For all intents and purposes, they are killable gods. (And in D&D, most gods are killable, too.)

And guess what? If you visit Argonessen, or if a Dragon decides to stop by your home town for some reason, you can see them and know that they exist.

Yeah, a dragon is powerful, and yeah, a dragon exists, and yeah, some dragons claim to be gods. You know who else fits that description? Pharaohs.

Last I checked, most people accept that pharaohs existed, but don't consider themselves believers in Egyptian religion. The salient point there is that believing a being exists and that a being is powerful are not the only requirements for being a theist.

You have to believe that the being is a deity, and that word doesn't just mean "a sufficiently powerful being."

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 01:23 PM

Yeah, a dragon is powerful, and yeah, a dragon exists, and yeah, some dragons claim to be gods. You know who else fits that description? Pharaohs.

Last I checked, most people accept that pharaohs existed, but don't consider themselves believers in Egyptian religion. The salient point there is that believing a being exists is not the only requirement for being a theist.

And you just hit on the point.

Coming up with a mutually agreed-upon definition for godhood becomes increasingly impossible, particularly when dealing with a character who for whatever reason is predisposed to disbelief, even in the face of awe-inspiringly powerful beings. And without that, the entire conversation becomes pointless.

Or, to put it simply, disbelievers gonna disbelieve.

Segev

2016-04-13, 01:28 PM

Ultimately, it's kind of a fruitless debate.

Try to come up with a metric by which a D&D atheist would appraise a would-be deity. Can't be killed? Lives forever? Oodles of power?

Pretty much any metric you can come up with is either overly inclusive (e.g. Dragons, Outsiders, particularly high-level PCs) or utterly exclusive (to the point that nothing, not even a deity, could meet those standards). Short of measuring metagame constructs like Divine Rank (and I don't think there is a Detect Divine Rank spell), there's really no way to create a test that would establish a deity, and only a deity, as a deity.Actually, I think I came up with a decent starting point, at least, a few posts back:

Gods are, almost invariably (especially in D&D), gods "of something." God of war, goddess of love, god of thunder, goddess of magic, god of trickery, goddess of spiders, etc. etc.

They generally have greater power in their purview than outside of it. They have unique abilities related to it. And, in most settings, they seem to have some sympathetic tie to it. That is, if something happens to them, something happens to their purview. Whether it's because the goddess of magic is the magical weave tapped by every caster ever, so killing her terminates all magic, or because the god of naval warfare is an administrator who tracks and monitors and sees to it that such wars happen on schedule and in an orderly fashion, so his disappearance means that ongoing wars shift chaotically with no rhyme nor reason, wars that should break out over fishing rights don't, and topsy-turvy social constructs remain in effect even as they destroy both societies (rather than self-correcting through war)...

Whatever the god's tie to his purview, without him, it goes haywire or fails altogether. His personality influences it (or is influenced by it), and replacing him will change it in some fundamental way.

If the starship Enterprise came across a planet where they worship a god of deceit and lies, and the crew captured the "extradimensional entity" in a superscience prison to prove his lack of divinity, but they then discovered that deception of any sort stopped...being...there would be some serious questions raised about whether he really is what his worshippers claim him to be.

I mean, even assuming one could come up with an adequate and specific metric of godhood, towards what end?Search for truth. Determination of whether these "gods" really should be worshipped, or treated with more like powerful potentates. Determination of whether god-declared "heresy" is something actively to be avoided as falsehood, or merely something the "gods" don't want you to learn about for their own selfish reasons that are not worthy of a true scholar's consideration.

And why would an atheist - one who espouses the belief that gods do not exist, as opposed to one who merely questions - develop a test for something he contends doesn't exist?Two reasons: 1) if he's actually a devout atheist (and thus hinges his sense of self on his faith that there are no real gods), he will have such criteria to try to "prove" that he's right when others point out things that should make his faith obviously false; and 2) because maybe he started by "merely question," and this metric was how he strove to answer his questions.

It's just such a frustratingly futile area. And in a given D&D world, most characters really can't [I]afford the leisure of such complex thought. Not when they should be worshiping glorious beings of incomprehensible power.

I'm still waiting.Very patiently, I note. Do you still want that undead army delivered next month? If you want to throw some bodies of the unfaithful my way, I'll be happy to add them to it.

Mehangel

2016-04-13, 01:33 PM

Pretty much any metric you can come up with is either overly inclusive (e.g. Dragons, Outsiders, particularly high-level PCs) or utterly exclusive (to the point that nothing, not even a deity, could meet those standards). Short of measuring metagame constructs like Divine Rank (and I don't think there is a Detect Divine Rank spell), there's really no way to create a test that would establish a deity, and only a deity, as a deity.

For a D&D-universe atheist to simply be dismissive of the possibility of deities makes one look like a stubborn fool. For him to try to conceive of any form of metric borders on lunacy. I mean, even assuming one could come up with an adequate and specific metric of godhood, towards what end? And why would an atheist - one who espouses the belief that gods do not exist, as opposed to one who merely questions - develop a test for something he contends doesn't exist? And if the test were not constructed by an atheist, couldn't the atheist simply argue that it was specifically designed to prove, rather than disprove, a particular being's godhood?

While it is true that an atheist probably wouldn't research and/or create a spell that would measure Divine Rank, I think that this is something that the Forgotten Realms God Maker, Ao might create and give to all casters as a level 0 spell. This will not only allow all casters (divine and arcane alike) the ability to categorize beings of power as gods or not gods alike. That way when an epic wizard comes along and claims to be a god, a simple spell can be cast and instantaneously disprove it. Although such a spell may then cause ambitious epic mages to research spells that create/mimic such auras, but whatever.

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 01:33 PM

Any number of actual canon Eberron NPCs?

Yeah, a dragon is powerful, and yeah, a dragon exists, and yeah, some dragons claim to be gods. You know who else fits that description? Pharaohs.

Last I checked, most people accept that pharaohs existed, but don't consider themselves believers in Egyptian religion. The salient point there is that believing a being exists and that a being is powerful are not the only requirements for being a theist.

You have to believe that the being is a deity, and that word doesn't just mean "a sufficiently powerful being."

Your argument regarding self proclaimed deities has more to do with "are the gods worthy of worship" than with "do the gods exist"
The latter is indisputably true: Divine ranks are a thing.
Not all beings that claim to be gods have statted out ranks, or ranks at all. That is irrelevant. Some number of gods exist.

More interesting is the question of "do the gods deserve worship, and why?"
Here the D&D "atheist" has a leg to stand on: "Gods are no more than arbitrarily powerful beings, no more worthy of worship than a powerful wizard" there are differences between the natures of the god and the wizard, but if the former's claim for veneration is power then worship is due to the wizard too...
Or maybe if someone argues that God's ought be worshiped for being gods, one can say one rejects that axiom. Etc...

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 01:33 PM

You have to believe that the being is a deity, and that word doesn't just mean "a sufficiently powerful being."

Which you have never gotten around to defining. If I say that "there are no Scotsmen in D&D!" and you point at a redbearded fellow named Angus MacAngus wearing a kilt and playing the bagpipes with a claymore strapped to his back, and I say "that's not a Scotsman!" then it falls to me to tell you what exactly I think a Scotsman is.

(Perhaps my contention that there are no Scotsmen is correct, in that the redheaded kilted bagpipe-playing claymore wielding warforged was, in fact, born/created in Eberron which is not part of Scotland. Or perhaps my definition is wrong, and Mr MacAngus in fact has the soul of a Scotsman, which is what counts. But it is long past time to define our terms here.)

LudicSAvant, what is a deity?

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 01:34 PM

Or, to put it simply, disbelievers gonna disbelieve.

Yes. Establishing that to folks who were specifically saying otherwise was the point of the discussion. Given that, I find it odd that you describe it as "fruitless." :smallconfused:

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 01:43 PM

This argument (and similar ones like it that have popped up a few times), however, only proves two things, at best: 1. The creature (dragon, in this case) exists. 2. It has some manner of power. That doesn't provide any proof either that it is a god. Heck, even the actual gods in other settings can't do much more than show that they are incredibly powerful outsiders. So it can be quiet reasonable for a person to not think such things are gods. And thus, by extension, that there aren't any.

And the distinction is ultimately an academic one. I mean, you can go face to face with Hextor and prove that (1) he is killable, (2) his knowledge and powers have boundaries, and (3) he is otherwise imperfect, ergo (4) he is not a god.

And you'll get a smite-to-the-face.

I will acknowledge that a sufficiently stubborn atheist can point to just about any powerful being and dismiss it as merely a powerful being. The distinction between that and godhood is academic, but we can attempt to bridge that regardless. To do that, however, we must come up with a definition of godhood that would satisfy the must stubborn (but still intellectually honest) of D&D atheists.

Segev makes a fair point about a deity being intrinsically tied to something, and that something becoming disrupted when you remove the deity. That said, (1) being able to, as a mortal, capture, kill, or incapacitate a being, tends to disprove that being's godhood; and (2) a Wizard with sufficient contingencies could accomplish much the same thing. It's the equivalent of saying "If I don't send an e-mail every twelve hours, X happens."

But Segev and johnbragg are right. Let us first come up with the D&D atheist's definition of godhood. Ludic, since you appear to be arguing that side of the spectrum, I'd like to hear what you have to offer. Because my personal view is that a truly stubborn D&D atheist would simply move the goalposts, preventing any kind of meaningful debate on the topic - and obviating the point of this thread.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 01:47 PM

Ludic, since you appear to be arguing that side of the spectrum, I'd like to hear what you have to offer.

I'm confused. What exactly is it that you believe I'm arguing? :smallconfused:

Because my personal view is that a truly stubborn D&D atheist would simply move the goalposts, preventing any kind of meaningful debate on the topic - and obviating the point of this thread.

I feel like you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. Sango and I were attempting to refute a claim by a poster that nobody in any D&D setting would be an atheist.

I feel like you already agree that that's not the case, so I'm not sure why you feel that the point of the thread is obviated.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 01:49 PM

And in a given D&D world, most characters really can't afford the leisure of such complex thought. Not when they should be worshiping glorious beings of incomprehensible power.

I'm still waiting.

Upon review, Mr Red Fel, the high priests of the kingdom where my campaign is set regret to inform you that their best information indicates that you are, in fact, the sort of entity that they collect and harvest and organize worship energy to empower their pantheon to stop and oppose. (In other words, you are in fact the one the Mother's oracles and prophets warned them about, lo these many centuries ago) Therefore, your demand for worship is denied, and your presence in the Kingdom or in its borderlands is abjured. Should you wish to manifest some portion of your essence into our plane, be advised that our E6 reality does not support entities above a certain CR range. (This range is higher outside the spheres of influence of large polities, which is why aberrations show up in the Wild Wastes rather than in the middle of civilized areas.)

Should entities achieve such a CR range, or come into existence with such a range, local reality conditions will adjust to their nature, for an unpredictable period of time. However, attempting to leave those local reality conditions can result in a lowering of CR or a local reality breach, (sages have been unable to reach conclusions as to when and why one happens rather than the other) which consists of the locally altered reality losing connection with our base reality.

NOTE: This is not, in fact, a denial by my NPCs of Red Fel's alleged divinity. It is simply a refusal to pay tribute in worship energy.

The Viscount

2016-04-13, 01:53 PM

Oh boy time for playground doing philosophy.

Curious: Are those beliefs true? And/or, have you as DM decided whether those beliefs are true?

The Blood of Vol harness the divinity within which is intrinsic to every being, it's almost not a religion in terms of how it works. It's not about harnessing collective unconscious so much as it is about self empowerment and realizing your own ability to influence the world (almost like those cheesy self-help books). It is still "true" in that it can grant you domains, but Eberron is explicit in saying that clerics are granted things based on their faith, not the power of what they ascribe to. There is of course the secret in that it is used as a blood harvesting organization and means of generating loyal servants by Erandis Vol herself, so it's not "true" in that sense.

Aerenal elves literally are channeling their ancestors. There are feats and classes revolving around this. The Undying Court rules over them and consists of these ancestors, both bodyless and preserved to guide them as Deathless.

On the subject of other Eberron things, I've always found the warforged soul debate to be a bit of an odd one. While philosophically in the world of Eberron their existence raises the question about souls, Warforged can be raised and resurrected. This is something that is unique to creatures with souls, so from a mechanistic point they must have souls. Where these souls are coming from is an unanswered and still very interesting question though.

As for the evidence debate, here's a point that I don't think has been brought up yet: Falling. Clerics who violate the code of conduct of their god lose all of their spells, domain, and turning. This is an event that occurs regardless of whether they are even aware that they have violated the code of conduct. This is strong evidence that the deity which grants them spells is removing them. What else could it be?

As for the "granting spells" criteria, what differentiates divine or semi-divine beings from others is that they grant these spells without having to meet, know about, or even approve of the individual gaining spells.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 01:55 PM

I'm confused. What exactly is it that you believe I'm arguing? :smallconfused:

Well, until this post, that there is an intellectually coherent argument for D&D characters to be atheists, and reject claims made by D&D gods to divinity.

I feel like you are misunderstanding the point of this thread. Sango and I were attempting to refute a claim by a poster that nobody in any D&D setting would be an atheist.

Ahh. That is a simpler matter, and much less interesting. Yes, given enough people, you will find some damn fool to do or say any damn fool thing you can imagine and a bunch that you can't.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 01:56 PM

As for the evidence debate, here's a point that I don't think has been brought up yet: Falling. Clerics who violate the code of conduct of their god lose all of their spells, domain, and turning. This is an event that occurs regardless of whether they are even aware that they have violated the code of conduct. This is strong evidence that the deity which grants them spells is removing them. What else could it be?

Do you have a reference for this happening regardless of awareness?

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 01:57 PM

As a person arguing a from the dnd atheist is reasonable corner, I've been having a fairly clear-cut definition of divinity this whole time: if they have divine ranks or not. Of course, IC, divine ranks don't exist as something tangible. Thus, godhood is impossible to definitely prove. Ergo, it's fairly reasonable to believe gods don't exist.
Just like how it's impossible for me to prove anyone else is conscious, because I don't have access to anyone else's thoughts. Sure, I know they act in a manner consistent with being conscious, but they doesn't prove they definitely are. They could just be acting on a sufficiently complicated if-then system.

The Viscount

2016-04-13, 02:06 PM

Any number of actual canon Eberron NPCs?

Yeah, a dragon is powerful, and yeah, a dragon exists, and yeah, some dragons claim to be gods. You know who else fits that description? Pharaohs.

Last I checked, most people accept that pharaohs existed, but don't consider themselves believers in Egyptian religion. The salient point there is that believing a being exists and that a being is powerful are not the only requirements for being a theist.

You have to believe that the being is a deity, and that word doesn't just mean "a sufficiently powerful being."

I don't know what your first question is asking. Could you clarify?

On the second note, why do you keep bringing up pharaohs? Yes most people accept the existence of pharaohs, but nobody believes that those pharaohs had any more power than any other human being, outside of that granted by law. This is not a useful analogy to make, because pharaohs aren't believed by modern man to be powerful in the deity sense.

My reference for it happening regardless of awareness is firstly that awareness of wrongdoing is not necessary for falling (it never is brought up in the text) and the existence of the phylactery of faitfhulness as an item. Its existence means that any cleric or paladin is not intrinsically aware of what is and is not allowed. Atonement straight up mentions that characters can have committed the acts unwittingly.

As for the whole Inevitable thing, you seem to be either forgetting or ignoring an important point, that they are constructs who are assigned to enforce these laws. They regard these things as natural laws because they are programmed to regard them as such. Never does the description say they are inviolate, and Inevitables exist solely to punish those who violate the laws.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 02:15 PM

I don't know what your first question is asking. Could you clarify?

Sure thing.

Red Fel said "And if you don't have a Dragonmark or similar power yourself, who are you to argue?"

I responded "(How about) any number of canon Eberron NPCs?"

Essentially, I was saying that various canon Eberron NPCs would argue exactly that point.

On the second note, why do you keep bringing up pharaohs? Yes most people accept the existence of pharaohs, but nobody believes that those pharaohs had any more power than any other human being, outside of that granted by law. Though I was mostly referring to the power granted by law, various people in Egyptian times actually believed that the pharaoh had magical powers like turning staffs into snakes but still wasn't actually a true god. I'd give specific examples but it might be tempting the forum rules to reference them...

OldTrees1

2016-04-13, 02:19 PM

But Segev and johnbragg are right. Let us first come up with the D&D atheist's definition of godhood. Ludic, since you appear to be arguing that side of the spectrum, I'd like to hear what you have to offer. Because my personal view is that a truly stubborn D&D atheist would simply move the goalposts, preventing any kind of meaningful debate on the topic - and obviating the point of this thread.

Interesting question you pose: What is a god?
I think the answer is False, definitely False. The term God is too nebulous and has too much baggage for a single definition to arise. But from the acknowledgement of this we can identify related but easier to define entities:

1) A Divine Being. This would be a being capable of preforming divine acts on their own. I suggest the ability to cause Miracle as a Divine spell without drawing that power from another source(ideal / deity).
2) A being worthy of worship. Likely not a meaningful debate for this forum since this deep into philosophy, has little consensus, and for some results in the null set.
3) A being with Omnipotence. I believe this might also result in a null set.

Segev

2016-04-13, 02:21 PM

(1) Being able to, as a mortal, capture, kill, or incapacitate a being, tends to disprove that being's godhood;While it is an extreme example, Karsus was, technically, mortal. As his eponymous folly all too tragically proved.

(2)A Wizard with sufficient contingencies could accomplish much the same thing. It's the equivalent of saying "If I don't send an e-mail every twelve hours, X happens."I think this does have a qualifying distinction: A doctor who is needed to monitor a sick patient at least once a day is demonstrably different from a "doctor" who holds hostage a drug to which he has addicted his patient, who will die if he goes into withdrawal.

There is a novel wherein a madman manages to become Emperor of Earth (with Mars being the place where the freedom fighters take refuge) who wants to be its god; he orders constructed a man-made asteroid which will, if he doesn't perform a specific ritual involving placing his still-living palm on a particular sensor each and every day, crash into the planet at an Extinction-level event. We'd all agree that such a man is not a "real" god.

The God-Emperor of Man, in Warhammer 40k, on the other hand, is actively engaged in a psychic duel using all the focused power he has somehow accumulated from the worship of his Empire to keep the Chaos Gods from taking over the universe; it is arguable that he qualifies for all intents and purposes, given that he is nigh-irreplaceable and performs a needed function.

A god of a river whose health is the river's health is not holding it hostage; his existence is the river's. An eco-terrorist who has set up a dirty bomb somewhere up stream which, if his heart beat moves out of a "healthy" range, will start to leak pollutants (and, upon his death, explode, thoroughly polluting and partially damming the river), has done something to hold it hostage.

So it's the difference between somebody whose work or presence is preserving a thing, vs. somebody who has threatened to alter a thing adversely if he doesn't get what he wants.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 02:24 PM

1) A Divine Being. This would be a being capable of preforming divine acts on their own. I suggest the ability to cause Miracle as a Divine spell without drawing that power from another source(ideal / deity).

So high-level archivists who don't worship any god are divine beings?

Mehangel

2016-04-13, 02:45 PM

If I needed a definition of a god, I would go the meta route and say that anything without divine ranks is not a god. That is not to say that there aren't things more powerful than gods, or that gods deserve to be worshiped; But rather it is a classification of outsider. As for how someone might be able to measure divine ranks, contact these so-called gods and seek guidance on creating a spell (divine/arcane) capable of measuring this. The creation of such a spell would not only benefit the gods, but also the mortals who worship them, it would also make worship of false gods far more difficult, and keep the number of atheists to a minimum. Again, this spell would only effectively create a category of which a group of beings of power may be sourced. It has nothing to do with whether they deserve worship or not, nor does it mean that mortals cannot exceed their power over that of these "gods" but instead serve only as a means to determine if creature X classifies as a "god" (similar to how proofs may be used to determine if creature Y classifies as an animal or creature Z classifies as an undead).

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 02:54 PM

So high-level archivists who don't worship any god are divine beings?

In Toril: No. They draw from the Weave.

In general: dunno. That they need a divine focus indicates they are focusing some divinity.
Blood of Vol and The Becoming God and that kalashtar religion would probably argue Yes they are

As to divine ranks: they are bound to be discoverable, same way in game constructs such as ability scores, HD, and the like are discernible.
It just needs for "scientists" to manage to get gods to sit down and allow to be poked and proded

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 03:00 PM

Seems everyone here is defining the term "god" by a monotheistic definition of supreme being. That's not the definition that should be used in a polytheistic realm. If using a more general definition, gods are superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. This definition encompasses quite a bit more (and is the actual definition of the word outside of specific religions, go figure). This also means that more than just what d&d calls gods (divine rank, etc) can be considered gods. High level wizards and clerics can be considered gods by the masses. This definition (you know, the right one) makes it so atheism in a campaign setting with any reasonable amount of magic is pretty much right out. More people would be considered gods for the general public that are too weak to actually meet the real ones for themselves. Those strong enough to be worshiped as gods either are gods, or are strong enough to know the real thing exists. Having superhuman ability, having power over nature or human(mortal) fortune, and being worshiped are all that is required to be a god. We don't need a specific d&d definition here because the real definition is sufficient.

The observation earlier made the wrong conclusion. "Well a wizard could do it, so the god isn't a god!" This is incorrect. "Well a wizard could do it, so a commoner would consider the wizard a god!" This is far more likely to be the case. Commoners aren't going to see the difference. Low level magic users aren't going to understand the magnitude of difference between that level 20 wizard and a god, because they can do very similar things.

Just because someone doesn't worship a god does not make them an athiest. You can make an attempt at an argument saying Athiest just means A-Theist! You can make that argument all day long, however that's not how the english language works. You cannot simply stick a prefix on a word and say that's exactly how it turns out. If that were the case, many children would be less surprised over the word inflammable. It has a specific definition that is more than "not a theist." Many people love to try to change language to support their arguments. That doesn't validate the argument, it weakens it.

If you want your campaign setting to have little to no interaction with gods, then by all means do that. You can set the campaign setting you want to set. This seems like an exercise in futility though, since the op seems to be entirely uninterested in anything that does not support his original argument.

Flickerdart

2016-04-13, 03:06 PM

The observation earlier made the wrong conclusion. "Well a wizard could do it, so the god isn't a god!" This is incorrect. "Well a wizard could do it, so a commoner would consider the wizard a god!" This is far more likely to be the case. Commoners aren't going to see the difference. Low level magic users aren't going to understand the magnitude of difference between that level 20 wizard and a god, because they can do very similar things.
I think this is an excellent point. We already have canon examples of mortals who became gods with a capital G (Vecna, St. Cuthbert) so by the game's own definitions, a mortal can become a god. So why is a wizard 20 not a god? Just like Vecna and St. Cuthbert he started out as just some guy and then became more powerful until he could smite people and live in the clouds and all that nonsense.

Granted, there are settings like Eberron where 20th level guys aren't available at your local supermarket. A commoner there would easily be able to discount rumours of wyrm dragons and near-epic artificers in the same stroke as the regular gods. To such a commoner, wizard means guy that shoots fire from his hands, not someone that spins demiplanes from raw astral matter.

OldTrees1

2016-04-13, 03:11 PM

So high-level archivists who don't worship any god are divine beings?

IIRC All divine casting classes draw their divine spellcasting from elsewhere(even if that elsewhere is from an ideal). So, IIRC, no.

If I am wrong and some divine casting classes draw their divine spellcasting from their own beings, well then yes those would be divine beings.

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-13, 03:13 PM

Or, to put it simply, disbelievers gonna disbelieve.
Or, to put it paladinly, heretics gonna get smote.

Whether it's because the goddess of magic is the magical weave tapped by every caster ever,
Heh. Anyone?

Ao might create and give to all casters as a level 0 spell. This will not only allow all casters (divine and arcane alike)
Oh look, another spell I can't cast that apparently "all" divine casters can cast.

NOTE: This is not, in fact, a denial by my NPCs of Red Fel's alleged divinity. It is simply a refusal to pay tribute in worship energy.
Unless this kingdom is paying tribute to me already, they may be doomed. I don't think Red Fel has pacts with any other deity...

Oh boy time for playground doing philosophy.
This usually ends terribly.

And yet. Apparently if I'm stronger then Torm, he'll try to stick me in a sphere of annihilation. Not surprised, since he apparently thinks punishing atheist even if they are exalted good is a-okay. :smallannoyed:
Don't be that way, Ill! Torm is a pretty swell guy! Not only does he help out other religions, he also used to make sure the real stick in the mud didn't drag and drop the heretics into those big nasty Sphere of Annihilations.

Torm tempered Tyr's zeal for justice with his gifts of mercy and humility.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 03:24 PM

Or, to put it paladinly, heretics gonna get smote.

Unless this kingdom is paying tribute to me already, they may be doomed. I don't think Red Fel has pacts with any other deity...

The high priests say "LoyalPaladin? Sounds like an aspect of the Warrior. Or perhaps the Father. Very likely both at different times."

(Aristotelian "A thing cannot both BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same respect" logic is not strictly applied to the pantheon. Logical pretzels and mobius strips are not unknown in local theography.)

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 03:29 PM

Well, until this post, that there is an intellectually coherent argument for D&D characters to be atheists, and reject claims made by D&D gods to divinity.

This is indeed my position. I believe that there is room for reasonable doubt in any given canon setting that I know of.

I just am not sure what Red Fel means by "that side of the spectrum" and would like clarification if I am to best answer his question.

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-13, 03:31 PM

The high priests say "LoyalPaladin? Sounds like an aspect of the Warrior. Or perhaps the Father. Very likely both at different times."
Well, if they don't worship Palladian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19051786&postcount=19) they're up a creek without a paddle. Angering Red Fel is the equivalent of covering yourself in gasoline and jumping into a campfire.

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 03:33 PM

NOTE: This is not, in fact, a denial by my NPCs of Red Fel's alleged divinity. It is simply a refusal to pay tribute in worship energy.

... Seems legit.

Or, to put it paladinly, heretics gonna get smote.

Oi! You brought me into this thread. What was up with that? You've got some 'splainin' to do.

Heh. Anyone?

Low-hanging fruit.

Oh look, another spell I can't cast that apparently "all" divine casters can cast.

Cue tangent about sub-optimal Paladins.

This usually ends terribly.

Yet another reason to wonder why are we even having this discussion seriously you guys.

Don't be that way, Ill! Torm is a pretty swell guy! Not only does he help out other religions, he also used to make sure the real stick in the mud didn't drag and drop the heretics into those big nasty Sphere of Annihilations.

And then he gave everyone cookies and lemonade and puppies and everything was just peachy forever and ever!

You might want to take that record player in for repairs, LP. Seems like it's skipping. Like it's skipping. Like it's skipping.

... now I want lemonade.

I just am not sure what Red Fel means by "that side of the spectrum" and would like clarification if I am to best answer his question.

Pretty much what johnbragg said.

Well, if they don't worship Palladian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19051786&postcount=19) they're up a creek without a paddle. Angering Red Fel is the equivalent of covering yourself in gasoline and jumping into a campfire.

Have you been reading my plans for summer vacation again?

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 03:35 PM

This is indeed my position. I believe that there is room for reasonable doubt in any given canon setting that I know of.

I just am not sure what Red Fel means by "that side of the spectrum" and would like clarification if I am to best answer his question.

"That side of the spectrum", I take REd Fel to mean, the "D&D atheists are not just bonkers and/or radically skeptical, to the point that rational persuasion is futile." side.

I believe it is your move, to define what a "deity" is, that D&D characters could reasonably doubt the divine nature of. (I believe you have conceded that various alleged deities can be proven to *exist*, like the Pharoahs of Egypt. But their divine nature is the question.)

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-13, 03:44 PM

Oi! You brought me into this thread. What was up with that? You've got some 'splainin' to do.
I'm a good paladin and I know when a situation isn't suited to my skills. I make friends and smite evil, this is neither inherently evil and there doesn't seem to be friends here, thus I called in a friend to take care of the non-evil thing. It suited your skills. Also, see section 4 below.

Low-hanging fruit.
Fair enough.

Cue tangent about sub-optimal Paladins.
Why don't we get a couple of 0th level spells? We don't even get light!

Yet another reason to wonder why are we even having this discussion seriously you guys.
Section 4: I figured you could put this more delicately than I would.

And then he gave everyone cookies and lemonade and puppies and everything was just peachy forever and ever!

You might want to take that record player in for repairs, LP. Seems like it's skipping. Like it's skipping. Like it's skipping.

... now I want lemonade.
Ha! C'mon, man. Torm is great. Torm is great. Torm is great.

... I see what you mean.

Have you been reading my plans for summer vacation again?
I try to keep up on these things. Especially your Christmas list.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 03:46 PM

Yet another reason to wonder why are we even having this discussion seriously you guys.

Mostly because it's annoying to keep hearing people claiming that it's insane/irrational/whatever for anyone at all in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to question if Corellon Larethian really created the elves or if Corellon Larethian really isn't just an elf wizard, or whether Corellon Larethian is really sacred or holy or divine or if those words ever really meant anything in the first place.

When really, all of those things are perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about, especially from the point of view of some random Joe who hasn't personally gotten to meet Corellon Larethian and watch him craft a sphere of annihilation or whatever.

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-13, 03:49 PM

Red Fel

2016-04-13, 03:53 PM

I try to keep up on these things. Especially your Christmas list.

Funny story, the Lockheed Blackbird was an answer on Jeopardy a few nights ago, and people were shocked that I knew it.

And I was all...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-S0_cx2MS170/VnF0NLGvtmI/AAAAAAAAjWw/N3Sj4k7mYq0/w506-h348/15%2B-%2B1

Mostly because it's annoying to keep hearing people claiming that it's insane/irrational/whatever for anyone at all in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to question if Corellon Larethian really created the elves or if Corellon Larethian really isn't just an elf wizard, or whether Corellon Larethian is really sacred or holy or divine or if those words ever really meant anything in the first place.

When really, all of those things are perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about, especially from the point of view of some random Joe who hasn't personally gotten to meet Corellon Larethian and watch him craft a sphere of annihilation or whatever.

The problem is that, in Forgotten Realms, it really is irrational to disbelieve, for two reasons. First, the gods are all over the freaking place. If you haven't met one personally, you've run into their handiwork. Second, FR is designed to have everyone worshiping someone, or else suddenly, Wall of the Faithless. That is going to happen. It's not an uncertainty. You can talk to the dead, you know it's coming.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 04:03 PM

Mostly because it's annoying to keep hearing people claiming that it's insane/irrational/whatever for anyone at all in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to question if Corellon Larethian really created the elves or if Corellon Larethian really isn't just an elf wizard, or whether Corellon Larethian is really sacred or holy or divine or if those words ever really meant anything in the first place.

When really, all of those things are perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about, especially from the point of view of some random Joe who hasn't personally gotten to meet Corellon Larethian and watch him craft a sphere of annihilation or whatever.

To question may be reasonable. To persist in unbelief, after various levels of evidence and testimony are presented, is not.

Did CL *really* create the elves? Yup, sure did. You can cast a divination spell and ask him. Not good enough, you can cast a divination spell and ask SomeOtherGod, who saw CL do it and has no reason to lie on CL's behalf.

Is CL really sacred/holy/divine? Well, since you don't know what you mean by those terms, it's not really fair to ask. There are a buttload of temples and shrines to CL.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 04:09 PM

The problem is that, in Forgotten Realms, it really is irrational to disbelieve, for two reasons. Both of the reasons you named do not meet rigorous standards of evidence which would be required to make it irrational to doubt them.

First, the gods are all over the freaking place. If you haven't met one personally, you've run into their handiwork. Same is true for elf wizards. Being all over the place and making magic happen is not sufficient to differentiate Corellon Larethian from an elf wizard.

You asked about the definition of a deity. Well, the definition of deity is obviously going to vary by religion and setting. In Forgotten Realms, the definition is established by the theists who worship them, and those theists think that that definition includes Corellon Larethian but not elf wizards. Therefore, if a skeptic believes that Corellon Larethian is really an elf wizard, then the skeptic believes that Corellon Larethian is not a god.

Second, FR is designed to have everyone worshiping someone, or else suddenly, Wall of the Faithless. That is going to happen. It's not an uncertainty. You can talk to the dead, you know it's coming.

"Believe what I say or I'll hurt you" is not a rational reason to believe what someone is saying. It's certainly a very strong irrational reason to believe them.

Illven

2016-04-13, 04:19 PM

Don't be that way, Ill! Torm is a pretty swell guy! Not only does he help out other religions, he also used to make sure the real stick in the mud didn't drag and drop the heretics into those big nasty Sphere of Annihilations.

No he isn't. He is okay with countless thousands of any alignment being tortured for eternity. Maybe he is a god, but without his divine protection racket he certainly doesn't deserve worship.

Kelemvor has a better claim to being good aligned, and having good aligned worshipers to me, then Torm.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 04:20 PM

In Toril: No. They draw from the Weave.

In general: dunno. That they need a divine focus indicates they are focusing some divinity.
Blood of Vol and The Becoming God and that kalashtar religion would probably argue Yes they are
Curiously, miracle doesn't have a divine focus component. And in general, you only need a divine focus for spells that say they require a divine focus component.

IIRC All divine casting classes draw their divine spellcasting from elsewhere(even if that elsewhere is from an ideal). So, IIRC, no.
First line of archivist spellcasting says they don't.

Unlike a cleric, an archivist does not receive his daily spell complement from whatever deity or cosmic force he worships.

Flickerdart

2016-04-13, 04:27 PM

Did CL *really* create the elves? Yup, sure did. You can cast a divination spell and ask him.
You who? The vast majority of characters in the Forgotten Realms cannot cast commune.

Faily

2016-04-13, 04:31 PM

Not to mention that in FR, the Gods have walked the earth in recent times, certain crisis has made all spellcasting borked because FR Gods are so tied to their tasks things kinda go downhill if they aren't around...

Not that I'm an expert on FR, but you also have cases where gods have cut off all power to their worshippers, like Lolth did in the War of the Spider Queen-story. This indicates that priests to derive their power from something that needs to grant it to them.

In Dragonlance, Divine Magic *completely* disappeared for a long time after the Gods abandoned Krynn, leaving only Arcane Magic, indicating that there is *something* powering this other type of magic.

In Mystara, Immortals are completely and utterly immune to anything a mortal throws at them, including magic of any kind, which sets them clearly apart from any other "20th level caster" that seems like a god to lesser mortals.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 04:39 PM

You who? The vast majority of characters in the Forgotten Realms cannot cast commune.

Indeed. One should not assume that everyone in the Forgotten Realms has access to the same information that we the players do.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 04:45 PM

You who? The vast majority of characters in the Forgotten Realms cannot cast commune.

And having created the elves is entirely within the bounds of an epic caster. Genesis of a species is an epic spell specifically for this, though I'm sure the epic magic system could be easily squeezed for something more effecient.

Illven

2016-04-13, 04:51 PM

In Dragonlance, Divine Magic *completely* disappeared for a long time after the Gods abandoned Krynn, leaving only Arcane Magic, indicating that there is *something* powering this other type of magic.

The second time this happened (In less then a century) however people managed to tap into the power of mysticism. (Pretty much they are spontaneous cleric, with one less domain)

Just as it strains Red Fel's suspension that anyone on most D&D settings would be atheist or anti-theist, it strains my suspension of disbelief that the gods get any worshipers in Dragonlance when they come back for the second time.

Psyren

2016-04-13, 04:51 PM

You who? The vast majority of characters in the Forgotten Realms cannot cast commune.

The answer to this is very simple - smarter folks than you have done so and shared the answer. When CERN published papers saying they found the Higgs-Boson, none of us demanded to fly to Switzerland and see the LHC for ourselves, and said papers are (I would wager) largely incomprehensible to most of us, yet we still believed it happened because we know there are very smart people over there who have done the necessary investigation. Same here.

On top of which, the gods can make their presence known to non-clerics if they wish. You don't need Commune to see an avatar or hear a herald.

OldTrees1

2016-04-13, 04:57 PM

First line of archivist spellcasting says they don't.

Second line added to the first:

Unlike a cleric, an archivist does not receive his daily spell complement from whatever deity or cosmic force he worships. Rather, he must seek out and collect new spells much as a wizard does, but from such esoteric sources as holy tablets, ancient steles, or other magical scriptures.

If you read that as the archivist is capable of preforming Divine Acts from their own power rather than drawing upon another Divine source, then archivists are Divine Beings under your reading.

If you read that as a reliance on those holy tablets, ancient steles, or other magical scriptures as the source for their divine acts, then archivists are not Divine Beings under your reading.

Faily

2016-04-13, 05:02 PM

The second time this happened (In less then a century) however people managed to tap into the power of mysticism. (Pretty much they are spontaneous cleric, with one less domain)

Just as it strains Red Fel's suspension that anyone on most D&D settings would be atheist or anti-theist, it strains my suspension of disbelief that the gods get any worshipers in Dragonlance when they come back for the second time.

Not denying that one. The second time the gods leave is a rather BS-moment, imo, and even if I did believe in the Gods, I sure as hell wouldn't want to worship them after ditching Krynn a second time. :smallwink: It was one of the worse storytelling-moments in the Dragonlance-setting which ruined a lot of the dynamic and potential of a "new age".

Mysticism, as explained in the 3ed Dragonlance-setting book, iirc is based on the power of an individual's faith and most Mystics learned to channel some divine magic through their worship of the memory of the Gods that had been there (rather than the Gods themselves).

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 05:03 PM

The answer to this is very simple - smarter folks than you have done so and shared the answer. When CERN published papers saying they found the Higgs-Boson, none of us demanded to fly to Switzerland and see the LHC for ourselves, and said papers are (I would wager) largely incomprehensible to most of us, yet we still believed it happened because we know there are very smart people over there who have done the necessary investigation. Same here.

On top of which, the gods can make their presence known to non-clerics if they wish. You don't need Commune to see an avatar or hear a herald.

Hmmm. PErhaps the answer is, that the upper limit on atheists in D&D would be the percentage of real-world no-evolution creationists, living in countries with access to newer generation antibiotics designed to defeat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Which in America may be up to half the population, depending on which pollster's data you use.

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 05:08 PM

"Believe what I say or I'll hurt you" is not a rational reason to believe what someone is saying. It's certainly a very strong irrational reason to believe them.
You misunderstand the argument that the Wall of the Faithless presents.
The existence of the wall is not a threat to believe in gods; but to worship them.
The wall is evidence the gods exist; and will demand worship.

Your argument is like saying "I don't believe in knights" because one has bared his sword at you.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 05:13 PM

Your argument is like saying "I don't believe in knights" because one has bared his sword at you.

My argument isn't even remotely like that, because my argument wasn't that the Wall of the Faithless fails to provide evidence that Corellon Larethian exists, but instead that it fails to provide evidence that he is a god.

My argument is more like saying "I don't believe you're a knight just because you have a sword pointed at me. Dudes who aren't knights can point swords at me too."

It is possible to believe that a guy exists, but that he is not a knight.

By the same token, it is possible to believe that Corellon Larethian exists, but that he is not a god.

What is a god, you ask? Well, that's for the theists of Forgotten Realms to decide. And they've apparently decided that it's a category that does not include epic wizards like Elminster. If an epic wizard can threaten your soul with damnation (and they totally can), then a god doing it does not distinguish them from the category of non-gods.

Illven

2016-04-13, 05:21 PM

You misunderstand the argument that the Wall of the Faithless presents.
The existence of the wall is not a threat to believe in gods; but to worship them.
The wall is evidence the gods exist; and will demand worship.

Your argument is like saying "I don't believe in knights" because one has bared his sword at you.

No that's not the case. You go to the wall of the faithless for believing that the gods aren't worthy of worship.

I can believe that the knight exists, I can believe he's a person, while saying that he doesn't deserve my worship, because he's running a protection racket.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 05:24 PM

BYou asked about the definition of a deity. Well, the definition of deity is obviously going to vary by religion and setting.

What? No. The meaning of a term does not change without reason and without specifying a change. A "D&D deity" should have the same meaning in FR, in Greyhawk, in Golarion, in Generic Setting, in Eberron. (Thus the discussions about whether such-and-such object of worship and devotion for Eberron clerics is a D&D deity, or not.)

In Forgotten Realms, the definition is established by the theists who worship them, and those theists think that that definition includes Corellon Larethian but not elf wizards. Therefore, if a skeptic believes that Corellon Larethian is really an elf wizard, then the skeptic believes that Corellon Larethian is not a god.

But what grounds are there for this skepticism? Without some definition of "deity", how does our hypothetical atheist justify saying that CL is not one? How is the statement "I don't believe that Corellon LAtherian is a god, I think it's just an epic-level wizard" different from the statement "Coca Cola isn't really soda, it's just flavored carbonated sugar water."

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 05:29 PM

How is the statement "I don't believe that Corellon LAtherian is a god, I think it's just an epic-level wizard" different from the statement "Coca Cola isn't really soda, it's just flavored carbonated sugar water."

It is consistently claimed (in Forgotten Realms) that epic-level wizards are not really gods.
It is not consistently claimed that flavored carbonated sugar water is not really soda.

That's the difference. By the definition of the theists of Forgotten Realms, epic-level wizards are not necessarily gods. Therefore accomplishing a feat of epic-level wizardry does not necessarily make you a god. QED.

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 05:32 PM

My argument isn't even remotely like that, because my argument isn't that the Wall of the Faithless fails to provide evidence that Corellon Larethian exists, but instead that it fails to provide evidence that he is a god.

My argument is more like saying "I don't believe you're a knight just because you have a sword pointed at me."

Thing is: the Wall of the Faithless is a solid test of what is and isn't a god. If ownership of a sword conferred knightly status, then you see the contradiction inherent in the 'i don't believe in knights...' or in 'i don't believe you are a knight...'

For example: lets imagine one worships an entity as a god
if the entity was not a god then you end up in the wall
if the entity was a god then you are taken by a representative of that power.

Ultimately, though, the problem with your position is that it rejects the possibility of gods and the evidence surrounding them. Atheism, in a world where gods are a fact, is comparable to belief in a round planet when the world is flat and on the back of a turtle: one can invent explanations, but the simplest ones, the ones with the most backing (artifacts, relics, clerics, inevitables, statistical analysis (gods can't fail a saving throw on a 1, no death from massive damage), magic, relics, etc).
it is perhaps impossible to wholly KNOW that they are infact indeed deities, but it is the simplest explanation that fits all the available data and can produce predictions based on that assumption.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 05:38 PM

Ultimately, though, the problem with your position is that it rejects the possibility of gods and the evidence surrounding them. No, it doesn't.

It just accepts the Forgotten Realm theist's definition of deity as not including all epic wizards, and thus rejects feats of epic level wizardry as proving godhood, due to their own definition!.

At no point was the possibility of gods rejected. Only the notion that feats of epic level wizardry prove godhood. Which is something that the theists of Forgotten Realms believe, so if they're right then that's right.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 05:38 PM

It is consistently claimed (in Forgotten Realms) that epic-level wizards are not really gods.
It is not consistently claimed that flavored carbonated sugar water is not really soda.

That's the difference. By the definition of the theists of Forgotten Realms, epic-level wizards are not necessarily gods. Therefore accomplishing a feat of epic-level wizardry does not necessarily make you a god. QED.

That's fine. CL answers the prayers of one of his clerics, grants a cleric spell. Boom. God proven.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 05:40 PM

That's fine. CL answers the prayers of one of his clerics, grants a cleric spell. Boom. God proven.

This argument has already been thoroughly addressed by several posters. You are adding nothing to the discussion here.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 05:56 PM

That's fine. CL answers the prayers of one of his clerics, grants a cleric spell. Boom. God proven.

Non-gods, such as ideals, philosophies, or demon lords can also grant spells. God status not proven.

Mehangel

2016-04-13, 06:03 PM

Non-gods, such as ideals, philosophies, or demon lords can also grant spells. God status not proven.

Also Over-Deities (gods with divine rank 21+) do not grant spells, thus not a requirement for gods.

johnbragg

2016-04-13, 06:05 PM

Non-gods, such as ideals, philosophies, or demon lords can also grant spells. God status not proven.

Alternately, those should be included as gods.

Ramza00

2016-04-13, 06:14 PM

How many people are familiar with the Athar from planescape (2e) but also from the planar handbook (3.5)

The Athar believe that all the D&D gods are charlingtions. They are not true gods but instead just very powerful outsiders such as things slightly above Solars. They do not doubt that gods have access to higher levels of magic and are powered by belief, but the Athars believe that the gods are really taking this power from the universe and allowing their followers to channel it through them.

Now there is a cosmic force beyond the gods according to the Athar which many gods derive some of their power from called the Great Unknown. The Athar are able to access the power of the Great Unknown without worshiping a god and are able to cast divine spells via it.

The big deal of the Athar is they are anti-authority when the authority is supposedly only based off religious tenants. How dare these "gods" judge mortals for in effect all these gods are like a bigger dog like a great dane bullying smaller dogs, but in the end the gods are not what they say they are.

-----

Perhaps someone who is more familiar with Sigil and Planescape can give more information about them than I can. :smallsmile:

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 06:17 PM

If you want your campaign setting to have little to no interaction with gods, then by all means do that. You can set the campaign setting you want to set. This seems like an exercise in futility though, since the op seems to be entirely uninterested in anything that does not support his original argument.

That's rather insulting....the majority of times I have interacted on this post was to those who didn't support my original argument...
It is more interesting to see what you guys have to say than what I have to say. But let bygones be bygones.

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 06:51 PM

That's rather insulting....the majority of times I have interacted on this post was to those who didn't support my original argument...
It is more interesting to see what you guys have to say than what I have to say. But let bygones be bygones.

I actually made a mistake in who the op was. I thought it was another person, so I apologize for that insinuation. The rest of the post stands though. The definition of god need not be "supreme epic perfect cannot ever be beaten being." Such a definition makes no sense outside of a monotheistic world. In a clearly polytheistic world, no one ever made any claim that one deity was super omnipotent other than some overdeity. If the argument is that overdeities don't exist, that's still not atheism because lesser deities are proven to exist.

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 07:00 PM

I actually made a mistake in who the op was. I thought it was another person, so I apologize for that insinuation. The rest of the post stands though. The definition of god need not be "supreme epic perfect cannot ever be beaten being." Such a definition makes no sense outside of a monotheistic world. In a clearly polytheistic world, no one ever made any claim that one deity was super omnipotent other than some overdeity. If the argument is that overdeities don't exist, that's still not atheism because lesser deities are proven to exist.

I don't think anyone has been arguing about a theoretical uber-deity. Most of the discussion has been centered around how to differentiate 'lesser deities' from beings that, while not divine, are similarly powerful (like Epic Archivists, Wizards, or StP Erudites). The rules give a hard difference (having divine rank or not), but it's not nearly as clear in-character.

NichG

2016-04-13, 07:53 PM

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 08:10 PM

Actually, the Wall of the Faithless does provide an objective metric in Forgotten Realms. Beings who are able to successfully file a request with Ao to have a soul spared from the Wall on the basis of having received worship from that soul are gods.

Its a mistake to assume that 'god' must automatically imply intrinsic properties of the entity. There's nothing precluding settings where 'god' is a title associated with an appointed position, just as much as 'judge' or 'knight' would be. You aren't going to find proof that someone is a knight by inspecting their liver, you do it by going to the archive of royal decrees and finding the piece of paper that says 'lord such-and-such granted knighthood to so-and-so's great great grandfather, and the title is inherited in such a way, and that means that so-and-so is a knight'.

A fairly nice point, and seems to be what most of this discussion is eventually leading to.

So, I think we have a definition: a god is whatever is appointed as a god. Not the most useful of definitions, but at least it works. god = god.
no let's reword it. "god is a position a being can fill, given certain criteria" that sounds better, and less recursive than my first one. What are the criteria?
Killing another god and taking over is one, I presume? Having the god pass on its powers willingly to the character?

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 08:14 PM

I don't think anyone has been arguing about a theoretical uber-deity. Most of the discussion has been centered around how to differentiate 'lesser deities' from beings that, while not divine, are similarly powerful (like Epic Archivists, Wizards, or StP Erudites). The rules give a hard difference (having divine rank or not), but it's not nearly as clear in-character.

The fact that it's not clear gives credence for more people believing, not less.

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 08:21 PM

The fact that it's not clear gives credence for more people believing, not less.

Explain? I don't think that's correct.
Unless you mean, if "term x" were defined vaguely as "something that causes you to get sick". However, a vague definition aren't really valid, because it isn't a meaningful term except as book marking something to be made more specific, like Miasma, Mineral Deficiency, God, or Bacteria.

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 08:34 PM

Necroticplague

2016-04-13, 08:35 PM

The fact that it's not clear gives credence for more people believing, not less.
However, the topic whether it's rational for a person in DnD to not beleives gods exist. This implicitly means denying their claims to divinity. Thus, if a rational reason for dismissing such claims exist (i.e, "you don't have to be a god to do that. You could just be an incredibly powerful wizard"), it's possible to rationally be an atheist in DnD (note: "rational" does not mean "correct". These guys would be wrong, but have good reasons for being such).

Which, leads us back to the 'appointed as god', 'the universe is screwed up when they go away', and 'if you go to Wall of Faithless when you die if you worship them' definitions. The problems with these is, from a layman's point of view, these aren't very accessible to confirmation. You just kinda have to take someone's word for it.

Gildedragon

2016-04-13, 08:36 PM

Actually, the Wall of the Faithless does provide an objective metric in Forgotten Realms. Beings who are able to successfully file a request with Ao to have a soul spared from the Wall on the basis of having received worship from that soul are gods.

Its a mistake to assume that 'god' must automatically imply intrinsic properties of the entity. There's nothing precluding settings where 'god' is a title associated with an appointed position, just as much as 'judge' or 'knight' would be. You aren't going to find proof that someone is a knight by inspecting their liver, you do it by going to the archive of royal decrees and finding the piece of paper that says 'lord such-and-such granted knighthood to so-and-so's great great grandfather, and the title is inherited in such a way, and that means that so-and-so is a knight'.

Though there are effects that a deity has as virtue of their divine ranks.
Intantaneous awareness of any event pertinent to their portfolio affecting at worst at least as many as 1000 people, instantaneously and without use of divination.

They do not automatically fail a save on a natural 1.

Ivestiture is an interesting metric, and a useful one; but by it alone seems closer to acting as a proxy of the Power rather than be the power itself.

As to how it can be gained: that is very setting dependent.

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 08:39 PM

I gave the proper definition for a deity above in the post you originally quoted. People would see these powerful archivists and wizards as gods. They can't tell the difference. It gives credence to more people believing in them rather than less. Those powerful enough to know better, also have the means to know real gods exist. Atheism doesn't make sense in such a scenario.

I was specifically looking at the claim that it not being clear makes it more of a reason to believe, which as I said, a non-concise definition is generally not useful.

And you could still easily feel they aren't worthy of worship, or have your own definition. So, atheism still makes sense, even if they are walking among you, because they aren't "gods" to you. In the same way that if your friend called himself the god of hamsters, even if you believed he existed, that doesn't mean you believe he is a god.

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 08:46 PM

I was specifically looking at the claim that it not being clear makes it more of a reason to believe, which as I said, a non-concise definition is generally not useful.

And you could still easily feel they aren't worthy of worship, or have your own definition. So, atheism still makes sense, even if they are walking among you, because they aren't "gods" to you. In the same way that if your friend called himself the god of hamsters, even if you believed he existed, that doesn't mean you believe he is a god.

But my god of the hamsters friend does not likely have millions of worshipers and does not have the ability to change the course of history. Whether or not you feel they're worthy of worship has no bearing as that's an entirely different belief set that is not atheism. People that have those specific qualities are in fact gods by definition, even if they possess to outward divinity (as divinity is interestingly not a prerequisite for being a deity). If you're powerful enough to know they're not gods, you're powerful enough to know that there are in fact gods.

If my friend had some way to manipulate the destinies of hamsters and had millions of hamster followers then he would objectively be a god. I would not consider him my god as in fact he is not. A god nonetheless he be. This would of course require the hamsters to be capable of rational thought to consider him their god. Without the ability to think for themselves thoughts beyond "I am hungry" it would preclude them from being able to actively worship anything.

Sure, one person can put their hands over their head and say "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING! GODS AREN'T A THING!" but this is going to be far from the norm given the evidences of super powerful beings running around. Even if one of those super powerful beings straight told a commoner they weren't a god, they would also mention likely in the same breath that there are gods and most are much more powerful.

Where does atheism stem from then? From doubt that any of the supernatural events claimed to happen ever did. Lack of evidence that any of it was caused by anything more than chance or lies or happenstance or what have you. That evidence is not absent in most worlds.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 08:55 PM

There's nothing precluding settings where 'god' is a title associated with an appointed position, just as much as 'judge' or 'knight' would be.

Agreed! There could certainly be settings like that.

Is Forgotten Realms one of them? Would Forgotten Realms theists generally agree with you if you told them that "god" is merely a social title? That doesn't seem consistent with what I know about Forgotten Realms, though I must admit my knowledge of the setting is far from complete (I'm an Eberron guy).

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 09:00 PM

Agreed! There could certainly be settings like that.

Is Forgotten Realms one of them? Would Forgotten Realms theists generally agree with you if you told them that "god" is merely a social title? That doesn't seem consistent with what I know about Forgotten Realms, though I must admit my knowledge of the setting is far from complete (I'm an Eberron guy).

Yes and no. The title "god" in faerune is held by those that can claim it and others can't or don't want to stop them from doing it. Faerune is littered with mortals that ascended to godhood (such as velsharoon), so it's not unheard of.

LudicSavant

2016-04-13, 09:07 PM

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 09:10 PM

The word "heretic" is thrown about in faerune more often than the word "hello." It's not a very good measure of anything.

To clarify: Followers of torm find any followers of bane to be heretics, regardless of what they say. If you claimed the bread on your plate to be your god, and they tried to take your bread but your bread suplexed them into the ground, they would return to their church and tell everyone about the new bread god.

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 09:22 PM

LTwerewolf

2016-04-13, 09:27 PM

"Awaken Pastry." Can't be that hard to make with animals, undead and plants already accounted for.

But its ability to easily defeat a high level follower of torm means it's very obviously an ascended pastry.

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 10:26 PM

But its ability to easily defeat a high level follower of torm means it's very obviously an ascended pastry.

Surprise is the biggest strength. No one contingencies for being attacked by pastries.

NichG

2016-04-13, 10:55 PM

I am under the general impression that if you told a Forgotten Realms theist that godhood was not based on any intrinsic property, but merely a social title which could be assigned to whoever by a written decree from a qualified authority, they would be rather put out. Possibly fling some rather hurtful words at you, like "heretic."

Certainly, but at that point it's not atheism anymore. It's a difference in belief of the qualities that gods possess, rather than a difference in belief in the existence of God's. It might count as agnosticism, alatrism, or even just a sectarian difference rather than atheism. Elminster is a cleric of Mystra, but his perspective on the nature of Mystra's divinity is probably quite different than the rest of the church. I'm not sure Mystra's multiple deaths and replacements would be part of the public canon.

Zale

2016-04-13, 10:59 PM

I think it's important to ask where the skepticism comes from.

Imagine: You live in a village where a priest daily calls upon the power of radiant Pelor to cure children of illness, heal the wounded and drive away shadowy spirits. If someone tells you that they don't believe in Pelor- not that they don't worship Pelor- but that they don't think he's real, then you'd probably look at them the way a real life person would if you said the world was flat.

There's no reason to question Pelor's existence, because he touches people's everyday lives with miracles. Sure Cure Light Wounds is just a bit of magic, but it's a divine gift handed down to a proxy for distribution.

So very few people are going to be atheistic in that they say the gods people worship aren't real.

I could certainly see academics quibbling over what a god is; what qualifies as a god (Just like we're doing here), but I can't imagine the average person will really concern themselves.

If it's powerful, hears people's prayers, has an ideology, and has priests, then most people will probably be okay with calling it a god.

Not to mention that if you question a god's divinity, there's a non-zero chance they may actually show up at your doorstep, foot tapping, with an expression of stern disapproval.

Or !!Lighting!! as alignment dictates.

Illven

2016-04-13, 11:03 PM

imagine: You live in a village where a priest daily calls upon the power of radiant pelor to cure beat children of that have illness, heal lecture the wounded on their faults and drive away and torture shadowy spirits. If someone tells you that they don't believe in pelor- not that they don't worship pelor- but that they don't think he's real, then you'd probably look at them the way a real life person would if you said the world was flat.

fify

all glory to the burning hate!

SangoProduction

2016-04-13, 11:07 PM

Certainly, but at that point it's not atheism anymore. It's a difference in belief of the qualities that gods possess, rather than a difference in belief in the existence of God's. It might count as agnosticism, alatrism, or even just a sectarian difference rather than atheism. Elminster is a cleric of Mystra, but his perspective on the nature of Mystra's divinity is probably quite different than the rest of the church. I'm not sure Mystra's multiple deaths and replacements would be part of the public canon.

I want to point out that Agnosticism is not exclusive to Atheism in any way.

A gnostic theist is one who "knows" god(s) exist.
An agnostic theist is one who doesn't know but chooses to believe anyway.
An agnostic atheist is one that doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't know for certain.
A gnostic atheist is one who "knows" no gods exist.

Xar Zarath

2016-04-14, 12:13 AM

You know the funny thing is there are quite a few instances which justifies alatrism or DND atheism.

The fact is multiple individuals who were normal mortals managed to gain godhood, whether through trickery, murder or just plain lucky. Divinity is easy if you know how to get it. Assemble large amounts of worshippers, perform a magical ritual and elevate yourself to their heights of power. Yes, I would see why some do not worship the gods because in many cases they are just your average joe who got lucky.

Heck, in PF, there is a stone which can turn you into a god, and one such god became divine because of a drunken bet! (See Cayden Cailean) So to some in the Material Plane, gods aren't anything special. To many in the Outer Planes they aren't even unique.

And bear in mind there are some beings even more powerful and enigmatically mysterious than the gods. Beings who sleep in the spaces between the stars and..IA IA FHTAGN!

Anyway, ahem...honestly even your average wizard, take him as an example. I've opened many threads with how such a wizard comes to Earth and what happens. Many posts talk about him being elevated to a god on our world if ever such a person did come. What he could do would make him divine in some peoples eyes, let alone in DND where your average LV 1 Commoner can be easily duped with Mindrape into thinking said wizard is Ultimos God Super Awesome Guy.

I see your argument, understand it and this is just my take on the matter, OP.

SangoProduction

2016-04-14, 12:19 AM

I see your argument, understand it and this is just my take on the matter, OP.

That statement makes it sound like it's trying to refute the OP, when the rest of your argument is an expansion on the "it's not anything special" argument that's present in the OP.

I'm trying to find what I'm misinterpreting, but I can't.

Psyren

2016-04-14, 01:30 AM

The fact is multiple individuals who were normal mortals managed to gain godhood, whether through trickery, murder or just plain lucky. Divinity is easy if you know how to get it. Assemble large amounts of worshippers, perform a magical ritual and elevate yourself to their heights of power. Yes, I would see why some do not worship the gods because in many cases they are just your average joe who got lucky.

How are you defining "multiple" here? Because a handful of individuals throughout the setting's millions of lives across its history doesn't seem that easy to me. It's like saying in our world "multiple individuals have dropped out of college and become billionaires." Technically a true statement, but the conclusion "it's easy" does not follow - it's in fact extremely difficult/unlikely to achieve that, and most people who try will fail.

PoeticDwarf

2016-04-14, 01:33 AM

EDIT: Yeah, didn't point it out, but it came up. This wasn't a "Everyone should be atheist", but a counter argument against "nobody could be atheist". The following are my logical arguments, and reason 5 is just saying Flat-Earthers and Creationists are a thing. You don't even need logic to (dis)believe in something.
EDIT 2: And yeah. I'm saying "atheist" as in "doesn't believe in a god" / "doesn't worship a god", not as "hates anyone who associates with gods / religion / whatever".

I decided against derailing the base forum that this came from, so here I am.

There are multiple reasons to say "gods don't exist", and you mentioned one of them

1 - Definition. Deity really has no solid definition in our world, and even in D&D, it's simply anything with a divinity rating or whatever, which I know of nothing that can detect said rating.
So, someone comes up with some definition, and says the gods don't fit that definition. They don't believe they are gods, thus they don't believe in gods. There was some famous philosopher...started with an "A" I forget the full name though... who renounced the Roman/Greek gods because their definition of "god" did not include anything that portrayed petty wrath nor envy. Ironically, I think this guy was Christian, but don't quote me on that.
This would allow them to even know that a creature that's referred to as a god definitively exists, and still reject that gods exist.

2 - Not seeing them for themselves. Unless you're running a Frat-party or higher level of deity interaction (the level that generally describes Greco-Roman mythology), the vast majority never see gods directly.
(And hell, even in those frat-party settings, the deities seem to frequent places, so it's still possible the majority never see the gods simply because they don't visit.)

3 - Deities can grant powers to believers who can channel magic. Wizards can also grant powers to anyone who knows how to read their spells and channel magic.
A deity's clerics can heal...so can a bard who worships peacocks....and a cleric who does nothing but praise the sun and spread happiness, or one that is so self-conceited that his own belief in his power is granting him power.
Deities might have a greater strength, but they are by no means unique. And their most commonly seen actors - the clerics, are even less unique. So a cleric having magic powers is no great reason to believe in deities.

4 - Who is dictating what is "divine" and "arcane" magic? They both are affected by the same effects pretty much, with notable exceptions which I've not once seen come up in 15 years of gaming.
And with that said, even if you can point out differences through those exceptions...druids get divine magic, and don't have to worship deities, nor even Clerics for that matter, in 3.5, nor do Archivists if I remember correctly.
So this isn't an argument for deities' existence.

5 - Simply being willfully ignorant. People believe the Earth is flat when they can literally prove that it's round in their backyard if they wanted to. People will also hold on to their beliefs despite being (sometimes literally) slapped in the face with evidence. There's also people who just don't give a rat's patoot, but they don't deserve their own tick mark.
I imagine a similar number of people would just deny gods exist just 'cuz.

6 - The reason for belief in the first place. Religion started in our world because how else were you going to explain lightning? In this world, you've got wizards who cast lightning. Well, there's your superstitious explanation. It's some wizard. Or perhaps it's a god. Who knows. Both are equally likely, given no other information, but in many campaigns it's more likely to see a wizard than a god if you aren't a main character.

5 is nonsense, we are not allowed to discus it here and respect other people...

I agree that people may be atheists however, everyone may be what he wants. I agree with you but scrap 5, it is disrespectful, against the rules and you'll get a report

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 02:43 AM

It's a difference in belief of the qualities that gods possess, rather than a difference in belief in the existence of God's.

How can I put this...

So, let's say a person says that the definition of deity is a rock god. A social rank for musicians. Perhaps one might say "Oh, you're not really an atheist, because you believe Elvis the D&D bard exists! You called him a rock god yourself!" Do you think the person being told that would suddenly think that they weren't an atheist?

No, they wouldn't. They'd just think that person was making a straw man argument, because when the atheist says that they disbelieve in gods, they don't mean that they disbelieve in rock gods.

The same would be true in Forgotten Realms. The theists of Forgotten Realms are not claiming that gods are merely a social title, and therefore the atheists of Forgotten Realms would not define themselves in terms of rejecting gods which are merely social titles. The ideology being rejected is one where the gods possess a certain intrinsic quality, rather than merely a social recognition.

Certainly, but at that point it's not atheism anymore.

Sure it is.

Your argument is similar to saying "There could be a hypothetical setting (not Forgotten Realms) where the word "god" is generally defined as any frog. Frogs exist, right?" And that's true... but it's also completely irrelevant as long as we're not talking about such a setting.

Someone asked about whether the concept of atheism would arise in a setting like Forgotten Realms. The linguistic concept itself would have developed as a rejection of theism, as it exists in that world. And Forgotten Realms is not a world where the theists define godhood as nothing more than a social rank that you can get by a written decree.

The thing is, the reverse of your statement is true. The thing that you're refuting isn't atheism anymore. Atheists don't reject the existence of gods for any hypothetical definition of the word god you could possibly come up with in any setting ever (because nothing at all could meet such a standard. The very idea is linguistically incoherent). Atheists tend not to meet the "disbelieve in gods as a social title" definition, and yet still call themselves atheists, so clearly that's not what the word means to them.

Seto

2016-04-14, 04:28 AM

Well, the thing with "God as a title" is that it's not an empty title, it comes with a few perks. A judge or a knight is defined not only by their social and lawful recognition as a judge or a knight, but also by the powers associated with their function, i.e. preside over a court or participate in war. Similarly, a God is lawfully recognized by the cosmos/Ao as a being habilitated to grant spells, rule over certain aspects of reality and generally do awesome stuff. Sure, in that perspective it's not a trait inherent to the individual, but it's still integral to the title, and thus to the concept of divinity (as evidenced by the story of Bane, Myrkul and that third guy). And many people probably worship Gods because of their portfolio as much or more as their individual being ; so the question is displaced but not answered. But at least we've made steps towards a shared notion of what a God is.

EDIT : So, LudicSavant, some theists in FR might call you a heretic if you told them that, but not all of them I reckon. And that leads me to adress a very important point that I haven't really seen brought up here: why suppose that all theists implicitly agree on what constitutes a God? Some might believe in the guy that has a portfolio, some others in the guy that can grant spells, and others yet in any Epic caster. That's because IMO belief is not prompted by an external cause in most cases, but answers to an internal need.
We've been looking for a unified definition of God that a rational scholar could come up with in-universe (we already have one OoC, that is Divine Ranks), but that definition couldn't possibly be "what theists in FR agree upon", because nothing says they agree.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 04:39 AM

Well, the thing with "God as a title" is that it's not an empty title, it comes with a few perks. A judge or a knight is defined not only by their social and lawful recognition as a judge or a knight, but also by the powers associated with their function, i.e. preside over a court or participate in war. Similarly, a God is lawfully recognized by the cosmos/Ao as a being habilitated to grant spells, rule over certain aspects of reality and generally do awesome stuff. Sure, in that perspective it's not a trait inherent to the individual, but it's still integral to the title, and thus to the concept of divinity (as evidenced by the story of Bane, Myrkul and that third guy). And many people probably worship Gods because of their portfolio as much or more as their individual being ; so the question is displaced but not answered. But at least we've made steps towards a shared notion of what a God is.

Do you actually think that this is what theists in Forgotten Realms mean when they're defining deities, or what atheists in Forgotten Realms would mean when they're rejecting them? Do you, in fact, think that a guy saying "Ao is really just an epic wizard and Torm is a particularly evil one" would avoid being classified as an atheist and ending up in the wall of the faithless?

Because if not this just seems like pointless dancing around the issue, and won't discuss it further.

I for one have a sneaking suspicion that if I went and asked some random Forgotten Realms fan outside of this thread if they would consider a guy saying "Torm is really just an evil epic wizard and so is Ao" an atheist, they'd say "yeah, that guy's going to the wall of the faithless."

Seto

2016-04-14, 04:58 AM

Do you actually think that this is what theists in Forgotten Realms mean when they're defining deities, or what atheists in Forgotten Realms would mean when they're rejecting them? Do you, in fact, think that a guy saying "Ao is really just an epic wizard and Torm is a particularly evil one" would avoid being classified as an atheist and ending up in the wall of the faithless?

Because if not this just seems like pointless dancing around the issue, and won't discuss it further.

I for one have a sneaking suspicion that if I went and asked some random Forgotten Realms fan outside of this thread if they would consider a guy saying "Torm is really just an evil epic wizard and so is Ao" an atheist, they'd say "yeah, that guy's going to the wall of the faithless."

"Torm is the guy who rules over justice, the holy scriptures say he defeated Bane, that's why I worship him, obviously he's a God !"
No theist of course would say "this God is really just an epic Wizard". That's not the point. The point is that a God of the Seas and Storms, and an Epic Druid who has developed a way to hear it from anywhere when someone speaks his name are functionally indistinguishable to most theists, and that's all right because it's the function they worship. "A guy that causes and prevents storms from another dimension? Obviously he's a God, and this is the guy that fishermen like me have to be tight with, the obvious thing to do is to pray to him before getting on a boat".

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 05:05 AM

No theist of course would say "this God is really just an epic Wizard".

Well then, this premise makes my argument very easy indeed.

- Atheist literally means "not theist."
- No theist would say "this God is really just an epic Wizard."
- Therefore, one who says "this God is really just an epic Wizard" is an atheist.
QED.

Seto

2016-04-14, 05:09 AM

Well then, this premise makes my argument very easy indeed.

- Atheist literally means "not theist."
- No theist would say "this God is really just an epic Wizard."
- Therefore, one who says "this God is really just an epic Wizard" is an atheist.
QED.

But nothing precludes a theist from saying "this epic Wizard is also a God", or "this God is also an epic Wizard". Something that is a God, in the mind of a theist, is never "really just" something else. It's first and foremost a God. It might also happen to be something else on top of that.
To make it crystal clear, the logical claim I'm rejecting is that "God" and "epic caster" are somehow mutually exclusive properties.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 05:11 AM

EDIT :

*snip*

We've been looking for a unified definition of God that a rational scholar could come up with in-universe (we already have one OoC, that is Divine Ranks), but that definition couldn't possibly be "what theists in FR agree upon", because nothing says they agree.

If you want to refute a person's beliefs as being irrational, you have to prove that their beliefs are wrong.

I put it to you that when someone says that they are an atheist, the thing that they are attempting to communicate with that label is not "I don't believe in rock gods" or "I don't believe in individuals with powerful social titles, like pharaohs or even a guy who's allowed to ask Ao for a specific kind of favor."

Seto

2016-04-14, 05:16 AM

If you want to refute a person's beliefs as being irrational, you have to prove that their beliefs are wrong.

I put it to you that when someone says that they are an atheist, the thing that they are attempting to communicate with that label is not "I don't believe in rock gods" or "I don't believe in individuals with powerful social titles, like pharaohs." If you're not addressing what they actually mean when they say atheist, then the argument boils down to nothing more than petty sophistry.

I legitimately don't understand how the above addresses what you quoted from my post about theists not necessarily agreeing on a definition of a God. As for me personally, as I said in my very first post in this thread on page 1, I agree that atheism in D&D is a defensible position. I had moved on to talking about other points that I find interesting, such as "what is the best definition of a God that could be rationally coined in-universe?".

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 05:24 AM

As for me personally, as I said in my very first post in this thread 4 or 5 pages ago, I agree that atheism in D&D is a defensible belief. Glad we agree, then.

I may have misinterpreted your opinion as being "Ludic is wrong about atheism being a defensible belief in D&D because X" rather than just "New topic of discussion, X."

I legitimately don't understand how the above addresses what you quoted from my post about theists not necessarily agreeing on a definition of a God.

I agree that theists do not agree on a definition of god (I said as much myself, a few times). I was pointing out that in the context of discussing whether or not atheism is a defensible belief for D&D characters or not (which I was given to understand was the topic being discussed), the most useful definition of "theist" and "atheist" would be the definition that best characterizes the disagreement between those who subscribe to either of those two labels.

e.g. that atheists are not calling themselves such because they disbelieve in rock gods or power from legal authority, and therefore that defining theism (and therefore its converse, not-theism) in terms of rock gods or legal authority is not really addressing the atheist position.

BWR

2016-04-14, 05:39 AM

Is atheism a tenable belief in D&D?

Short answer: from an OOC POV, no. If certain beings are called gods by the setting, they are gods. No further definition is needed. Trying to argue against that is like claiming devils aren't really devils, even if they are called that.
IC: It doesn't matter.
People believe all sorts of stuff even if they may be wrong, even if they are faced with insurmountable evidence to prove their beliefs wrong or have absolutely no evidence supporting their beliefs, and there are plenty of situations where the answer isn't so clear. The Athar of PS are basically a bunch of people who believe the gods aren't gods, on the basis that there has to be a qualitative difference between a god and a merely very powerful being. They can never seem to properly formulate exactly what this quality is, though. Most everyone else thinks they are a bunch of loonies with unconvincing arguments.

ShurikVch

2016-04-14, 08:01 AM

About possible definitions of "deity" - I suggest to divide them like this:

1) "Internal definition": "deity" is whoever people of the world believe is deity.
To put it simple: deity is "deity" by the same way as cat is "cat", sky is "sky", cold is "cold", and green is "green" - just because!
It could be wrong, but risk of worshiping false god still infinitely lower then reject all deities altogether.
Also, you can just ask another deities if your god is "real deal" or not

2) "External definition": somebody from outside of the world came in, and his(/her/its/...) definition of "deity" doesn't match the local one.
For me, it looks like attempt to stick proverbial square peg in a round hole; why exactly this world's deities should conform to foreigner's definition? Different world - different rules...

3) "Made-up definition": cooked up by weird philosophers - such as aforementioned Athar. People would look at you funny, and risk of the Wall is still there
Big exception to this case may be if the philosopher in question is deity in his(/her/its/...) one right (but in that case philosopher wouldn't be atheist - he believes in himself)

Important question about deities is afterlife.
High-level Wizard can make new planes, but petitioners wouldn't come to those planes, even if they worshiped him like a god

In "The Rat King" series (by Leonid Kudriavcev) setting is "Chain of Worlds" - string of (relatively) small worlds connected by portals.
One end of Chain blocked by the Black Wall, which keep the Chaos from destroying Worlds
World near the Wall is also notable because in it appear petitioners (in forms of undead) from outside of the Chain
That world (along with 24 next worlds) is ruled by the mighty wizard Angra Mainyu.
Despite all his magical knowledge, he genuinely puzzled by appearance of petitioners in this world, and don't have any power over them except purely administrative
(To be just, that Angra Mainyu, despite ruling so many worlds, vanquishing would-be usurpers almost daily, and having vast staff of literal sycophants and bootlickers, never pretended to be a god)

Another example: in book series (by Vladimir Kovalenko) elven cleric (~ 11 lvl) get into world which is "carbon copy" of Earth in VII century (in Cumbria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria)), and call herself Nemain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemain).
Gullible medieval folk took her word
Also, most of characters - including Nemain herself - are of Christian faith; somehow, they don't see Christianity and Nemain as incompatible or mutually exclusive
So, question - is Nemain in-book a goddess or not?
(Possible in-book answer: whatever the invisible DMs decide; they already made her a daughter of local Byzantine emperor Heraclius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius) - despite her being full-blooded Elf!)

Red Fel

2016-04-14, 08:52 AM

If you want to refute a person's beliefs as being irrational, you have to prove that their beliefs are wrong.

First, wrong way. If a person asserts that your beliefs are wrong, they have the burden of proof. In this case, the burden is on the theoretical D&D atheist, who is going to a given D&D theist and saying, "No, there are no gods." The burden is not on the theist, but on the atheist.

Second, the statement is false. If you want to refute a person's beliefs as being irrational, you do not have to prove that their beliefs are wrong. You have to prove that their beliefs are not based in reason. They could be accidentally right, but have reached the right answer in an irrational way.

Reason, here, being a scientific process, or alternatively a method of establishing confidence based on the availability and reliability of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence as has been listed by others in this thread.

Throughout this thread, the goalpost has shifted. First, it was "Can atheism exist in D&D?" The answer was, "Technically yes, but not from any reasonable perspective." Then came the question, "Sure, but can't a hypothetical D&D atheist reasonably assume that any godlike being is simply an incredibly powerful spellcaster?" To which the answer was, "Yes, but the distinction is both academic and futile, and besides, that ignores the actual divine stuff a D&D deity can perform." Then came the question, "Okay, but what if the hypothetical D&D atheist was stubbornly determined to ignore evidence of the divine in favor of the assumption of epic spellcasting?" To which the answer is, "Congratulations, hypothetically, an NPC does exist within the set you created specifically to contain that NPC for the purpose of proving your point."

Yes. Any NPC must exist that satisfies whatever characteristic the DM has decided must exist in an NPC. An NPC can be created who stubbornly, mulishly refuses to acknowledge evidence of a being's godhood despite evidence to the contrary. Such a creature is irrational; that's the definition of refusing to acknowledge the increasing mountain of evidence before you. This character reeks of the confirmation bias; he has already decided that any evidence of godlike power only proves epic spellcasting, therefore any evidence of godlike power reinforces his mistake, rather than being taken at face value. This is an irrational belief for an irrational character.

Let's observe how this character would fare in other situations.
Sees mask, knife, scars, bag of stolen goods. "I don't believe you're a real bandit." Stabbed, robbed, dead.
Sees armor, lance, horse. "I don't believe you're a real knight." Lanced, trampled, dead.
Sees holy symbols, robes, torches. "I don't believe you're a real church inquisitor." Tortured, burned, dead.
Sees crown, jewels, attendants. "I don't believe you're a real king." Sentenced, executed, dead.
Such a character doesn't have much of a life expectancy, is my point.

If your last fallback position to the question of "Could an atheist exist in D&D?" is "What if he was completely irrational?", then yes, a completely irrational, borderline delusional character could exist. He just wouldn't be good for much.

Is atheism a tenable belief in D&D?

Short answer: from an OOC POV, no. If certain beings are called gods by the setting, they are gods. No further definition is needed. Trying to argue against that is like claiming devils aren't really devils, even if they are called that.
IC: It doesn't matter.
People believe all sorts of stuff even if they may be wrong, even if they are faced with insurmountable evidence to prove their beliefs wrong or have absolutely no evidence supporting their beliefs, and there are plenty of situations where the answer isn't so clear. The Athar of PS are basically a bunch of people who believe the gods aren't gods, on the basis that there has to be a qualitative difference between a god and a merely very powerful being. They can never seem to properly formulate exactly what this quality is, though. Most everyone else thinks they are a bunch of loonies with unconvincing arguments.

This. This is the point. What actual difference does it make?

We've been circling this point for so long I'm getting dizzy. Allow me to D&D-Godwin the issue: Mindrape.

Let's take our hypothetical one-in-a-million delusional atheist NPC. Mindrape. He now believes in deities.

Problem solved.

Segev

2016-04-14, 09:01 AM

Let's observe how this character would fare in other situations.
Sees mask, knife, scars, bag of stolen goods. "I don't believe you're a real bandit." Stabbed, robbed, dead.
Sees armor, lance, horse. "I don't believe you're a real knight." Lanced, trampled, dead.
Sees holy symbols, robes, torches. "I don't believe you're a real church inquisitor." Tortured, burned, dead.
Sees crown, jewels, attendants. "I don't believe you're a real king." Sentenced, executed, dead.
Such a character doesn't have much of a life expectancy, is my point.

Interestingly, and in sideways support of your point about the professed D&D atheist's life expectancy, it doesn't matter if he's actually right.

That bandit might actually be an assassin hired specifically to kill him. He's still stabbed and dead. Maybe robbed, if the assassin was dedicated to selling the "bandit" bit to investigators.

That armored figure on a horse with a lance might be a horse thief and trained warrior-bandit with no legal claim to being a knight. Lancing and trampling the guy who calls him on his ruse still leaves said guy quite dead.

The guy with holy symbols, robes, and torches could be a psychopathic loner who happens to BELIEVE himself a "church inquisitor" (but may well be on said church's 'to-do' list of things to...inquisit)...but he still tortured, burned, and slew the guy who doubted his authority.

The bejeweled and crowned figure with many attendants may well be a high level Thrallherd who has gathered mind-slaved believers, not a genuine King of any nation, but if he declares to his Believers that the one who insulted him (and keeps making saves against his mind-control powers, the insolent little peasant) that he is sentenced to death, those Believers still grab him and execute him for their master the "King."

And that handsome, bare-chested young-looking man with the gold crown and gauntlets sitting atop a throne in front of a pyramid may well NOT be a god, but when he hurls his Sorcerer-class-granted fireball of "divine retribution" at you for your "heresy," you're still a crispy critter.

Seto

2016-04-14, 10:01 AM

This. This is the point. What actual difference does it make?

First, it makes a difference inasmuch as roleplaying an atheist character is different from roleplaying a theist one, and roleplaying a stupid delusional atheist character is different from roleplaying a reasonably and rationally skeptical atheist character, the inexistence of whom you keep claiming is a foregone conclusion, with arguments that have been convincingly refuted several times in this thread. Granted, it might not be a terribly important difference, but religious belief or the absence thereof is in my experience an interesting dimension of a character to explore.

Second, even if it made no difference at all, we like to have purely theoretical discussions, even if they're somewhat pointless, and you know it. We might even say it's a staple of these forums. It is perfectly understandable to get tired of those and want to actually use your energy to do something useful. I certainly do from time to time. But in that case the best thing to do is probably to, you know, do something useful, rather than barge in on a debate saying "stop talking about this crap already".

I apologize if this comes across as blunt. This thread does frustratingly run in circles. It's just that, I guess, something in your approach looked dismissive and rubbed me the wrong way.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:13 AM

First, wrong way. If a person asserts that your beliefs are wrong, they have the burden of proof.

That is completely false. The burden of proof is on the person claiming a belief to be true. I have no idea where you heard otherwise, but you have been wildly misinformed about how burdens of proof work.

If you believe that there is a dragon in your garage, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that there is a dragon in your garage, not on the person who says that they don't have enough evidence to believe that you have a dragon in your garage.

Red Fel

2016-04-14, 10:20 AM

That is completely false. The burden of proof is on the person claiming a belief to be true. I have no idea where you heard otherwise, but you have been wildly misinformed about how burdens of proof work.

The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the challengee. If I walk up to you and say, "You are a carrot," the burden is on me to show that you are a carrot, not on you to show that you are not one. If I walk up to you and say "Pelor does not exist," the burden is on me, as the proponent of the idea, to offer proof, not on you, as the recipient of my challenge, to prove me wrong.

I apologize if this comes across as blunt. This thread does frustratingly run in circles. It's just that, I guess, something in your approach looked dismissive and rubbed me the wrong way.

That's fair. My approach is a bit dismissive. Perhaps more than a bit. And that's because, as we've now both said, this thread continues to move in circles, with both sides clearly convinced of their own opinions and not terribly convinced of the other. I don't see that changing, and I don't see the conversation itself making any meaningful progress. And when a thread reaches that point, I get frustrated and dismissive of it.

Points have been made, argued, and depending on who you ask, refuted. Good job. We're still missing the big picture, here. We've been debating the existence and reasonability of D&D atheists, and neglected a key point: A D&D atheist cannot exist in any campaign in which I am a player, because my PC will offer clear evidence of its own existence.

I'm right here, man.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:24 AM

The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the challengee.

The person who asserts that there are gods and that anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable holds the burden of proof.

They must prove two things: First that there are gods, and second that anyone who disagrees with the proposition does not have room for reasonable doubt.

LTwerewolf

2016-04-14, 10:28 AM

The burden of proof is to the person trying to prove. It's literally in the name. If they say your religion is wrong, and you're quite content with it, the burden is not on you to prove your religion real but on them to prove it isn't. Ask any scientist how easy it is to prove a negative.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:32 AM

Ask any scientist how easy it is to prove a negative.

Whether or not it is easy to prove a negative has nothing to do with who holds the burden of proof. This is a straight up red herring.

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-14, 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on the challenger, not the challengee. If I walk up to you and say, "You are a carrot," the burden is on me to show that you are a carrot, not on you to show that you are not one. If I walk up to you and say "Pelor does not exist," the burden is on me, as the proponent of the idea, to offer proof, not on you, as the recipient of my challenge, to prove me wrong.
He's not just right philosophically, Red's got this down pat legally. That is exactly how the burden of proof works.

That's fair. My approach is a bit dismissive. Perhaps more than a bit. And that's because, as we've now both said, this thread continues to move in circles, with both sides clearly convinced of their own opinions and not terribly convinced of the other.
I'm actually in the same boat here. I don't mind having the same discussion more than once. Granted, I am likely to link an old thread if a question can be answered quickly. But these threads usually seem to be started because of an argument in a different thread and they tend stick around for a couple weeks where nothing gets done.

It's just hard to see the point of them and they rarely seem like a 3.5 thread, since everyone is just making allusions to real world religions/situations or bringing real world disbeliefs/beliefs to the table as their influence on the topic.

The person who asserts that there are gods and that anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable holds the burden of proof.
In my experience, the fact that there are gods in at least Forgotten Realms, is the widely accepted belief and any attempt at preaching is usually to convert a person from one deity to another. The guy who shows up and says "there are no gods" is the one who holds the burden of proof.

They must prove two things: First that there are gods, and second that anyone who disagrees with the proposition does not have room for reasonable doubt.
This is what flame strike is for.

OldTrees1

2016-04-14, 10:33 AM

That is completely false. The burden of proof is on the person claiming a belief to be true. I have no idea where you heard otherwise, but you have been wildly misinformed about how burdens of proof work.

If you believe that there is a dragon in your garage, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that there is a dragon in your garage, not on the person who says that they don't have enough evidence to believe that you have a dragon in your garage.

You are overlooking something fundamental: The difference between having an opinion and attempting to convince someone else to change their opinion.

An assertion that someone ought to change their position without evidence can be dismissed without evidence for 2 reasons:
1) Fact of life, people will not change their position if your argument is not convincing
2) The assertion that someone ought to change is a positive claim regardless of the position you want them to change to.

Red Fel

2016-04-14, 10:35 AM

You totally just made that rule up out of nothing and it has nothing to do with the concept of burdens of proof in scientific or epistemological contexts.

Do you really want to do this? Okay, fine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof).

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.
So, if Able says "There are no gods," and Baker disagrees, Able has the burden of proof. Here, have another (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof).

Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).
So, again, the burden is on the proponent. That would be the atheist in this case. Let's give it one more (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.
Once again. The burden is on the proponent. The burden is on the person making the claim. If the theist came to the atheist, the theist would have the burden; in this scenario, however, the atheist is the proponent, and therefore has the burden.

Your position is that the theist claims the gods exist, and therefore he has the burden of proof. But the theist isn't the one challenging anyone; the D&D atheist, challenging the accepted existence of deities, is the proponent of a new theory. Under general principles of reasoned discourse, as the proponent of a new theory, he has the burden.

If I'm making this up, I must be really good at it. Heck, I must be amazing. I mean, I am, but still.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:35 AM

You are overlooking something fundamental No I'm not. The atheist's position is that he lacks a belief in gods. He isn't telling anyone to change their position.

Red Fel is the one making the assertion: That religion is correct and all atheists are unreasonable for thinking otherwise.

Do you really want to do this? Okay, fine.

So, if Able says "There are no gods," and Baker disagrees, Able has the burden of proof.

So, again, the burden is on the proponent. That would be the atheist in this case.

Let's give it one more (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).

Once again. The burden is on the proponent. The burden is on the person making the claim. If the theist came to the atheist, the theist would have the burden; in this scenario, however, the atheist is the proponent, and therefore has the burden.

Your position is that the theist claims the gods exist, and therefore he has the burden of proof. But the theist isn't the one challenging anyone; the D&D atheist, challenging the accepted existence of deities, is the proponent of a new theory. Under general principles of reasoned discourse, as the proponent of a new theory, he has the burden.

If I'm making this up, I must be really good at it. Heck, I must be amazing. I mean, I am, but still.

The sources you linked all support my position.

Let's look at one of them, shall we?

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim

Who is making the claim? A person who simply does not believe something, or a person who claims that their religion is true and that anyone who thinks otherwise is unreasonable?

LTwerewolf

2016-04-14, 10:37 AM

Whether or not it is easy to prove a negative has nothing to do with who holds the burden of proof. This is a straight up red herring.

It has everything to do with an atheist trying to prove there are no gods. It's ok to tie things into the original discussion.

Red Fel

2016-04-14, 10:38 AM

The sources you linked all support my position.

Oh.

Oh, I see.

Welp, I think we're done here.

OldTrees1

2016-04-14, 10:40 AM

No I'm not. The atheist's position is that he lacks a belief in gods. He isn't telling anyone to change their position.

Red Fel is the one making the assertion: That religion is correct and all atheists are unreasonable for thinking otherwise.

The sources you linked all support my position.

The atheist that lacks a belief in gods does not have a burden of proof
The theist that believes in gods does not have a burden of proof
The person asserting a position (someone trying to tell others to change their positions) does have a burden of proof. This can come from either side of the aisle(even we agnostics are subject to the burden of proof when we try to assert)

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:41 AM

Oh.

Oh, I see.

Welp, I think we're done here.

Not a single one of your sources supported your idea that a person who lacks belief in something is making a claim, while a person who claims that their religion is true and that everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong is not making a claim.

The atheist that lacks a belief is gods does not have a burden of proof
The theist that believes in gods does not have a burden of proof
The person asserting a position (someone trying to tell others to change their positions) does have a burden of proof. This can come from either side of the aisle(even we agnostics are subject to the burden of proof when we try to assert)

And this conversation began with someone asserting that in D&D, religion is true and all characters who doubt it are necessarily unreasonable.

Seto

2016-04-14, 10:42 AM

I'm also starting to doubt the sustainability of this thread. But it's made me think about religious beliefs in D&D, which has been interesting, so props for that :smallsmile:

LoyalPaladin

2016-04-14, 10:44 AM

Oh.

Oh, I see.

Welp, I think we're done here.
Aw c'mon! We've still got som-

Not a single one of your sources supported your idea that a person who lacks belief in something is making a claim, while a person who claims that their religion is true and that everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong is not making a claim.
Oh. I think you're right, Red. Time to unsub.

OldTrees1

2016-04-14, 10:46 AM

Not a single one of your sources supported your idea that a person who lacks belief in something is making a claim, while a person who claims that their religion is true and that everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong is not making a claim.

Why did you choose those 2 out of the 4?

Abe is an Atheist
Bill is a Theist
Cob is an Atheist that is trying to convince every theist that they are wrong
Dave is a Theist that is trying to convince every atheist that they are wrong

Cob and Dave have the burden of proof while neither Abe nor Bill does.

And this conversation began with someone asserting that in D&D, religion is true and all characters who doubt it are necessarily unreasonable.
Then are you and Red Fel not in agreement that the Atheist/Theist trying to convince is the person with the burden and the Atheist/Theist not trying to convince is not?

Necroticplague

2016-04-14, 10:48 AM

It has everything to do with an atheist trying to prove there are no gods. It's ok to tie things into the original discussion.

When was the discussion about proving atheism? In dnd, atheists are flat out wrong. However, its not irrational to beleive such.

Seto

2016-04-14, 10:50 AM

Why did you choose those 2 out of the 4?

Abe is an Atheist
Bill is a Theist
Cob is an Atheist that is trying to convince every theist that they are wrong
Dave is a Theist that is trying to convince every atheist that they are wrong

Cob and Dave have the burden of proof while neither Abe nor Bill does.

Then are you and Red Fel not in agreement that the person trying to convince is the person with the burden?

(I think the problem here is that, to Ludic, the claim - and Red Fel did make it - is that of Dave, and to Fel, the claim is that of Cob - which LudicSavant didn't quite make because his working definition of "atheist" is "does not believe in gods" rather than "asserts that there are no gods", a definition that he does not share with Red Fel, hence the misunderstanding)

OldTrees1

2016-04-14, 10:51 AM

(I think the problem here is that, to Ludic, the claim - and Red Fel did make it - is that of Dave, and to Fel, the claim is that of Cob - which LudicSavant didn't quite make because his working definition of "atheist" is "does not believe in gods" rather than "asserts that there are no gods", a definition that he does not share with Red Fel, hence the misunderstanding)

I agree. I am now trying to communicate that to both parties because all 4 exist and it is perfectly reasonable to see both Abes and Bills being bored and unmoved by Cobs and Daves, even in D&D.

Psyren

2016-04-14, 10:54 AM

My own stance is also "what does it matter" but from a slightly different perspective than that of Red Fel. Let's assume for a moment that your character is totally right, and the gods in a setting are just powerful outsiders with epic magic who aren't truly divine beings - they are fallible, they can die, they can be petty and fickle and wrong etc. Thus your character can rationally conclude they are not deserving of worship or deference.

The thing is however - if there are still consequences in that setting for not deferring to them/choosing a patron anyway, then your character's personal beliefs don't actually matter. You can defy them unwaveringly, live and die feeling the satisfaction of sticking to your guns, and still end up shoved into the Wall or Boneyard for aeons (if not eternity) if none of those entities choose to vouch for you in turn.

Golarion has a lesser but useful example - not the atheist country (though that could be a subtopic by itself), but rather the nation of Razmiran, which is ruled by a near-epic sorcerer (19th-level I believe) who has convinced the whole country and many folks outside of it that he's a living god. Now, even if you live in Razmiran, you're perfectly free to believe this guy is an utter phony. But actually expressing that opinion anywhere his "priests" or their agents can hear you is very likely to land you in hot water. There is even a faction/village within the nation's borders called Whispertruth that is populated by a bunch of folks who know he's fake, and they take great pains to keep their true location hidden; but Razmir already knows where they are and simply leaves them around because they're convenient scapegoats for any atrocities he feels like committing that week.

I bring this up because the real gods are not too far off from that too (especially in FR.) Your freedoms and life aren't in as much danger while alive, but your soul is at risk if you have nobody in your corner at that time. Worse, there's no real way to keep your personal beliefs private - it will come up during your final review when you're standing in front of Kelemvor or Pharasma.

So in short, a rose by any other name demands worship just the same.

When was the discussion about proving atheism? In dnd, atheists are flat out wrong. However, its not irrational to beleive such.

Also this.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 10:57 AM

Why did you choose those 2 out of the 4?

Abe is an Atheist
Bill is a Theist
Cob is an Atheist that is trying to convince every theist that they are wrong
Dave is a Theist that is trying to convince every atheist that they are wrong

Cob and Dave have the burden of proof while neither Abe nor Bill does.

Because Cob is a straw man argument.

At no point, in this entire thread, have I made any reference to an atheist trying to convince every theist that they were wrong. I haven't even made any reference to an atheist trying to convince a theist of anything.

I have only ever talked about why Abe might have rational room for skepticism of Dave's claims. Abe isn't trying to prove anything, and therefore has no burden of proof.

If Dave wants to say that that Abe is wrong and unreasonable, the burden of proof is on Dave, as you say. Indeed, every single source that Red Fel linked supports this.

When was the discussion about proving atheism? In dnd, atheists are flat out wrong. However, its not irrational to beleive such.

Also this.

You hit it on the head. It's a straw man argument, through and through.

OldTrees1

2016-04-14, 11:06 AM

Because Cob is a straw man argument.

At no point, in this entire thread, have I made any reference to an atheist trying to convince every theist that they were wrong. I haven't even made any reference to an atheist trying to convince a theist of anything.

If the theist wants to say that that atheist is wrong and unreasonable, the burden of proof is on the theist.

Did I say you were talking about Cob? No. I said that you would agree that Abe and Bill do not have the burden of doubt while Cobs(which do exist but you were not talking about) and Daves would have the burden of doubt.

It seems fairly obvious that you think you and Red Fel are talking about the burden in the case of Abe vs Dave while Red Fel thinks you are talking about the burden in the case of Cob vs Bill. Your positions on the matter seem to be in agreement but you are pointlessly arguing because you are confusing the other's position.

LudicSavant

2016-04-14, 11:12 AM

Did I say you were talking about Cob? No. Right, you didn't say I was talking about Cob. I think Red Fel did, though.

while Red Fel thinks you are talking about the burden in the case of Cob vs Bill.

Right. This.

NichG

2016-04-14, 11:13 AM

How can I put this...

So, let's say a person says that the definition of deity is a rock god. A social rank for musicians. Perhaps one might say "Oh, you're not really an atheist, because you believe Elvis the D&D bard exists! You called him a rock god yourself!" Do you think the person being told that would suddenly think that they weren't an atheist?

No, they wouldn't. They'd just think that person was making a straw man argument, because when the atheist says that they disbelieve in gods, they don't mean that they disbelieve in rock gods.

The same would be true in Forgotten Realms. The theists of Forgotten Realms are not claiming that gods are merely a social title, and therefore the atheists of Forgotten Realms would not define themselves in terms of rejecting gods which are merely social titles. The ideology being rejected is one where the gods possess a certain intrinsic quality, rather than merely a social recognition.

The same could easily be said for an 'atheist' claiming 'well, the so-called gods are all powerful, omniscient, and totally control all of fate and destiny; but an epic wizard could do that too, so therefore there's no reason to believe in gods'.

The point is, we don't have an agreed-upon definition of 'god'. Instead, we're debating 'what do you think a fictional theist would define as a god?'. But that's not a point that can possibly have any kind of objective truth about it. So obviously we diverge into a purely semantic argument, which mostly centers around redefining terms.

If it comes down to what I think theists in the Forgotten Realms are 'likely to be like', I'd say they'd be far more laid back about the nature of divinity than real-world theists just because their objects of worship are more immediate. You can have experienced the death and replacement of your personal deity within your lifetime, have shared a drink with them in a tavern, etc, etc. So I'd expect theists to be much more placatory rather than honestly believing in the intrinsic ineffability of their patrons. It'd be more like 'we pray to Torm because he makes sense, and he helps us out'
than 'Torm is a perfected ideal that lies beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, and therefore is intrinsically worthy of being a deontological source of ethics'.

Alatrism would, in my mind, be quite common. But actual atheism of the form of 'there is no such thing as a god' would mostly be a semantic point of view rather than even something trying to be an attempt at rationalism. A rational view would be more like 'there are things which are called gods and that's a useful classification to understand the relationships between that set of entities and everything else, but the existence of gods does not imply the necessity of any kind of emotional attachment to them or particular servile relationship to them', which reduces to alatrism. You could also find a lot of 'gods or no gods, I don't care either way', which is pretty practical - after all, even if 20 or 30 people in FR personally interact with Mystra on a regular basis, that still means that for most people it's irrelevant. However, I don't think 'Azuth is just a high level wizard' ends up having any practical consequences either way, so while there's no real reason why atheists couldn't exist, at the same time there's not much reason for them to exist either.

Anyhow, we're talking about what imaginary people would 'actually' think terms mean, without any kind of concrete binding, so we're in purely subjective realms here. Most of these arguments come down to 'can I bait you into binding a real-life religion's conception of divinity into a word without explicitly saying so?'