Atheist Player Characters [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Callak_Remier

2018-10-21, 03:58 PM

So i have been wrestling with this question for a while now.

With the exception of a few Planes of existence (Darksun)
Gods exist Guarding facets of reality just by their very presence.

They indirectly influence events on the Prime Material plane on a Daily basis.
They have been directly involved in world shaking events in recent History.

Yet despite all of this from all my years of playing the game the large majority of player Characters have been atheists(edit for clarity: Characters that do not worship any god and sometimes even ignore there existence)

I have brought this up at my table and at all the games I'm involved in. With no clear consensus on why this happens.

Perhaps its lack of Mechanical benefit since power gamers are the predominant type i see.

Regardless as a new practice at my table.
I have everyone look through all the Dieties listed in each book
if they dont find something they like or if its a core part of thier character ( insert "fallen character who blames a higher power and spurns them all" archetype).

Then i allow them the choice of atheist.

After they have made that choice.
I inform them that thier character is a lost soul with a much more likelihood for Infernal intervention. Since they lack any divine protection for thier soul. Of course they may seek a patron deity in game.

I let the player knows that:
1) should you encounter a devil or thier servants you will become a soul of interest
2) since no divine intervention there will be no fudging or miraculous events to save them from death. ( Some gods would further that along Wee Jas for example)
3) that if they make it to lvl 20+ they could possibly ascend assuming they get a shard of divinity

Dudewithknives

2018-10-21, 04:02 PM

So i have been wrestling with this question for a while now.

With the exception of a few Planes of existence (Darksun)
Gods exist Guarding facets of reality just by their very presence.

They indirectly influence events on the Prime Material plane on a Daily basis.
They have been directly involved in world shaking events in recent History.

Yet despite all of this from all my years of playing the game the large majority of player Characters have been atheists.

I have brought this up at my table and at all the games I'm involved in. With no clear consensus on why this happens.

Perhaps its lack of Mechanical benefit since power gamers are the predominant type i see.

Regardless as a new practice at my table.
I have everyone look through all the Dieties listed in each book
if they dont find something they like or if its a core part of thier character ( insert "fallen character who blames a higher power and spurns them all" archetype).

Then i allow them the choice of atheist.

After they have made that choice.
I inform them that thier character is a lost soul with a much more likelihood for Infernal intervention. Since they lack any divine protection for thier soul. Of course they may seek a patron deity in game.

I let the player knows that:
1) should you encounter a devil or thier servants you will become a soul of interest
2) since no divine intervention there will be no fudging or miraculous events to save them from death. ( Some gods would further that along Wee Jas for example)
3) that if they make it to lvl 20+ they could possibly ascend assuming they get a shard of divinity

That is because most people label someone who does not care about religion or is indifferent as an atheist. Which is wrong.

Atheists believe that gods do not exist.
What most play are just people that don’t care about the gods at all or what they want but they do think they exist.

Unoriginal

2018-10-21, 04:13 PM

Atheist do not believe the existence of gods. Those characters would objectively be wrong in D&D.

Do you mean people who don't worship gods actively?

Also, Dark Sun isn't a plane of existence, it's part of the Material Plane. It's just a no-god zone.

hamishspence

2018-10-21, 04:18 PM

Trask

2018-10-21, 04:26 PM

The only true atheists in d&d would be moral nihilists who view everything in a might as right context. The gods enforce their will on us because they have the power to do so and thats the only reason. Power is the only thing that separates a man from a god.

hamishspence

2018-10-21, 04:32 PM

The only true atheists in d&d would be moral nihilists who view everything in a might as right context.

There's plenty of other reasons besides nihilism.

Many examples of fictional Nay-Theists, who dislike the gods and think that believing in them "encourages them" (as Granny Weatherwax puts it):

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist

aren't nihilistic.

No brains

2018-10-21, 04:45 PM

The REAL equivalent of an atheist in D&D is someone who doesn't believe in alignments. :smalltongue:

I think there's wiggle room for atheists in Ebberon as explained in one D&D beyond video where the real 'gods' are much less direct are meant to better reflect 'faith'. Even if a PC can Gate in a Solar, that Solar probably hasn't seen a god.

I also think that character 'atheism' might be the result of a boring world. Sure I can say I'm a devout of Helm or Tempus or Bane, but when I am held to the same social standard, get invited to the same parties, have the same social contacts, and am viewed largely the same way as a schlub of any other faith, what's it matter?

If you want to include 'mechanical benefits to faith' in your game, consider using religions as backgrounds. The cultural traditions of different faiths will afford different opportunities to different people and will encourage players to declare their faith... Even if it's just for free rooms in town or an information contact...

It might also be worth it to clarify your cosmology so that players don't get theologically screwed. Some people might not think about being more susceptible to infernals when they don't know that they are the 'default option'. Heck, if there are a few different evil gods and players want to avoid infernals, you may want to clear up that infernals don't cooperate with those bad gods.

Millstone85

2018-10-21, 04:57 PM

The only true atheists in d&d would be moral nihilists who view everything in a might as right context.
The REAL equivalent of an atheist in D&D is someone who doesn't believe in alignments. :smalltongue:Please do not equate unbelief in gods with unbelief in good.

Honest Tiefling

2018-10-21, 04:58 PM

I also think that character 'atheism' might be the result of a boring world. Sure I can say I'm a devout of Helm or Tempus or Bane, but when I am held to the same social standard, get invited to the same parties, have the same social contacts, and am viewed largely the same way as a schlub of any other faith, what's it matter?

In certain polytheistic settings with true pantheons, you might treat clerics/priests of either god equally, or at least equal enough for the player characters to not see it immediately. the human pantheon in Faerun is a bad example, as they aren't really a pantheon in any sense other than Ao decreed it. That and if most people had a choice they wouldn't invite every priest to the party. Maybe lose the invitation for the priest of Helm, god of killjoys especially if the priest of Tempus is really good at partying.

But I think there would be a stronger argument for the priests of say, the elven gods all getting an invite because they are all chummy with one another and work together. Having pantheons that work together and get the same party invites/benefits most of the time isn't a bad thing, as it is hard to make gods that appeal to all characters/players.

If you want to include 'mechanical benefits to faith' in your game, consider using religions as backgrounds. The cultural traditions of different faiths will afford different opportunities to different people and will encourage players to declare their faith... Even if it's just for free rooms in town or an information contact...

I think this is becoming a roleplaying benefit, but it's an idea I would strongly encourage. If having faith means nothing to the NPCs, why bother? It's a crummy religion if no one gives a flying rat's butt about it, even members of that faith!

It might also be worth it to clarify your cosmology so that players don't get theologically screwed. Some people might not think about being more susceptible to infernals when they don't know that they are the 'default option'. Heck, if there are a few different evil gods and players want to avoid infernals, you may want to clear up that infernals don't cooperate with those bad gods.

I think if this is an issue, the players are going to try to murder the gods at some point. Through once again, Faerun is a bad example of this as your choices are basically pain and then oblivion, or becoming a part of another entity and losing your own individuality. So...I'd like to add a point to yours, in that if you want people to care about gods, work out what the afterlife is and how it does NOT suck.

Aelyn

2018-10-21, 05:01 PM

Also bear in mind that rather than actively worshipping a single god, many people will passively believe in the pantheon. It'll look very similar - maybe once every week or so they'll offer a quick thanks to one god or other for a bit of good fortune, but most of the time, they just get on with their lives.

Like Roy. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

I for one would not enjoy being forced to play a character who actively worships a single patron god or suffer mechanical benefit. I've played devout characters in the past, but I've also played characters who were kinda vaguely interested in one god, or who gave thanks to the pantheon, or, yes, didn't particularly care about what goes on on the other planes. Why should I be mechanically punished for any of these things?

Tanarii

2018-10-21, 05:01 PM

Atheist (and even Agnostic) PCs in most D&D campaigns are either insane, in denial, or uneducated, because the gods explicitly exist and there's a plenty of proof for those that want it. Unless a player states their character is one, it's best to assume they're just the kind of character that doesn't think much about the gods or going to church, and generally tries not to end up in their bad books, but doesn't deny them.

Your Campaign May Differ, obviously.

Morty

2018-10-21, 05:05 PM

In the context of a D&D world, atheists are people who don't worship gods. If you want to be stricter about it, you could say they're those who actively reject worship for some reason - like thinking gods don't deserve it. Player characters tend to be irreverent in general, and D&D gods certainly don't inspire reverence.

Your method sounds like it'll result in players writing down a deity on their character sheets and maybe paying some lip service now and then. It's the same method Forgotten Realms uses, what with the Wall of the Faithless... though I'm not sure if it remains in the current iteration.

Kane0

2018-10-21, 05:09 PM

If you don't already know about the wall of the faithless, now is a good time to look it up.

Unoriginal

2018-10-21, 05:16 PM

In the context of a D&D world, atheists are people who don't worship gods.

That's not what the word means, regardless of context.

It's the same method Forgotten Realms uses, what with the Wall of the Faithless... though I'm not sure if it remains in the current iteration.

It's been toned down to something sane. Now you have to be both an utter piece of **** and faithless to get in the wall. Faithless people who aren't that have other fates.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-21, 05:19 PM

There's always the optimatheist who believes that, one day, the gods will no longer exist. And they will see to it.

GM_3826

2018-10-21, 05:33 PM

It's been toned down to something sane. Now you have to be both an utter piece of **** and faithless to get in the wall. Faithless people who aren't that have other fates.

Thank God, I thought that was still the case.

Sudsboy

2018-10-21, 05:43 PM

My favorite character was an atheist. He lost faith when he noticed that religious people act for selfish reasons, and that the power of their gods was proportionate to the number of believers. He hypothesized that, instead of a god or gods driving the faith and empowering clerics, it was a form of magic similar to sorcerers.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-21, 05:45 PM

What is a deity?

If the definition of what a god is isn't clear, it can be very difficult to tell what belief is. Imagine a character who thinks that the pantheon is a group of immensely powerful, ageless magic users with differing moralities and goals, who have the capability to manipulate afterlives and the planes themselves. They call themselves gods, but that doesn't mean it's true. This could be a perfectly consistent belief, given what they are able to see in the world.

It's easy for a DM or player to look in on a D&D character and say "Atheism is absolutely wrong in D&D. It says, explicitly, that _____ is a god right there on page ___" but a character actually living in the world may have a more nuanced viewpoint based on what they know of magic and power.

That character might very well meet a god in person, and say "you are a powerful person, and your morality and motivations match up with mine. Let's work together" rather than "oh mighty insert-deity-name, how may this humble and pathetic mortal serve your divine whim"

Proof of power != proof of godhood

An atheist in D&D would have to be insane to believe that insert-deity-name was not powerful, effective, and capable of ruining their lives (and afterlives).
An atheist in D&D might have perfectly justified (or even accurate, depending on campaign) reasons to believe that the powerful beings in front of them didn't meet their standards of what a deity is.

Kane0

2018-10-21, 05:51 PM

Unoriginal

2018-10-21, 06:03 PM

Case in point: Vecna.

Edit: And Asmodeus.

Sorry, I don't understand what those two are supposed to illustrate. Could you explain?

The Aboleth

2018-10-21, 06:03 PM

SNIP the OP.

I guess my question to the OP is: Why is it so important to you that your players do or do not play characters that worship a deity? I realize that the gods are a big part of many D&D settings, but even in those worlds they don't have to be the focus of your particular campaign. It seems like you want the gods to be more of a focus, but your players don't and to "remedy" this you're going out of your way to nudge your players in that direction.

It's perfectly acceptable to play a campaign where all or most characters are devoted to a deity, but if that's not the type of game the players want then you might consider either compromising in some way, or finding a new group more receptive to the type of game you'd like to run.

Prince Vine

2018-10-21, 06:08 PM

It isn't completely insane. Bob the cleric says some weird words and calls down fire on someone and says his god did it. Joe the wizard says weird words and calls down fire and says he found how to do that in a book. It allows for doubt as to if a god did anything in the first case.

It is generally fairly rare for a god to show up in an unambiguous way to do something. So there is room for doubt, especially with all the super powerful beings that exist on the material plane already.

DeadMech

2018-10-21, 06:08 PM

I'd refrain from using game mechanics to try influence players into choosing an in game religion. Some percentage of the player base is simple never going to be comfortable embracing them because of their strong real world beliefs (or lack there of)

Ultimately the slot on the character sheet for deity isn't really that important for most characters. It's just one of the various avenues a person can choose to give personality and narrative directions for their character.

Some players might choose to engage with the game world through the character's religious beliefs and the culture arising from it, others might engage with the game world and it's culture by starting a winery, or seeking a noble title, or anything really.

Anonymouswizard

2018-10-21, 06:16 PM

So i have been wrestling with this question for a while now.

With the exception of a few Planes of existence (Darksun)
Gods exist Guarding facets of reality just by their very presence.

They indirectly influence events on the Prime Material plane on a Daily basis.
They have been directly involved in world shaking events in recent History.

Yet despite all of this from all my years of playing the game the large majority of player Characters have been atheists.

Lot of assumptions here (I've played in several games with uncertain divinities, some of them including 'divine magic').

First off, we have to seperate the atheist, the agnostic, and the theist. This is essentially certain disbelief, uncertainty, and certainty (we can get into 'gnostic athiests' and 'agnostic theists' if we really want to, but we don't need to). In most fantasy settings the default will be somewhere between agnosticism and theism, as while there are historical records of the gods doing stuff over 99% of the world won't have any sort of personal contact.

Note that in some settings atheists will be considered insane and agnostics who accept the gods but deny their divinity as strange, in others it'll be considered normal. Some will even have established philosphical systems based on a 'humanist' perspective, where the divine is done away with as a yardstick for morality.

In settings such as Eberron you might even have nontheistic religions, or relgions that don't venerate divinities (because we have to make this whole mess even more awkward somehow). The difference between these and philosophical systems is a bit of a bodge, but essentially it's a case of active organisation and culture (the same difference between a shared theistic belief and a religion).

And that's not getting onto the even weirder settings I've seen where gods outright disdain worship.

Note that in a setting like the Well Remembered Realms not chosing a patron deity would likely brand you as an outsider, as for various fluff reasons almost everybody has one. Similarly if the major religion in the city is the Church of the Sun then Moon worshippers will pace prejudice.

Unoriginal

2018-10-21, 06:17 PM

What is a deity?

In D&D, a deity is an entity who is capable of gathering power through the worship of mortals.

That's it.

Orcus is a mighty Demon Prince, and he has cults, but he is unable to gather power through said cults' worship.

Asmodeus is a god, so he is able to gain power through worshipers. He even set up a system so that the worship given to any devil ultimately goes to him.

The Trickster Gods of Chult are true deities... but not big ones. Even at their peak they only had influence over one city and a few villages. But even when starved of all worship, they still have some pretty neat powers.

Under the rank of deity, there are three kinds of pseudo-deities: the demigod, who is a powerful entity who is like a god, but without enough worshipers to pretend to the full job, the titan, which is a being directly created by a god that might do an apotheosis, and the vestige, which was once a god but lost their worshipers.

Millstone85

2018-10-21, 06:27 PM

It's the same method Forgotten Realms uses, what with the Wall of the Faithless... though I'm not sure if it remains in the current iteration.
It's been toned down to something sane. Now you have to be both an utter piece of **** and faithless to get in the wall. Faithless people who aren't that have other fates.
Thank God, I thought that was still the case.Eh, I don't know.

Most humans believe the souls of the recently deceased are spirited away to the Fugue Plane, where they wander the great City of Judgment, often unaware they are dead. The servants of the gods come to collect such souls and, if they are worthy, they are taken to their awaited afterlife in the deity's domain. Occasionally, the faithful are sent back to be reborn into the world to finish work that was left undone.
Souls that are unclaimed by the servants of the gods are judged by Kelemvor, who decides the fate of each one. Some are charged with serving as guides for other lost souls, while others are transformed into squirming larvae and cast into the dust. The truly false and faithless are mortared into the Wall of the Faithless, the great barrier that bounds the City of the Dead, where their souls slowly dissolve and begin to become part of the stuff of the Wall itself.This might be putting too much importance on the fact that they wrote "truly false and faithless" instead of "truly false or faithless". Plus, if "false" means the same as in previous editions, couldn't you be declared false for betraying an evil god? If so, it doesn't necessarily equal being "an utter piece of ****".

CantigThimble

2018-10-21, 06:30 PM

What do you mean by 'atheist' exactly? Do you mean characters who don't pay particular homage to the gods and ignore them, people who say that beings like pelor aren't *really* gods or people who say that pelor doesn't exist?

Mr Beer

2018-10-21, 06:34 PM

I tend to assume atheists don't exist in D&D or at least vanishingly rare.

It's completely reasonable for someone to be not-devout though. Just about all of my PCs are pretty indifferent to religions. Sure the gods exist, that's no reason to devote your life to them though.

Tanarii

2018-10-21, 06:40 PM

An atheist in D&D would have to be insane to believe that insert-deity-name was not powerful, effective, and capable of ruining their lives (and afterlives).
An atheist in D&D might have perfectly justified (or even accurate, depending on campaign) reasons to believe that the powerful beings in front of them didn't meet their standards of what a deity is.

It isn't completely insane. Bob the cleric says some weird words and calls down fire on someone and says his god did it. Joe the wizard says weird words and calls down fire and says he found how to do that in a book. It allows for doubt as to if a god did anything in the first case.
Insane, deluded, or uneducated. Although I'm counting "misinformed" and "not accepting ambiguous evidence" and "never having encountered any evidence" as a bit of both the last two. I can see where my choice of terms/labels might imply far more than just that. These kind of characters beliefs are provably wrong in any D&D universe where Gods/Dieties actually exist. Not having encountered or not believing when encountering it, or not accepting the words of those that are educated in it, makes the characters one of them. Because they are wrong.

Otoh if the gods/Dieties take a distant hand, it might be hard to come by unambiguous evidence, so that doesn't mean that such people would be uncommon. As an analogy, it'd be like a game of Call of the Cthulhu: most non-investigators, indeed most of the world, would be deluded/uneducated as to the fact that Eldritch Horrors from the beyond actually exist.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-21, 06:50 PM

I guess my question to the OP is: Why is it so important to you that your players do or do not play characters that worship a deity?
I realize that the gods are a big part of many D&D settings, but even in those worlds they don't have to be the focus of your particular campaign.

In my campaigns they are never the focus, they occasionally nudge events( the how is based per diety)or provide insight into how a character might accomplish one of their character goals.

It seems like you want the gods to be more of a focus, but your players don't and to "remedy" this you're going out of your way to nudge your players in that direction.

Surprisingly once i explained the logic behind it everyone became super excited about it and it has opened up more Roleplay in the group.

It's perfectly acceptable to play a campaign where all or most characters are devoted to a deity, but if that's not the type of game the players want then you might consider either compromising in some way, or finding a new group more receptive to the type of game you'd like to run.

See devoted isnt quite what i was going for mostly my issue is with non-worshipers due to lazyiness on the players part.

The best example would be Conan and Crom
Conan knows who Crom is and what hes about
"But i Seldom do i pray to him"

Like a Boxer in the Ring, pick who is in your corner.
Heed or ignore as you will But pick who is in your Corner.

JNAProductions

2018-10-21, 06:57 PM

Why would you say the players are lazy for not having overly devout characters?

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-21, 06:58 PM

This does vary between settings quite a bit. In the Forgotten Realms, atheists (in the true sense and in the sense of "non-religious" folk) are just another brick in the Wall. In Eberron, the gods may or may not even exist as such (depending on which set you're talking about and what you mean by exist).

In my setting, different nations tend to take different views of the Congregation (the 16 real gods). These 16 don't depend on worship directly and can sponsor real clerics, but are restricted in their direct intervention capability by the nature of their power source. There are also local spirits of nature (kami) and many Ascended beings (usually heroes). These last group do depend on worship, but are much more free to intervene wherever they have believers. Their "priests" are effectively celestial warlocks.

One nation worships the whole pantheon but individuals may consider one of them their spiritual patron, to whose religious society they belong and from whom they take instruction. These societies have many layers, some accessible only by invitation and initiation, others public and social. One may belong to multiple societies (although not usually an initiate of the deeper mysteries for more than one).

Another worships an Ascended being and secondarily a few of the Congregation. They're mostly fanatics and the Queen Ascendant that they worship is very active with her priests and priestesses.

A third is "atheistic"--they venerate ancestor spirits (some of whom are minor Ascended) and kami but not the Congregation. They see the Congregation as the middle-management of the universe--powerful to be sure, but would you pray to the Second Assistant Undersecretary to the Vice Councilor for Sewer Affairs? As a result, true clerics are really rare--instead they get lots of celestial warlocks and druids.

Etc.

cobaltstarfire

2018-10-21, 07:02 PM

It's pretty easy to have a character acknowledge that gods exist while at the same time having no real faith in any of them. It would probably differ from world to world.

Even if Gods are a known for certain existence depending on the story they aren't necessarily active or even helpful. One might not be able to tell the difference between a charlatan mage taking advantage of peoples faith and someone who truly does have divine powers granted by a God.

As far as properly atheist player characters, maybe they just don't believe it when someone tells them there was an afterlife. "Yeah OK you can be raised from the dead, that doesn't mean there is an afterlife." How common is it for even low/mid level adventurers to be able to visit the other plains? Depending on how skeptical the character is you'd probably have to straight up kill them to prove anything to them.

It may be seen as a really radical/crazy way of thinking, but people are pretty good at doing mental gymnastics for all sorts of stuff, I don't think it's that hard to believe a peasant, typical commoner, or even low level adventurer to be atheist depending on how skeptical they are.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-21, 07:02 PM

LudicSavant

2018-10-21, 07:07 PM

To anyone saying that a D&D atheist must necessarily be deluded or ignorant, note that "Galactus exists, but is not a god" counts as being an atheist, and is a perfectly rationally justifiable position.

Galactus is powerful on an even more enormous scale than the majority of D&D deities. He also can empower his servants with profound magical powers that a level 20 Cleric would be jealous of. And his existence is as undeniable as the worlds he's devoured. That doesn't make the people in the Marvel Universe who say he's not a god insane, ignorant, or anything of the sort.

Same goes for all the people in the MCU who say that Thor's not really a god. Or the characters who are Asgardians themselves who say that Asgardians aren't gods.

The thing is, you need at least two steps to count as a theist: Believing that X exists, and believing that X is a "god" and attaching some sort of theistic belief system to that term above and beyond it being a creature type. If you believe in pharaohs, that is not sufficient to make you a theist. You must believe in pharaohs, and have a theistic belief system about the pharaoh.

This is equally true in D&D. A person who believes that Corellon Larethian exists and possesses all the powers that he does, but that Corellon has no more divine right than the next guy (or any similar concept), is still an atheist.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-21, 07:08 PM

In D&D, a deity is an entity who is capable of gathering power through the worship of mortals.

So, D&D deity is a specific type of being (I didn't realize that, thanks!).
That means that a D&D atheist is someone who specifically doesn't believe in D&D deities, and D&D deities can demonstrate that they gather power from worship (and in so doing, prove their status as D&D deity).

Insane, deluded, or uneducated. Although I'm counting "misinformed" and "not accepting ambiguous evidence" and "never having encountered any evidence" as a bit of both the last two. I can see where my choice of terms/labels might imply far more than just that. These kind of characters beliefs are provably wrong in any D&D universe where Gods/Dieties actually exist. Not having encountered or not believing when encountering it, or not accepting the words of those that are educated in it, makes the characters one of them. Because they are wrong.

It all depends on how you define a deity. If a deity is defined strictly as "someone who can gain power through worship" then it could be very easy to find evidence (even unambiguous evidence). In that case, if all the characters in the setting agree on that definition, then people who disagree would count as uninformed or deluded. However, in many campaigns, characters disagree about the definitions of words (especially important ones like "faith" or "god").

Imagine a monotheistic character in D&D, who doesn't define a god the same way that D&D books define a D&D deity. They might very well decide that none of the deities in the D&D pantheon meet their definition of deity, because they're looking for a single, overarching, truly universal god. They may very well acknowledge the existence of "lesser, deity-like beings" who use the power of their mortal worshipers, but not recognize them as "true gods". This is a religious person who realizes that D&D deities exist (so they aren't a D&D atheist), but doesn't think of them in terms of faith or belief.

Similarly, imagine an atheist character in the same setting, who uses the same definition for "god" as the monotheistic character, but with the caveat that they do not believe any "true gods" exist at all. They might believe that there are many "parasitic, deity-like organisms" who suck the power from their mortal subjects in exchange for little bits of power, but no real gods. This atheist isn't a D&D atheist (because they acknowledge the existence of D&D deities), but they are an atheist (because they don't define D&D deities as gods).

TL;DR: A character's faith and belief are subjective and depend ONLY on that specific character's personal definitions. A setting's facts are objective, but rarely fully open and visible to any of the characters within that setting.

As an analogy, a Call of Cthulhu game: most investigators realize that Eldritch Horrors from the Beyond exist, but some of them treat them like they're just strange monsters from other dimensions.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-21, 07:11 PM

Why would you say the players are lazy for not having overly devout characters?

Thats not quite the meaning i was trying to convey.
Its lazy if it never passes the Players mind at character creation.

JNAProductions

2018-10-21, 07:12 PM

Thats not quite the meaning i was trying to convey.
Its lazy if it never passes the Players mind at character creation.

Why? If gods aren't a large part of the character's life, why should it matter to the player?

Ganymede

2018-10-21, 07:13 PM

The gods in D&D are powerful entities with their own agendas. A person can certainly acknowledge that those entities exist without paying any fealty to them or worshiping any of them.

Laserlight

2018-10-21, 07:15 PM

I had a character who was an atheist, despite having personally seen gods appear on the battlefield. He'd been hit in the head once too often. Well, more than once. A lot, actually. Fortunately he was hired for his STR, not his SAN.

Generally speaking, I'd say most people aren't atheists, they're just not devout. Think of it like dealing with your mother in law. Some people call every week, go shopping together, etc; some people attend the obligatory party once a year and might send a birthday card if they think of it. Doesn't mean she doesn't exist, just that she's not all that important to your daily routine.

I've had characters, including my current one, where their faith is an essential component of their personality; I've had others would toss a few silvers in a shrine now and again, for luck, and otherwise didn't think about it unless things got truly desperate.

LudicSavant

2018-10-21, 07:19 PM

As an analogy, a Call of Cthulhu game: most investigators realize that Eldritch Horrors from the Beyond exist, but some of them treat them like they're just strange monsters from other dimensions.

Pretty much.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-21, 07:24 PM

Why? If gods aren't a large part of the character's life, why should it matter to the player?

A character is more than class/race/ background. There facets of personality & flaws are quantified in the books so why not atleast Consider a deity. Regardless of how devote you are pious- never prays. It Makes more sense that a character would pick something to worship(edit venerate was a poor choice of words).

Nifft

2018-10-21, 07:29 PM

A character is more than class/race/ background. There facets of personality & flaws are quantified in the books so why not atleast Consider a deity. Regardless of how devote you are pious- never prays. It Makes more sense that a character would pick something to venerate.

None of that follows.

Your argument seems to be: "If there's no reason to do something, then it makes more sense to do that thing."

Tiadoppler

2018-10-21, 07:38 PM

I'd suggest that the OP phrase the question to his players in this way:

"The deities of (campaign setting) are very important and active in (campaign setting). What does your character think of them? About their organized religions? Is there any one that you worship frequently? Exclusively? Do you kind of respect them all? Do you respect absolutely none of them? Do you hate and reject their power and protection?"

That'd probably get more nuanced and character-appropriate answers. Filling out a character sheet with a specific deity name isn't important to good roleplaying. Thinking through your character's motivations is.

A character is more than class/race/ background. There facets of personality & flaws are quantified in the books so why not atleast Consider a deity. Regardless of how devote you are pious- never prays. It Makes more sense that a character would pick something to venerate.

Personalities and flaws as quantified in the books are bare-bones aids for people who need help thinking of characterization. "It makes sense to venerate something" is an absurd statement. Veneration is a deep and personal trait that not many people have. "Of all the deities, I respect Kelemvor the most" is a more reasonable and approachable perspective for a character - especially because the players do not live in the universe of D&D! There's no reason for the players to have a strong personal opinion on the differences between Torm and Bahamut.

If someone wants to play someone absolutely devoted to Chauntea, they can. If they don't, but you ask them to feign that faith in roleplay (or risk facing in-game consequences from devils, and you refuse to fudge dice to save their characters lives), you will alienate your players.

The Aboleth

2018-10-21, 08:05 PM

See devoted isnt quite what i was going for mostly my issue is with non-worshipers due to lazyiness on the players part.

The best example would be Conan and Crom
Conan knows who Crom is and what hes about
"But i Seldom do i pray to him"

Like a Boxer in the Ring, pick who is in your corner.
Heed or ignore as you will But pick who is in your Corner.

It seems, to me, that you're trying to have it both ways. The way you have worded your posts come across more or less as, "The characters don't have to be devoted to a deity, but they do have to occasionally acknowledge that a deity exists." But if the players are not required to actively and regularly worship a deity, what does it really add to the characters if you then force them to "pick" a deity for their character sheets? I would argue the answer is "little to nothing."

If your players are onboard with your wishes, then I don't see a problem. But I would caution you on forcing (or strongly nudging) players to make decisions solely because you, the DM, want them to make those decisions. A DM who dictates what I can and can't do with my character (within reason, obviously) is not a DM I would enjoy playing with, personally, but to each their own.

Tanarii

2018-10-21, 10:15 PM

This is equally true in D&D. A person who believes that Corellon Larethian exists and possesses all the powers that he does, but that Corellon has no more divine right than the next guy (or any similar concept), is still an atheist.

TL;DR: A character's faith and belief are subjective and depend ONLY on that specific character's personal definitions. A setting's facts are objective, but rarely fully open and visible to any of the characters within that setting.
The campaign setting and/or DM tell us they are objectively (in-game) gods/Dieties. This is an in-game objective reality & fact. This isn't some relativist reality depending on an in-game characters beliefs. Those characters are actively denying reality.

Now if a campaign setting and/or DM takes the same position as you guys, that the so-called gods are/potentially are just super-powerful creatures, fine. It is an relative in-game reality. My statements have no bearing on such campaigns, and was not attempting to address them.

Edit: nor is my statement designed to address characters that acknowledge a gods/Dieties divinity but actively refuse to worship them. In many campaigns, that's expected. Especially for Evil gods or Gods of different pantheons.

Naanomi

2018-10-21, 10:25 PM

Being a God (or ‘Power’ in planar cant) is a bit more than just being empowered by worship... though that is a big piece of it. It gives you claim over the souls of your followers, it empowers you to create a divine realm (though not all do)... they also get special senses and cognitive abilities (Gods can easily manage worshipers in literally infinite worlds without problem, something mortals can’t even really comprehend), though other powerful planar beings also can do so...

Worship, and to a lesser degree simple belief, give a God strength but also bind it: losing all worshipers is a death sentence for a God no matter how powerful they were before ascension (note: a few Gods get around this very early in their creation or by giving up their divinity in some way at the last moment). There are examples of beings going out of their way to avoid worship or otherwise prevent divine ascension to escape such vulnerabilities. There are also creatures and phenomenon that can specifically harm Gods in various ways that may not bother similar beings.

Also note that Gods are *not* the top of the cosmic food chain... they didn’t create the Planes, nor most of the stuff in it. There are vast swaths of planar history before any gods existed at all; and hints that there may be times in the future where they have faded. There are rules that bind them, and forces that they must heed (the cosmic alignments themselves for one). There are still places where they hold no power; most notably the Far Realm, but the Temporal Planes and Draedenden and a few others. There are beings with authority over them, at least in some contexts... Overpowers like AO; their boss(s) that manage the entirety of the Great Wheel, and at least one layer of creator beings above even them.

A well read planar scholar, knowing all of this, may easily decide that these ‘powers’ are interesting, important beings... ones very much dominant in the modern phase of planar history... but hardly ‘Gods’ in any meaningful sense; just a unique type of planar entity/phenomenon no different in scope than angels or genies or the like

LudicSavant

2018-10-21, 10:30 PM

Tiadoppler

2018-10-21, 10:48 PM

The campaign setting and/or DM tell us they are objectively (in-game) gods/Dieties. This is an in-game objective reality & fact. This isn't some relativist reality depending on an in-game characters beliefs. Those characters are actively denying reality.

Now if a campaign setting and/or DM takes the same position as you guys, that the so-called gods are/potentially are just super-powerful creatures, fine. It is an relative in-game reality. My statements have no bearing on such campaigns, and was not attempting to address them.

Edit: nor is my statement designed to address characters that acknowledge a gods/Dieties divinity but actively refuse to worship them. In many campaigns, that's expected. Especially for Evil gods or Gods of different pantheons.

Campaign settings and DMs are objective. The DM can say one thing or another thing, and that becomes fact in their game. None of the characters in the game have access to that fundamental truth of the campaign setting, so all characters' opinions are subjective. If you work through a character's beliefs, they may believe things that are well-reasoned, rational, normal, and yet false when measured against the objective, DM-defined reality.

Beliefs do not interact with reality. The idea that a character may misinterpret the campaign setting does not necessarily imply that that character is insane, illogical or irrational, merely that they have a different opinion. A single character's atheism is subjective, not objective.

My name is (Tiadoppler). In this universe, there either is a Santa Claus or there isn't. There is some objective truth whether or not he exists. I don't have access to that objective truth, so my opinion is subjective. Someone may know the answer for sure, but I don't.

It is my subjective belief that Santa Claus does not exist. I don't believe in Santa Claus. I am an aClausist.

I've seen santa clauses dozens of times at the mall. I recognize that these people are santa clauses (white beard, red clothes, weight problem, gives presents). I do not think that these are the real, genuine Santa Claus, but rather imposters. I do not believe they are actually Flying Reindeer trainers who live at the North Pole with a large group of enslaved Elves.

Despite the fact that I can see santa clauses, I am an aClausist. I don't get a lot of presents, but my subjective opinion remains plausible (Clausible?).

My name is Sir Tiad the Brave. In this universe, there either is a Overdeity or there isn't. There is some objective truth whether or not she exists. I don't have access to that objective truth, so my opinion is subjective. The fact that the DM has access to that truth changes nothing.

It is my subjective belief that the Overdeity does not exist. I don't believe in the Overdeity. I am an atheist.

I've seen deities dozens of times at churches and festivals across the city. I recognize that these beings are deities (great power over life and death, glowy eyes, excellent teeth). I do not think that these are the real, genuine Overdeity, but rather imposters. I do not believe they are actually omniscient, omnipresent harbingers of justice and peace.

Despite the fact that I can see deities, I am an atheist. I don't get my prayers answered much, but my subjective opinion remains plausible.

The characters in your setting should have limited information, and be given the opportunity to make their own conclusions based on their information. You seem to be defining a "well-informed character" as one who has read the DM's campaign notes, and has absolute certainty about their veracity. That's a high bar to set.

Tanarii

2018-10-21, 10:51 PM

That doesn't actually address the point of the posts you quoted. I have not, and never will, argue for a "relativist reality depending on an in-game character's beliefs." Such could not be further from my opinion on the matter.
I'm not saying that these characters aren't atheists. Just that atheists in these campaigns are actively denying/deluding themselves as to an objective reality. And rebutting that comment I'd made was certainly (also) the point of your post.

JNAProductions

2018-10-21, 10:53 PM

I'm not saying that these characters aren't atheists. Just that atheists in these campaigns are actively denying/deluding themselves as to an objective reality. And rebutting that comment I'd made was certainly (also) the point of your post.

Not all red dragons are evil in my campaign setting.

However, the non-evil ones live in another plane.

All red dragons the players have ever seen or heard of or interacted with in any way (and they've been around) have been evil.

They think all red dragons are evil.

They are wrong, about an objective fact of reality in the game world. But their characters have every reason to be wrong, and in fact, it'd make less sense than believing the truth, since they have no evidence towards the truth and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

LudicSavant

2018-10-21, 11:04 PM

I'm not saying that these characters aren't atheists. Just that atheists in these campaigns are actively denying/deluding themselves as to an objective reality. And rebutting that comment I'd made was certainly (also) the point of your post.

Rebutting your comment was indeed the point of my post, but you have mischaracterized the nature of said rebuttal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with objective vs relative reality.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-21, 11:06 PM

I'm not saying that these characters aren't atheists. Just that atheists in these campaigns are actively denying/deluding themselves as to an objective reality. And rebutting that comment I'd made was certainly (also) the point of your post.

Characters in-game do not have access to the Objective Truth of the Universe.

Game 1: Bahamut and Tiamat are gods. They have worshipers who grant them powers. They control life and death, and the afterlives. They are at war with one another. NPC 1 believes Bahamut and Tiamat are gods. NPC 2 believes Bahamut and Tiamat are not gods, but actually angels of a secret overdeity.

Game 2: Bahamut and Tiamat are angels of a secret overdeity. They have worshipers who grant them powers. They control life and death, and the afterlives. They pretend to be at war with one another to serve the overdeity's purpose. NPC 1 believes Bahamut and Tiamat are gods. NPC 2 believes Bahamut and Tiamat are not gods, but actually angels of a secret overdeity.

In one game, NPC 1 is right and NPC 2 is wrong. In the other one, the opposite situation occurs. Neither of them is significantly ill-informed or delusional. As far as they know, the two games may as well be identical. Without direct access to the DM notes, there's no reason for either of them to suddenly realize "I'm an insane person who's actively denying the objective reality!" Each of their beliefs make sense to them, and are not instantly rejected by the universe.

Knaight

2018-10-21, 11:52 PM

Yet despite all of this from all my years of playing the game the large majority of player Characters have been atheists(edit for clarity: Characters that do not worship any god and sometimes even ignore there existence)

I have brought this up at my table and at all the games I'm involved in. With no clear consensus on why this happens.

Perhaps its lack of Mechanical benefit since power gamers are the predominant type i see.
How much do the gods actually show up in the context of the specific game? The implicit setting in the rules is far less important than the setting that actually comes up on the page, and similarly the setting history starts dwindling in importance pretty quickly the moment the PCs wouldn't have actually been alive for it. Your description of the default has the gods acting indirectly through mortal institutions (and I assume that the PCs are absolutely interacting with at least some of those), and also having a historical impact. That doesn't necessarily mean acknowledgement on a day to day, let alone guarantee active veneration.

Importance in a setting on a grand scale doesn't mean much. Visibly important to the characters in noticeable ways is what generally matters, and gods as depicted tend not to be. Religions frequently are, but that's not the same thing, and even then membership might well not matter.

A character is more than class/race/ background. There facets of personality & flaws are quantified in the books so why not atleast Consider a deity. Regardless of how devote you are pious- never prays. It Makes more sense that a character would pick something to venerate.
Defining a personality doesn't necessarily mean defining every aspect of a character. There tend to be particular foci, and also tiny peripheral traits. Given the minimal impact of the gods on the day to day operation of the setting at a character visible scale they tend to fit in the latter. Moving back to the questions of religions the PCs are also remarkably well suited to be comparatively uninvolved if not a cleric. The adventuring lifestyle is remarkably good at letting one mostly ignore social institutions, because when you're spending most of your time in the wilderness they tend to come up less. Then, for prayer in particular there's the matter of how it tends to come up in situations where there's nothing you can do. Hurricane possibly inbound? Pray it doesn't hit you. Roof leaking in a rainstorm? Patch it. Adventurers could easily go either way here, depending more on their locus of control than anything else. Someone pushed into an adventuring life who still finds it terrifying is disproportionately likely to spend a lot of time praying, people who choose to become adventurers because it appeals to them are likely outliers in terms of extremely expansive loci of control, who's first instinct when presented with a problem is to go deal with it personally.

Erloas

2018-10-22, 12:05 AM

Yeah, I'm not sure there is any reason for most mortals to care. There might be two dozen gods, and they are all very real and have clerics and others that are devoted to them. But as a layman there isn't going to be much of a difference. While the gods might very well poke the hands of fate at times, you know that no matter *who* you choose to devote yourself to there are at least a few other gods that are going to be upset at you for following *that* god. In fact it would seem like not drawing the attention of any god would be safer than to draw the attention of one and their enemies.

Lets say I'm a farmer, what is the best god for me to devote myself to? The god of health? Weather? Earth? Sun? Animals? Protection? Strength? They're all important to my life and without any one of those I'm going to be in trouble.

In effect, believing in all gods is pretty much the same as believing in none of them. They're all equally powerful and important, they can all make your life better or worse, and devoting too much to one is likely to make others upset, its a no-win scenario. At least until you get to the point of devotion where one is actively providing you with divine protection.

Nifft

2018-10-22, 12:47 AM

Anymage

2018-10-22, 01:19 AM

I can kind of see the point of wanting PCs to have some tie to religion, in the same way that 5e PCs already have bonds, ideals, and flaws. Alignment is more about picking cosmic sides than it is about characterization (see just about any alignment thread ever for how poorly it encapsulates personality), and at least a deity gives a more concrete idea what your character values.

Still, the best way to achieve this involves rewarding players for buying in, instead of punishing them for not doing so. Give the players a list of options, and be open if they want to include something that's not on the list. (Pantheists make sense, as might rabid anti-thiests if the player is particularly intent on it.) Then just implement some inspiration mechanic that doesn't limit itself to 1/session, and allow serious faith to grant inspiration as well.

Players who don't want to bother with being particularly devout can pick something vaguely matching off a list, or even roll a dice, and then never have it meaningfully come up in game. They'll either have to find their inspirations elsewhere or do without, but that's entirely fair. Players who want their devotion to be a core element of character can be rewarded for doing so.

Millstone85

2018-10-22, 01:24 AM

Characters in-game do not have access to the Objective Truth of the Universe.
Worship, and to a lesser degree simple belief, give a God strength but also bind it: losing all worshipers is a death sentence for a God no matter how powerful they were before ascension
Also note that Gods are *not* the top of the cosmic food chain... they didn’t create the Planes, nor most of the stuff in it. There are vast swaths of planar history before any gods existed at allThe gods themselves are probably hiding such truths from their followers.

Tanarii

2018-10-22, 01:25 AM

Rebutting your comment was indeed the point of my post, but you have mischaracterized the nature of said rebuttal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with objective vs relative reality.
in that case, your post wasn't actually a rebuttal to the point of my post at all? You agree that in such a universe, atheists of the kind you are describing are in denial of, or deluded as to, the nature of the gods/Dieties?

Because that was the point of my initial post.

Characters in-game do not have access to the Objective Truth of the Universe.Irrelevant to whether or not they are in denial about, or deluded as to, the objective reality of the universe. Or rather, that makes it far more likely that they are.

Characters in a "evidence is hard to come by" world as to the nature of gods/Dieties won't believe they are either. To them it will seem entirely rational position to hold.

In one game, NPC 1 is right and NPC 2 is wrong. In the other one, the opposite situation occurs. Neither of them is significantly ill-informed or delusional.Of course they are. In each situation, one of their beliefs are out of sync with reality. One of them is objectively wrong.

We're not talking about the real world here, in which there may very well not even be an objective truth. We're talking about a fantasy world in our imaginations, in which we, the posters discussing such worlds and the DMs that run them and possibly even the players, know the objective truth of reality. Because we've defined it to be so.

As far as they know, the two games may as well be identical. Without direct access to the DM notes, there's no reason for either of them to suddenly realize "I'm an insane person who's actively denying the objective reality!" Each of their beliefs make sense to them, and are not instantly rejected by the universe.Whats that got to do with the price of milk?

It has no bearing on the truth of the statement that we, the posters discussing such worlds and the DMs that run them and possibly even the players, know these characters actually are deluded or in denial.

LudicSavant

2018-10-22, 01:40 AM

Millstone85

2018-10-22, 01:43 AM

Irrelevant to whether or not they are in denial about, or deluded as to, the objective reality of the universe. Or rather, that makes it far more likely that they are.

Characters in a "evidence is hard to come by" world as to the nature of gods/Dieties won't believe they are either. To them it will seem entirely rational position to hold.Because it is an entirely rational position to hold. A belief can be both rational and wrong, if available evidence is scarce or misleading.

We're not talking about the real world here, in which there may very well not even be an objective truth. We're talking about a fantasy world in our imaginations, in which we, the posters discussing such worlds and the DMs that run them and possibly even the players, know the objective truth of reality. Because we've defined it to be so.And we, as posters, DMs or players, should take into account separation of character knowledge from player knowledge, when judging if a character should be considered insane, deluded, or in denial, instead of just wrong. It has everything to do with the price of milk.

Mordaedil

2018-10-22, 01:55 AM

My personal problem with characters not picking deities in game tend to do so for largely real life reasons and issues they have with theology from a modern perspective, not caring to insert themselves into the time period proper, where the characters must have grown up in fairly religious circumstances regardless of their life and backdrop; there's always a deity that can specifically cater to their personal tragedy.

It might be helpful to think of it in terms of a Norse mythology perspective, you might have trouble believing in Thor when you are recounted the stories, but when that lightning storm begins, you damn well better bet you are lying under that table worshipping Thor to forgive you and for him to not strike and burn down your house, all while during harvest season you worship Gefjun or so on.

Similar are the deities of most D&D campaigns, real tangible beings that are recognized for their followers and you are quite literally indoctrinated and encouraged to worship them regardless of what your personal beliefs are. And if you consider your character more of an individualist or thinker, even more so. If you are set against the gods, you still recognize them.

Also it just becomes another facet of your character you can expand upon. It's not that hard to integrate into your backstory.

Gastronomie

2018-10-22, 02:23 AM

Look, it's the 21st century with modern science and everythig, and a lot of people still believe in gods (or God). Some people still don't believe evolution is a thing, and by "some people" I mean enough people to make it an actual political movement.

Thus it'll be no surprise if some people don't believe in gods in a world where gods actually exist and actively give proof of their own existence.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-22, 09:44 AM

We're not talking about the real world here, in which there may very well not even be an objective truth. We're talking about a fantasy world in our imaginations, in which we, the posters discussing such worlds and the DMs that run them and possibly even the players, know the objective truth of reality. Because we've defined it to be so.
(snip)
It has no bearing on the truth of the statement that we, the posters discussing such worlds and the DMs that run them and possibly even the players, know these characters actually are deluded or in denial.

You keep using the phrases Insane, Delusional, In Denial and Uninformed. I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

First let's dispense with Insane: The characters being discussed are drawing rational conclusions from the available evidence. They are not Insane.

Delusional: The characters being discussed are not suffering from delusions, they are simply disagreeing with other people (who have differing opinions).

In Denial: The characters being discussed do not secretly know that they're wrong. As far as they know, they may well be absolutely correct. Therefore, they're not In Denial.

Uninformed: All characters are uninformed unless they are defined as omniscient. The faithful Cleric of Lathander is just as uninformed as the atheist. One of them is correct, and the other one is incorrect, both of them are uninformed.

So... What's the point of specifying that D&D atheists are uninformed? D&D believers are equally uninformed. I can't tell if there's a point you're trying to make.

Also, even in a default D&D setting, an atheist can be absolutely correct. If an atheist defines "Deity" as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-devouring, and realizes that such a "Deity" does not exist, they are CORRECT when they say "There is no Deity". They're not wrong, they just aren't using the DMG's definition of deity.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 09:59 AM

First let's dispense with Insane: The characters being discussed are drawing rational conclusions from the available evidence. They are not Insane.

[...]

In Denial: The characters being discussed do not secretly know that they're wrong. As far as they know, they may well be absolutely correct. Therefore, they're not In Denial.

They are either ignoring the objective evidences of divinity, or not aware of them. If it's the first case, they have to be insane or in denial.

Uninformed: All characters are uninformed unless they are defined as omniscient. The faithful Cleric of Lathander is just as uninformed as the atheist. One of them is correct, and the other one is incorrect, both of them are uninformed.

So... What's the point of specifying that D&D atheists are uninformed? D&D believers are equally uninformed. I can't tell if there's a point you're trying to make.

This is pure sophistry. "The characters don't know everything, so they know nothing relevant" is ridiculous.

Some people in the D&D universe are uninformed (ex: those who don't know the criteria defining godhood). Some people are misinformed (ex: those who believe Baphomet is a god), but a cleric of Lathander who knows that their deity is a god because Lathander get power from worship is neither uninformed nor misinformed.

Delusional: The characters being discussed are not suffering from delusions, they are simply disagreeing with other people (who have differing opinions).

What allows you to say that?

Facts aren't opinions. Godhood is a fact. You can disagree about someone's opinion of a god, but you can't disagree that the god is a god without being wrong.

Also, even in a default D&D setting, an atheist can be absolutely correct. If an atheist defines "Deity" as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-devouring, and realizes that such a "Deity" does not exist, they are CORRECT when they say "There is no Deity". They're not wrong, they just aren't using the DMG's definition of deity.

That "atheist" would be incorrect, because they are not using the correct definition for deity.

If someone in our world says "humans can fly by their own power" because they define humans as "egg-laying winged creatures with beaks", they would be objectively wrong about their definition.

An atheist is someone who does not believe any of the entities in the D&D world has godhood. It is objectively false, as far as the default setting is concerned.

That they are wrong doesn't mean atheist can't exist, true.

Kharneth

2018-10-22, 10:23 AM

A PC can definitely be atheist, agnostic, or non-theistic in a D&D game and I'd personally be pretty frustrated with the DM if he home-brewed some rules like the OP suggests. I don't think it's fair to claim that all classes/races have any sort of divine protection.

In D&D you gain divine protection by being a divine class, not by practicing rituals and worshipping the gods.

Also, in real life we have science that is used every day and that is readily available for pretty much anyone, yet there are plenty of people who have no faith in it and think it's bull****. I'm sure it's absolutely true in D&D for a PC or NPC to be an atheist, claiming there are no gods and believing the theists are full of ****. Most people likely wouldn't have personal experience with any celestial beings, so it'd be a simple matter of faith and community.

I rarely run non-divine classes with any religious preference or mention.

Also, you guys are trying to identify rulebook keywords as D&D's real-world terminology. Every PC has the ability to judge for themselves what Deity means. Even in real life there is a lot of discussion and disagreement about what God means. You can't take the developer's definitions for the fantasy world's definitions, hypothetically they have a very different understanding of their world than the developers do.

JackPhoenix

2018-10-22, 10:24 AM

They are either ignoring the objective evidences of divinity, or not aware of them. If it's the first case, they have to be insane or in denial.

No, they are merely defining divinity differntly than you. To you, god means "that group of outsiders that share certain traits", not unlike devils or angels, but generally more powerful. To me, proper divinity requires some combination of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence (and perhaps omnivory) (something that only Ao, who isn't, and doesn't want to be, worshipped, has in FR). To a kobold, god is that huge, magical, fire-breathing flying reptile over there. To a kuo-toa, random junk at the bottom of the sea is the sign of the divine.

Some people in the D&D universe are uninformed (ex: those who don't know the criteria defining godhood). Some people are misinformed (ex: those who believe Baphomet is a god), but a cleric of Lathander who knows that their deity is a god because Lathander get power from worship is neither uninformed nor misinformed.

Except the worshippers don't know gods get powers from worship (they don't exactly advertise that), and other creatures get power that way. That doesn't make them gods. You can kill (or stop worshipping) the "sun god", yet the sun will rise again tomorrow.

Facts aren't opinions. Godhood is a fact. You can disagree about someone's opinion of a god, but you can't disagree that the god is a god without being wrong.

Sure, but because something is a god in someone's opinion doesn't mean it's a fact.

That "atheist" would be incorrect, because they are not using the correct definition for deity.

That doesn't mean that those who worship Lathander (or a dragon, a fiend, or a headless statue) *are* using the correct definition for a deity.

Millstone85

2018-10-22, 10:47 AM

Ao, who isn't, and doesn't want to be, worshippedAh, fun question here. In D&D terms, should an "overgod" be considered a really powerful god or an entirely different type of being that supervises gods?

Regardless, if you know your gods to be tulpas and a being like Ao shows up, the natural reaction would be to see your gods as fake and Ao as a true god. Too bad the jerk would punish you for it.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-22, 10:49 AM

They are either ignoring the objective evidences of divinity, or not aware of them. If it's the first case, they have to be insane or in denial.

What's the objective evidence of divinity? Living on another plane? Resurrecting the dead? Appearing in a cloud of bright light? In D&D, how do you prove that that is objectively "divine" and could be nothing else? Remember, the characters don't have access to stat blocks specifying "this creature is a divine entity" they just have the evidence of their eyes, and ability to compare that evidence to the accomplishments of other, non-divine but powerful creatures.

Some people in the D&D universe are uninformed (ex: those who don't know the criteria defining godhood). Some people are misinformed (ex: those who believe Baphomet is a god), but a cleric of Lathander who knows that their deity is a god because Lathander get power from worship is neither uninformed nor misinformed.

In the D&D setting, defined by official sources, there is a set definition of godhood. As far as we know, there could be a similar document describing the definition of godhood in the real world. That doesn't stop people from arguing about it or disagreeing about the nature of deities, and that doesn't mean that other opinions (other than the objective reality as written into the setting) don't have merit.

You say that there's "criteria defining godhood" but those criteria are not written out for the in-game characters to read and automatically trust. They're there for the DM and the players.

Godhood is a fact. You can disagree about someone's opinion of a god, but you can't disagree that the god is a god without being wrong.

Only if "god" has a universally accepted meaning. The fact that the source books use a consistent terminology to describe them doesn't imply that the nature of deities isn't a subject for constant debate and argument in-universe.

That "atheist" would be incorrect, because they are not using the correct definition for deity.

If someone in our world says "humans can fly by their own power" because they define humans as "egg-laying winged creatures with beaks", they would be objectively wrong about their definition.

An atheist is someone who does not believe any of the entities in the D&D world has godhood. It is objectively false, as far as the default setting is concerned.

Words (especially words like "deity") have meanings that change depending on who uses them. I acknowledge that the D&D official sourcebooks have a set definition for deity, but I see no reason that all of the characters in D&D settings need to define deity the same way.

I'd also add that talking about

the correct definition for deity.
gets tricky depending on the beliefs of the people at your table. I prefer to err on the side of 'a fun game with some philosophical debate' rather than 'potentially offending someone'.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 11:29 AM

No, they are merely defining divinity differntly than you. To you, god means

No, they are incorrect. it is not ME who is defining what is a god, it is the universe.

To me, proper divinity requires some combination of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence

Which is objectively false.

Except the worshippers don't know gods get powers from worship (they don't exactly advertise that),

Depends on the religion and world. Mortals generally know the gods are getting something out of the worship.

and other creatures get power that way.

No. There is none. If they get power that way, they are gods.

You can kill (or stop worshipping) the "sun god", yet the sun will rise again tomorrow.

Some would say that the sun wouldn't rise. A mere ball of flaming gas would illuminate the world.

https://youtu.be/DBnENlXt-H4

Anyway. There are few gods who claim to be the thing they're in charge of. Tiamat isn't the Evil Dragons, she's the God of them.

Sure, but because something is a god in someone's opinion doesn't mean it's a fact.

Some people can claim something or someone is a god without it to be true.

But in which case we can apply the simple test:

1) does it get power from worship: Y/N

Yes: it is a god
No: it is not a god

And then we can know if the person is correct or not.

That doesn't mean that those who worship Lathander (or a dragon, a fiend, or a headless statue) *are* using the correct definition for a deity.

No, but they can be using the correct definition.

JNAProductions

2018-10-22, 11:33 AM

Again-the characters DO NOT have access to the DM's notes. They don't have access to the rulebooks. If they were brought up believing that there's a monotheistic overdeity that's omnipotent, and therefore don't see any of the official gods as being gods, it would NOT be in character for them to say that the gods are gods.

In addition, do you have a rules citation or something for "gains power from worship" meaning "is a god"? I don't recall that in the DMG or any of the books I've read, but I might've just missed it.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 11:38 AM

In addition, do you have a rules citation or something for "gains power from worship" meaning "is a god"? I don't recall that in the DMG or any of the books I've read, but I might've just missed it.

Especially since there are canon examples (Eberron) where it's not clear what the gods even are, or if they are, or how they get their power.

FR has specific rules about the nature of deity. Planescape had specific rules, but those rules do not apply unless a 5e source says otherwise. And all of these are expressly mutable at the DM's will.

There is no "D&D world." There are default settings, but every world (published and homebrew) diverges from those defaults. The starting "rules" are merely a starting point from which a DM (or worldbuilder) can start if they wish. Thus, there is no "correct" definition other than what a particular setting designer decided.

Edit: the closest the DMG comes to defining anything is the "Divine Rank" sidebar on page 11. It does not state that definition of deity. And there's lots of space (pages 11-12) that discusses other forms of divinity. None of them make the claim that "gets power from mortal belief" is a defining trait, let alone the defining trait of deity.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 12:06 PM

Ah, fun question here. In D&D terms, should an "overgod" be considered a really powerful god or an entirely different type of being that supervises gods?

Technically they wouldn't be gods, but a different kind of entity.

Unless they get power from the gods under them.

Regardless, if you know your gods to be tulpas and a being like Ao shows up, the natural reaction would be to see your gods as fake and Ao as a true god. Too bad the jerk would punish you for it.

Why? Did the sun stop being impressive because we discovered bigger stars?

D&D gods are gods not because they're powerful. They're gods because they're willing to be in charge of something mortals care about.

[snip]

Yes, the idea can be muddied in-universe. However, we are not in-universe people. So we should be used the correct terms and not say "well it's just a matter of opinion". Same way that in-universe you could have a Warlock pretending to be a Wizard, but it'd be weird if *we*, forum goers who have access to their statblock/charsheet, started saying they're a wizard just because in-universe people believe it.

In-universe, the evidences for godhood is the relationship between worshiper and power, and the capacity to imbue mortals with clerical power.

Your average person might not be aware of the difference between a spell and a Divine Intervention, but there are many noticeable differences that constitue evidences.

JNAProductions

2018-10-22, 12:07 PM

Except we aren't talking about PLAYERS, we're talking about player CHARACTERS.

In addition, I'd still like the rules quote defining a god. With page number, please.

LudicSavant

2018-10-22, 12:24 PM

*snip*In addition, do you have a rules citation or something for "gains power from worship" meaning "is a god"? I don't recall that in the DMG or any of the books I've read, but I might've just missed it.

To my knowledge there is no such citation, and even if there were, it would not somehow abolish homonyms from the world.

For example, if I define "Lawful" that doesn't require that I abolish every other definition of "lawful" from my vocabulary, let alone retroactively redefine completely different words like "legal" in terms of "Lawful." That's not how languages work.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-22, 12:36 PM

Yes, the idea can be muddied in-universe. However, we are not in-universe people. So we should be used the correct terms and not say "well it's just a matter of opinion". Same way that in-universe you could have a Warlock pretending to be a Wizard, but it'd be weird if *we*, forum goers who have access to their statblock/charsheet, started saying they're a wizard just because in-universe people believe it.

Yes, we are free to use the D&D canon terminology for creatures and religions, but we also shouldn't reject in-game characters who don't use the D&D canon terms as "insane or deluded". Their belief systems are not affected by our understanding of D&D's cosmology.

To make a living world more interesting, it's fun to include people with wide varieties of plausible belief systems. I think it's boring when every character refers to things the same way, has the same overarching religious beliefs and basic assumptions about the nature of their reality.

Ganymede

2018-10-22, 12:47 PM

(They) don't see any of the official gods as being gods, it would NOT be in character for them to say that the gods are gods.

This is an important point.

The gods of D&D are essentially just really powerful monsters pursuing their own agendas. A PC does not have to reject their existence entirely in order to view them as the opportunistic super-beasts that they are.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 12:51 PM

I think we also dramatically overstate the level of proof most normal people have about the nature and existence of the gods. We tend to think of the gods taking a strong hands-on approach. From reading the fiction, I'm not sure that's really true. Yes, clerics get their power from somewhere. But as the DMG makes clear, that doesn't have to be a personalized deity. Two people can worship seemingly disparate aspects of one deity and both get power.

Spells that contact other planes give you vague or limited answers, and those only to the questions you ask. The gods aren't calling up their clerics on a regular basis. And even planeshifting wizards don't usually get audiences with gods. Not even most petitioners hang out with their gods. There are certainly divine realms, but that's not really evidence. From an in-universe perspective, the information most people have about the gods is quite limited even in FR, which has some of the more active gods.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 12:51 PM

Except we aren't talking about PLAYERS, we're talking about player CHARACTERS.

We are talking about characters from an out-of-universe perspective. Or at least, what I'm trying to say is that since we have an out-of-universe perspective, it makes no sense to say something like

In addition, I'd still like the rules quote defining a god. With page number, please.

Quasi-deities have a divine origin, but they don't hear or answer prayers, grant spells to clerics, or control aspects of mortal life. They are still immensely powerful beings, and in theory they could ascend to godhood if they amassed enough worshipers

DMG p.11. You're welcome.

Godhood is defined as separate from quasi-godhood by the entity having enough worshipers (the qualifier to reach that state), as well as hearing/answering prayers, granting spell to clerics, and/or controling aspects of mortal life (the capacities granted by the state).

To my knowledge there is no such citation, and even if there were, it would not somehow abolish homonyms from the world.

For example, if I define "Lawful" that doesn't require that I abolish every other definition of "lawful" from my vocabulary, let alone retroactively redefine completely different words like "legal" in terms of "Lawful." That's not how languages work.

Orcus has a religion devoted to him. He also has great powers, and control over the fate of those who are dedicated to him after their death. Yet he's not divine.

I would consider that needlessly confusing to call him a god because he fulfill one definition which is not the game's.

Same way that if Asg the lvl 4 Champion Fighter and Bosg the lvl 4 Spelldancer Wizard were fighting, calling Bosg a fighter would be accurate by one definition, but if you read "and then the fighter cast Booming Blade", it would be pretty confusing.

Yes, we are free to use the D&D canon terminology for creatures and religions, but we also shouldn't reject in-game characters who don't use the D&D canon terms as "insane or deluded".

Fair. Could you and I reach an agreement if I said that D&D characters can reach the objectively incorrect conclusion that gods don't exist or aren't gods based on their imperfect understanding of the reality they live in, when a third group reach the correct conclusion without evidences due to the same imperfect understanding, while others can reach the correct conclusion despite the same imperfect understanding because they've nevertheless had access to the evidences?

Their belief systems are not affected by our understanding of D&D's cosmology.

Agreed.

To make a living world more interesting, it's fun to include people with wide varieties of plausible belief systems. I think it's boring when every character refers to things the same way, has the same overarching religious beliefs and basic assumptions about the nature of their reality.

True.

A funny thing in 5e is that of all the Drows, the ones who are the most likely to learn that Lolth's lie about being the only true god is bs are, paradoxically, Lolth's priestesses.

hamishspence

2018-10-22, 12:54 PM

Orcus has a religion devoted to him. He also has great powers, and control over the fate of those who are dedicated to him after their death. Yet he's not divine.

In many settings and editions, Orcus is divine, or became divine for a short period.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 12:56 PM

DMG p.11. You're welcome.

Godhood is defined as separate from quasi-godhood by the entity having enough worshipers (the qualifier to reach that state), as well as hearing/answering prayers, granting spell to clerics, and/or controling aspects of mortal life (the capacities granted by the state).

That's not what it says. Not at all. Yes, demigods don't do those other things, but it doesn't say they can't, and it definitely doesn't say that the criteria is having enough worshipers.

Oh, and that's in a non-binding sidebar in a non-binding book, where the introduction makes it clear that that's one of many possible ways you can do things. So yeah, that's a crappy definition to be calling other people insane or ignorant about. You're looking at things way too black-and-white here.

JNAProductions

2018-10-22, 12:57 PM

We are talking about characters from an out-of-universe perspective.

But you're using terms like deluded, in denial, or insane. For a character who does NOT have the knowledge that the players do, they're none of that. They are lacking the correct info, so they're wrong, if you care about that, but they have every reason to be wrong.

Hell, even the Cleric can be wrong. After all, what's the difference between a Cleric and a Celestial Warlock? The Cleric knows they're getting power from something greater than themselves, but the Warlock is too, and the Warlock does NOT require any divinity.

Plus, Clerics of ideals are a thing. Or Paladins, who very explicitly do NOT need faith in a higher power, only devotion to their oath.

hamishspence

2018-10-22, 12:58 PM

It should be noted that some gods are portrayed as predating mortals - yet they were still gods in the time before they had worshippers.

Shar and Selune, in the Realms, spring to mind.

No brains

2018-10-22, 01:00 PM

Please do not equate unbelief in gods with unbelief in good.

I was going for a joke that the hubbub about religion is equitable to the hubbub about alignment. Something in the vein of 'I don't need the promise of stabbing rakshashas to merit good deeds.' A person can be a good person even if they aren't faithful or lawful good, neither system is necessary. Just having friends is a good enough reason to be 'good'.

Apologies for the confusion. Will funpost better next time.

In certain polytheistic settings with true pantheons, you might treat clerics/priests of either god equally, or at least equal enough for the player characters to not see it immediately. the human pantheon in Faerun is a bad example, as they aren't really a pantheon in any sense other than Ao decreed it. That and if most people had a choice they wouldn't invite every priest to the party. Maybe lose the invitation for the priest of Helm, god of killjoys especially if the priest of Tempus is really good at partying.

But I think there would be a stronger argument for the priests of say, the elven gods all getting an invite because they are all chummy with one another and work together. Having pantheons that work together and get the same party invites/benefits most of the time isn't a bad thing, as it is hard to make gods that appeal to all characters/players.

I think this is becoming a roleplaying benefit, but it's an idea I would strongly encourage. If having faith means nothing to the NPCs, why bother? It's a crummy religion if no one gives a flying rat's butt about it, even members of that faith!

I think if this is an issue, the players are going to try to murder the gods at some point. Through once again, Faerun is a bad example of this as your choices are basically pain and then oblivion, or becoming a part of another entity and losing your own individuality. So...I'd like to add a point to yours, in that if you want people to care about gods, work out what the afterlife is and how it does NOT suck.

Those were just the fantasy gods I could think of. Likely if any of them were in a party that beat an orc horde, they would still be invited to dine with the duke. Similarly, an invite to a party was just an idea of a social benefit. Normally a life of adventure precludes the chance to unwrap Saturnalia presents or dance around the maypole. Getting invited to New Year's dinner with the duke is usually the best adventurers get.

Thank you for the support on the idea of religions as backgrounds. I'm not sure exactly how I would implement it, but acolyte is basically [religion background] already. There's probably room to include other skills as 'acts of devotion' or other benefits from having a temple at your back. Guild Artisan might work for some inspiration there.

In the OP's post, it seemed like the Infernals were the threat and the gods were a neutral party. In that case, my Bellerophons would probably just try to kill the Infernals. If there were evil gods at the infernals' back though, that could run aground of the 'soul ecosystem' or some other excuse for evil to be necessary. Though in 5e, by the time you can take swings at gods, you're probably already at 20th with all your magic loot and it might be more fun to just roll up a new toon than to topple the foundations of the universe.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 01:01 PM

It should be noted that some gods are portrayed as predating mortals - yet they were still gods in the time before they had worshippers.

Shar and Selune, in the Realms, spring to mind.

Or Correllon. He existed for uncountable eons before there were elves to worship him. And that's default canon via Mordenkainen's.

JackPhoenix

2018-10-22, 01:14 PM

No, they are incorrect. it is not ME who is defining what is a god, it is the universe.

Who's Universe? Can I see his or her definition somewhere? Because you're only talking about your belief.

Which is objectively false.

Then provide a source describing what's objectively true. Because your definition is *also* objectively false.

No. There is none. If they get power that way, they are gods.

1) does it get power from worship: Y/N

Yes: it is a god
No: it is not a god

And then we can know if the person is correct or not.

Or Athasian sorcerer kings. Or the Undying Court of Aerenal. Or random demon lords and archdevils. Or... lot of stuff, really.

Godhood is defined as separate from quasi-godhood by the entity having enough worshipers (the qualifier to reach that state), as well as hearing/answering prayers, granting spell to clerics, and/or controling aspects of mortal life (the capacities granted by the state).

Great. Let's look at archdevils, then. They do have worshippers. Enough? Hard to say, there's no number stating what's enough. They can hear and answer prayers, if the worshipper is in their hearing range, or if they use magic. All of them have cult fanatics amongst their worshippers (MtoF), who do get cleric spellcasting. And they control aspects of mortal life, even if the aspect is "you're not dead by my/my minion's hands. You're welcome.".

According to your definition, every single archdevil is a god.

Millstone85

2018-10-22, 01:16 PM

Why? Did the sun stop being impressive because we discovered bigger stars?

D&D gods are gods not because they're powerful. They're gods because they're willing to be in charge of something mortals care about.Oh? I thought you said they are gods because they derive power from worship.

Which makes them something between glorified imaginary friends and cosmic conmen, even before the appearance of beings of similar power who do not need prayer badly.

LudicSavant

2018-10-22, 01:24 PM

DMG p.11. You're welcome.

That very page was already brought up, specifically with respect to the fact that it doesn't appear to support your position.

Edit: the closest the DMG comes to defining anything is the "Divine Rank" sidebar on page 11. It does not state that definition of deity. And there's lots of space (pages 11-12) that discusses other forms of divinity. None of them make the claim that "gets power from mortal belief" is a defining trait, let alone the defining trait of deity.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-22, 01:25 PM

Fair. Could you and I reach an agreement if I said that D&D characters can reach the objectively incorrect conclusion that gods don't exist or aren't gods based on their imperfect understanding of the reality they live in, when a third group reach the correct conclusion without evidences due to the same imperfect understanding, while others can reach the correct conclusion despite the same imperfect understanding because they've nevertheless had access to the evidences?

Yep. Sounds good to me.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 01:29 PM

But you're using terms like deluded, in denial, or insane. For a character who does NOT have the knowledge that the players do, they're none of that. They are lacking the correct info, so they're wrong, if you care about that, but they have every reason to be wrong.

I've also used the terms "uninformed" and "misinformed" as to why people wouldn't believe gods exist/are gods.

I can accept the criticism that using terms such as "insane", even if combined with tamer terms, sounded too belligerent for a non-inflammatory discussion.

I apologize, I should have chosen my words better.

It should be noted that some gods are portrayed as predating mortals - yet they were still gods in the time before they had worshippers.

Shar and Selune, in the Realms, spring to mind.

Or Correllon. He existed for uncountable eons before there were elves to worship him. And that's default canon via Mordenkainen's.

A list to which you can add Moradin, the entire Giant Pantheon, Tiamat, and Kurtulmak.

The difference being that while they were unquestionably *divine*, they weren't full gods before they created the mortals who worships them.

Corellon's accidental birthing of the elves required them to have their true "body" (as mutable as it was) to be wounded by Gruumsh, something that wouldn't have been possible if they were a Major Deity at the time.

You're looking at things way too black-and-white here.

Possible. I'm going to re-examine my position.

hamishspence

2018-10-22, 01:41 PM

Corellon's accidental birthing of the elves required them to have their true "body" (as mutable as it was) to be wounded by Gruumsh, something that wouldn't have been possible if they were a Major Deity at the time.

Is it stated somewhere that Major Deities are incapable of wounding one another?

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 01:43 PM

A list to which you can add Moradin, the entire Giant Pantheon, Tiamat, and Kurtulmak.

The difference being that while they were unquestionably *divine*, they weren't full gods before they created the mortals who worships them.

Corellon's accidental birthing of the elves required them to have their true "body" (as mutable as it was) to be wounded by Gruumsh, something that wouldn't have been possible if they were a Major Deity at the time.

Possible. I'm going to re-examine my position.

Or maybe, that "definition" is only a partial, limited one, and only works from a mortal's perspective (in some realms). From a mortal's perspective, the nature of a Greater God is such that he is immortal, unhurtable, etc. From a god's perspective....

And those tales are just that. Stories. They're presented as being myths, legends, uncertain. And they're not rules or definitions, they're ideas, starting points, inspiration for DMs and world-builders to use.

That's the core of the DM side--there are no rules. No "but the rules say" arguments are possible. Whatever the DM (or world-builder) decides is real is real.

Naanomi

2018-10-22, 01:45 PM

Also, there were a *ton* of races that predated the modern ones... beings that in some cases had their own Gods that have since faded away... many planar races, but lots of Prime material races as well. Dragons have been around forever (Io was arguably one of the first Gods); but humans and elves and the like are all very young compared to some of the great Spelljamming empires of days now past

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 01:54 PM

Oh? I thought you said they are gods because they derive power from worship.

Worship they get because they're in charge of something the mortals care about, yes.

Which makes them something between glorified imaginary friends and cosmic conmen, even before the appearance of beings of similar power who do not need prayer badly.

Some of them are con men. None of them are imaginary friends, as they're real entities even before receiving worship. Most of them give something worthwhile to mortals in exchange of the worship, however, so it's a symbiotic relationship other beings of similar power don't have and don't have any use for.

Or Athasian sorcerer kings. Or the Undying Court of Aerenal.

I've not seen any source saying that in 5e, those two groups are empowered by worship, but if you find any I'll readily admit I was wrong.

Or random demon lords and archdevils.

Those are explicitly said to not receive power through worship.

Or... lot of stuff, really.

Can you quote anything in 5e that says they do?

Great. Let's look at archdevils, then. They do have worshippers. Enough? Hard to say, there's no number stating what's enough. They can hear and answer prayers, if the worshipper is in their hearing range, or if they use magic. All of them have cult fanatics amongst their worshippers (MtoF), who do get cleric spellcasting. And they control aspects of mortal life, even if the aspect is "you're not dead by my/my minion's hands. You're welcome.".

According to your definition, every single archdevil is a god.

The Mordenkainen's explains that, actually. The worship given to any devil goes to Asmodeus, not the devil in question. Archdevils can throw additional powers to the members of their specific cult, however, on top of the clerical package from Big A (said powers being the equivalent of Boons).

Granted, there is no given explanation as to why Cult Fanatics of one of the Demon Princes got clerical powers too, but Baphomet, Orcus, Fraz-Urb'luu and the other Demon Princes who have people worshiping them explicitly cannot grant them. Perhaps they get it from worshiping the concept of evil chaos?

For the rest, can we please not go down that road, JackPhoenix? You know that it's not what the book meant when it said "can hear prayer" and the like.

And those tales are just that. Stories. They're presented as being myths, legends, uncertain. And they're not rules or definitions, they're ideas, starting points, inspiration for DMs and world-builders to use.

That's the core of the DM side--there are no rules. No "but the rules say" arguments are possible. Whatever the DM (or world-builder) decides is real is real.

I'm not arguing rules, I'm arguing lore. However, you are correct, those things are presented as stories and legends, with no definitive truth.

I admit my approach was wrong.

Beckett

2018-10-22, 02:04 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 02:05 PM

I'm not arguing rules, I'm arguing lore. However, you are correct, those things are presented as stories and legends, with no definitive truth.

I admit my approach was wrong.

Yours is definitely the most common understanding of the lore. As usual, I'm pushing for epistemic humility from all sides.

And one thing I appreciate about you is that you're willing to acknowledge error. It's a great habit we need more of around here. :smallsmile:

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 02:08 PM

The problem I have with the idea that someone could believe that deities are just superpowered beings, but not actually divine is that then means said person needs to define what real divinities are, and how the "false" deities do not meet that standard. Otherwise it is just a pointless distinction.

My setting has a group of people who consider the "gods" to be the middle-management of the universe. Powerful, sure. You probably shouldn't go out of your way to offend them, obviously. But would you really worship or pray to the Assistant Undersecretary to the Vice-Chancellor for Sewer Affairs?

To them, the local spirits and their (sometimes Ascended) ancestors are much more deserving of veneration.

Divine vs non-divine doesn't even come into it. It's "worthy of worship" vs "not worthy of worship."

hamishspence

2018-10-22, 02:10 PM

My setting has a group of people who consider the "gods" to be the middle-management of the universe. Powerful, sure. You probably shouldn't go out of your way to offend them, obviously. But would you really worship or pray to the Assistant Undersecretary to the Vice-Chancellor for Sewer Affairs?

I think Exalted is supposed to be like that - "the gods" are way low in the hierarchy.

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 02:29 PM

I think Exalted is supposed to be like that - "the gods" are way low in the hierarchy.

Not exaltedly. The gods are everything from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. The local god of a small village is on an entirely different league that the Unconquered Sun, but both are gods... the same way a small town's city council and the President are both politicians.

EvilAnagram

2018-10-22, 02:29 PM

But would you really worship or pray to the Assistant Undersecretary to the Vice-Chancellor for Sewer Affairs?

What I like about this analogy is that the universe is equated with Sewer Affairs.

It fits.

hamishspence

2018-10-22, 02:33 PM

Not exaltedly. The gods are everything from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy.

Maybe I was thinking of Immortals Handbook?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DivineRanks

A third-party supplement called Immortal's Handbook is presented as an alternative to D&D's divine rank system (both 3.5 and 4e), starting at low-level mortals with a touch of the divine such as prophets, to demigods, then the standard lesser/intermediate/greater deities, and then Ao-level overgods, which keeps on going to represent living embodiments of planar layers, the planes themselves, and even the entire universe. Yes, it contains rules and plot hooks that allow you to PLAY as Ao's boss's boss.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-22, 02:34 PM

I think Exalted is supposed to be like that - "the gods" are way low in the hierarchy.

From what I've gathered, yes.

For mine, they know that the oldest of the current gods is ~200 years old and that they were all former mortals who got dragooned/promoted to handle the customer-service side of the universe. They aren't in charge of the sun, or the waves, or whatever. They're in charge of dealing with mortal prayers and interactions with those things. The true power is the Great Mechanism, but that rather doesn't get involved with mortals (and was the one promoting the gods and feeding them power).

Unoriginal

2018-10-22, 02:40 PM

Maybe I was thinking of Immortals Handbook?

I couldn't say. All I know is that the Celestial Bureaucracy of Exalted has all (or nearly so) of its offices handled by gods, from the greatest to the smallest. Other beings exist, of course, but they're not in charge of Creation's workings (and generally are rather opposed to the idea of Creation working or even existing).

Anonymouswizard

2018-10-22, 05:19 PM

Note that in some settings 'gods are beings that gain power from worship' is going about it the wrong way, in several D&D settings (and a lot of non-D&D settings) a god is a being that grants power to worshippers (we are ignoring Warlocks, because a lot of the D&D settings discussed are from the 2e days). I think I even once saw a setting where the definition of a god was that granting power was the only way they could interact with the material plane, although I might be getting mixed up with some of my now long lost notes of potential setting traits.

Most of the settings I play don't have deities using worshipper-derived power, beyond the inherent political and military power inevitable in an organised religion beyond a certain size (don't grow it too large though, one too many schisms and suddenly your religion is fighting itself because they disagree over if you turned bread into cake or brioche). It's actually really, really nice to be able to focus on the priests and religions without having to have everybody be being forced into worship because Gods Need Prayer Badly (I'll leave out the TVTropes link).

Callak_Remier

2018-10-22, 06:41 PM

Beckett

2018-10-22, 07:12 PM

It is always a problem for me, because I like playing divine classes, but have real life issues with playing a character that follows a real world deity (zeus, thor, etc) and am a bit less reserved at made up ones. I tend to hand wave it as much as possible so that my Cleric, while religious and spiritual, is empowered my "the mysteries of the flame" or "the light". It is still based on wisdom and faith, but a bit more like Sorcerers and Wizards, or to a degree 3E and 5E Warlocks than the typical D&D Cleric. Sort of 1st Ed and 3E philosophy Cleric.

Because of that, I am just not partial to attempts to include divine pantheons. I don't want to ruin anyone else's fun, so I would rather graciously bow out of a campaign, but generally speaking, groups have been ok just handwaving things in general and avoiding real world or personal issues while keeping the overall feel they want by making it more like political groups with common ideals.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-22, 07:25 PM

A PC can definitely be atheist, agnostic, or non-theistic in a D&D game and I'd personally be pretty frustrated with the DM if he home-brewed some rules like the OP suggests. I don't think it's fair to claim that all classes/races have any sort of divine protection.

Their souls are spoken for and thier god will claim them after death, no impact on actual gameplay. A particularly faithful PC might receive a boon at an opportune time.
But that would be rewarding good role play.
So what's you issue.

In D&D you gain divine protection by being a divine class, not by worshipping the gods.

Do you hear yourself speak. Page 56 under the Header: Divine Agents.

A
Also, in real life we have science that is used every day and that is readily available for pretty much anyone, yet there are plenty of people who have no faith in it and think it's bull****. I'm sure it's absolutely true in D&D for a PC or NPC to be an atheist, claiming there are no gods and believing the theists are full of ****.

Irrelevant

My point is faith should be the Norm with non-believers being the exception in Most DND world's.

Most people likely wouldn't have personal experience with any celestial beings, so it'd be a simple matter of faith and community.

Hence it being commonplace

I rarely run non-divine classes with any religious preference or mention.

And Yet there are gods like,Azuth the god of Wizards, Moradin, Corellon Larethian,
Almost* All Elves and Dwarves are taught about thier creator and honor them in their own way. Why should you ignore that if you choose to play one.
Seems like your ignoring a potential part of your characters, do you even consider it at all?

Naanomi

2018-10-22, 07:53 PM

All Elves and Dwarves are taught about thier creator and honor them in their own way
All? There are exceptions even in worlds where they are worshiped in the first place; let alone the Prime worlds that have never heard of those racial Gods (Darksun, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc)

Tanarii

2018-10-22, 08:14 PM

I think I even once saw a setting where the definition of a god was that granting power was the only way they could interact with the material plane, although I might be getting mixed up with some of my now long lost notes of potential setting traits.
Maybe you're thinking of BECMI? Although they were called immortals, not gods or Dieties.

Naanomi

2018-10-22, 08:18 PM

Maybe you're thinking of BECMI? Although they were called immortals, not gods or Dieties.
Though Mystara stuff since then has muddled the difference between the two (if any) considerably

Callak_Remier

2018-10-22, 08:23 PM

All? There are exceptions even in worlds where they are worshiped in the first place; let alone the Prime worlds that have never heard of those racial Gods (Darksun, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc)

If you read my entire post I pointedly make the case they are exceptions like Darksun.

Why not try to contribute something to the conversation

Tanarii

2018-10-22, 08:37 PM

Though Mystara stuff since then has muddled the difference between the two (if any) considerably
The major difference was they were technically all ascended mortals, and there were rules for playing them. 2 different sets of rules in the end.

But also in retrospect, probably a reaction to the satanic panic.

Knaight

2018-10-22, 08:41 PM

Irrelevant

My point is faith should be the Norm with non-believers being the exception in Most DND world's.

Probably. So what have you been doing as a GM to depict this?

Naanomi

2018-10-22, 08:58 PM

If you read my entire post I pointedly make the case they are exceptions like Darksun.

Why not try to contribute something to the conversation
Athas is a Prime Material Plane in the Great Wheel Cosmology.

Greyhawk’s world is in the Radiant Triangle; deeply connected to Realmspace... Krynnspace also (of Dragonlance campaign setting); in neither place are the racial pantheons of the Elves and Dwarves either worshiped or widely known. Spelljammer Imperial Elves don’t innately follow Correlon either. They are not nearly as universal in the lore as you portray them... mostly only on Faerun and in Planescape.

I’m contributing counterexamples to your claims about expected worship and knowledge of specific Gods in the wider DnD setting to this conversation.

raygun goth

2018-10-22, 09:23 PM

(edit for clarity: Characters that do not worship any god and sometimes even ignore there existence)

It's not caused so much by mechanical benefits or penalties so much as it is that religions in D&D are so poorly detailed as to be as useless to a character as their hair color.

To be fair, D&D books have almost never given anyone good advice on how to play anything, and when they do, it's very nearly universally terrible (I'm looking at you, Complete Book of Elves). On top of this, the amount of daily deific intervention in the life of a player character boils down to either "this guy's priests are being a hassle" or "I'm a Cleric, behold my direct and personal relationship with the god of time itself, even though he never actually talks to me and indeed, I need about ten levels under my belt before he'll even talk to me directly" and in either case the god doesn't even need to exist in the first place.

If gods showed up regularly, on the other hand (check out **** like the Odyssey or Celtic sagas or the Eddas for examples on this), or if their reach were daily occurrences in the lives of characters (I've found things as simple as having holidays where either the god or angels or demons or whatever actually show up tend to have a rather transformative effect on characters and players), then there'd probably be more to it - especially if those religions have a large impact on the culture the PCs are part of.

Also, people have probably mentioned it but Ludic's religions, check them out. Introducing those things would really help, I think.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-22, 11:16 PM

Probably. So what have you been doing as a GM to depict this?

All Npc's make common use of various gods in daily conversation, whether thats a curse under the breath or a remark about the weather or a blessing after a bargain struck.
Celebrations and festivals are about gods of harvest agriculture. Pilgrims seeking holy sites
To name some of the goings on.

Anonymouswizard

2018-10-23, 02:49 AM

Razade

2018-10-23, 02:51 AM

That is because most people label someone who does not care about religion or is indifferent as an atheist. Which is wrong.

Atheists believe that gods do not exist.
What most play are just people that don’t care about the gods at all or what they want but they do think they exist.

Atheist do not believe the existence of gods. Those characters would objectively be wrong in D&D.

No. This is not what an Atheist is. Atheists are those who lack a belief, not do not believe. Which is different.

They still can't really work in a D&D world though in some contexts it might work. You could disbelieve their Divinity and still believe they're a thing. They'd still be Atheists though.

Millstone85

2018-10-23, 04:04 AM

Io was arguably one of the first Gods
This is not what an Atheist is.Subtlety for subtlety, here is some advice on capitalization:
* God
* a god
* a Christian
* an atheist

Atheists are those who lack a belief, not do not believe. Which is different.I am used to hear about "believe there isn't' versus "do not believe there is", which I am already not particularly fond of.

But "lack belief" versus "do not believe" seems even more punctilious.

Razade

2018-10-23, 04:49 AM

But "lack belief" versus "do not believe" seems even more punctilious.

Except it's not. Doesn't believe is a higher order than lack of belief or no belief or unbelief. If you have a jar of gumballs, the number has to be even or odd. There are people who believe that the number is even or odd and there are people who don't believe they're odd or even respectively. There's a third camp that says the data is too slim or not sufficient or whatever reason and they neither believe it's odd or even. They lack a belief in either. They don't disbelieve it's even and odd at the same time.

Unoriginal

2018-10-23, 05:05 AM

Someone who doesn't have a belief whether there is a god(s) or not is agnostic.

An atheist does not believe there is a god.

A-theist = no-god-ist

However, we're dangerously close of crossing the forum rules about real-world religions and other belief systems, so please let's not go further.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-23, 05:22 AM

Except it's not. Doesn't believe is a higher order than lack of belief or no belief or unbelief. If you have a jar of gumballs, the number has to be even or odd. There are people who believe that the number is even or odd and there are people who don't believe they're odd or even respectively. There's a third camp that says the data is too slim or not sufficient or whatever reason and they neither believe it's odd or even. They lack a belief in either. They don't disbelieve it's even and odd at the same time.

You're combining the definition of Atheism and Agnosticism. Your third example is of being Agnostic, not Atheist.

Both would be incorrect in the DND multiverse.

Razade

2018-10-23, 05:26 AM

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 05:50 AM

Godot/Unoriginal appear to indeed be misusing the terms.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

In other words, atheism simply denotes an absence of belief. Agnosticism is the presence of a belief that something is unknown or unknowable.

Unoriginal

2018-10-23, 05:57 AM

Godot/Unoriginal appear to indeed be misusing the terms.

In other words, atheism simply denotes an absence of belief. Agnosticism is the presence of a belief that something is unknown or unknowable.

A lack of belief in something's or someone's existence means that you don't believe in it, not that you're ambivalent about it.

"I lack belief in Santa Claus" doesn't means "I don't believe in Santa Claus's existence", not "I lack any belief about Santa, he could exist or he could not."

So no, I am not misusing the term.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 05:58 AM

A lack of belief in something means that you don't believe in it, not that you're ambivalent about it.

"I lack belief in Santa Claus" doesn't means "I don't believe in Santa Claus", not "I lack belief about Santa, he could exist or he could not."

So no, I am not misusing the term.

The term you misused is "agnostic."

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-23, 06:00 AM

In other words, atheism simply denotes an absence of belief. Agnosticism is the presence of a belief that something is unknown or unknowable.

And where his third example in the jar of gumballs was "a belief that it can't be known as odd or even unless it's counted" I labeled it as Agnostic, where they implied it to mean Atheist. I didn't correct the second example (even though in the gumball jar, not believing that it's odd or even is ridiculous) because that is an example of Atheism.

Maybe I misunderstood the example from the get go and the mention of a degree of belief was meant to introduce Agnosticism into the example.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 06:04 AM

Razade

2018-10-23, 06:11 AM

And where his third example in the jar of gumballs was "a belief that it can't be known as odd or even unless it's counted" I labeled it as Agnostic, where they implied it to mean Atheist. I didn't correct the second example (even though in the gumball jar, not believing that it's odd or even is ridiculous) because that is an example of Atheism.

Maybe I misunderstood the example from the get go and the mention of a degree of belief was meant to introduce Agnosticism into the example.

My example would be an A-Gumballist and an Ag-Gumballist actually. But this is nowhere near the topic at hand and near enough to Real World Religion(tm) that...I'm happy to just leave it as is.

To keep it to the topic. One could be Agnostic to Orcus. As in, they've never heard of him or just heard legends. They don't know he exists. Once they're informed they're Gnostic to Orcus. One could be an Orcusist, that is a theist who believes in Orcus as divine. That Orcus is a God. Some settings have him that way. Then there are A-Orcusts or those who are Atheistic towards Orcus as a Divinity. Flip and fumble the four around and you get what one's driving at.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-10-23, 06:22 AM

It is worth noting that "agnostic atheism" is but one of many forms of atheism. It is not wrong to provide it as an example of atheism.

It is wrong to say "that's agnosticism, not atheism" though. It's like saying "That's a dog, not a mammal."

The terms are still separate, it just so happens that they can overlap. Not every mammal is a dog. Agnosticism is based on the lack of knowledge or proof. It can also overlap with a Theist who claims to believe in a god but can offer no proof that those beliefs can be substantiated.

The example was very neutral as it was presented, ergo strictly Agnostic and not Agnostic Atheist.

With that said, this has wandered uncomfortably far from 5E/DND discussion. Further discussion would be best done in private.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 06:24 AM

The terms are still separate, it just so happens that they can overlap. Not every mammal is a dog. Agnosticism is based on the lack of knowledge or proof. It can also overlap with a Theist who claims to believe in a god but can offer no proof that those beliefs can be substantiated.

That is correct.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-23, 07:13 AM

Athas is a Prime Material Plane in the Great Wheel Cosmology.

Greyhawk’s world is in the Radiant Triangle; deeply connected to Realmspace... Krynnspace also (of Dragonlance campaign setting); in neither place are the racial pantheons of the Elves and Dwarves either worshiped or widely known. Spelljammer Imperial Elves don’t innately follow Correlon either. They are not nearly as universal in the lore as you portray them... mostly only on Faerun and in Planescape.

I’m contributing counterexamples to your claims about expected worship and knowledge of specific Gods in the wider DnD setting to this conversation.

The point of my thread:
Non-whorshiper PC's in worlds where worship is common place/ the norm.

So glad you can miss the point of the thread and waste my time at the same time

Mordaedil

2018-10-23, 07:16 AM

Okay, so we essentially have five states:

Deep belief in a god or gods.
Passive belief and occasional prayers.
Apathy towards the divine.
Actual disbelief in the divine.
Active hate or loathing of the divine.

In your average D&D setting the most common state is probably state 2. No real desire or need to be religious, but you'll go to the occasional service in a temple when you're not too busy with work. State 1 will be extremely common among the priesthood and will appear among the nobility more then commoners, while those inn state 3 will be looked upon as weird. State 4 will be more common in a world of uncertain divinities, but puddle well find a way to believe anything ('vaccines cause autism and don't protect for kid from diseases'). How common state 5 is all depend on how petty the deities are.

I think four of these are acceptable for a game of D&D. Number 4 however strikes me as someone who refuses to play ball and doesn't want to immerse themselves into the game setting. I have a personal problem with this due to experience of trouble-players often adopting this as their stance.

That said, I think it's a perfectly fine position to take in a campaign wherein your states goal is to slay a deity or replace them (an ageold tradition in D&D)

But I don't think 4 is where your characters should start, it should rather be something they arrive at through the game.

Asensur

2018-10-23, 07:40 AM

In a world with "real" gods I would prefer to introduce antitheism than atheism.

Knaight

2018-10-23, 09:20 AM

It is wrong to say "that's agnosticism, not atheism" though. It's like saying "That's a dog, not a mammal."

More like "That's a quadruped, not a mammal". There are mammalian quadrupeds, yes, but there are also both mammals that aren't quadrupeds (e.g. most primates) and quadrupeds that aren't mammals (e.g. most lizards).

Newtonsolo313

2018-10-23, 10:25 AM

To the OP, perhaps tell the players that they have to justify why there character does not worship/believe in gods in a primarily religious world. There are reasons not to but the default state would be worshipping a god. This justification will flesh out what kind of relation the player has with the divine instead of them simply ignoring that part of the setting.

NecroDancer

2018-10-23, 10:46 AM

This is sort of unrelated but I actually invented a god of atheism.

Basically there was once a devote mortal cleric who lost everything she cared about. She prayed for days to her god hoping for a miracle but nothing happened. When she returned to their god’s temple to deal with her crisis of faith she saw another cleric of her god zealous persecute nonbelievers. When she saw this she renounced her faith and came to a dark realization: the so called “gods” were frauds.

As she continued with her heretical research she learned of mortals who have ascended to godhood, this only fueled her belief in the idea that the gods weren’t actually divine. She soon gained a following as she spread her discoveries, when various religions tried to stop her it only seemed to validate her cause.

However her followers soon became zealous in their non-belief and violently attacked clerics and paladins. She tried to prevent this but her followers had grown out of control and began to worship her as an “anti-god”. This belief forced her into the realm of the divine making her into a god of non-belief.

Now her “church” is split into two groups. One group seeks to help mortals and educate people about the falseness of the gods, using her as an example. The other group is a group of zealots who wish to overthrow and kill the gods and their followers, while she doesn’t grant these people any divine magic they take this as a sign that divine magic is inherently evil.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 11:34 AM

More like "That's a quadruped, not a mammal". There are mammalian quadrupeds, yes, but there are also both mammals that aren't quadrupeds (e.g. most primates) and quadrupeds that aren't mammals (e.g. most lizards).

Yes, that is a more precise simile.

Tanarii

2018-10-23, 01:57 PM

In other words, atheism simply denotes an absence of belief. Agnosticism is the presence of a belief that something is unknown or unknowable.
Definitely not. Atheism is active disbelief.

Someone who doesn't believe because its not something they even think about it is not an atheist. If the entire question is pointless/invalid to you, you're not an atheist or agnostic. Both of those require thinking about the question, accepting it as a valid question, and coming to a conclusion about it.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-23, 02:01 PM

I strongly believe that the default position for "normal" people in most D&D worlds is "the gods exist, but aren't that important to me." They may worship (venerate/appease) whichever one is most salient at one particular time, but they wouldn't have particularly strong ties to any of them.

So I'd suspect that most PCs (other than clerics) would be similar. The gods exist, to be sure. And they get crumbs of worship thrown their way when the PCs need something special, but otherwise are like the Tzar in Fiddler on the Roof:

God bless and keep the Tzar /
Far away from us!

Attracting the attention of the gods is not a uniformly (or even frequently!) safe course of action. Because most people want boring, safe lives. And when gods intervene, life is anything but safe or boring.

Knaight

2018-10-23, 02:30 PM

Definitely not. Atheism is active disbelief.

Someone who doesn't believe because its not something they even think about it is not an atheist. If the entire question is pointless/invalid to you, you're not an atheist or agnostic. Both of those require thinking about the question, accepting it as a valid question, and coming to a conclusion about it.

That's not the way people tend to self describe - "active disbelief" is a needlessly strong term. Yes, thought needs to happen for it to be meaningful, and anything under that gets in in some sort of staggeringly stupid technicality ("this rock is technically an atheist"), but the standard has been absence from the beginning, starting with how the term is derived.

I strongly believe that the default position for "normal" people in most D&D worlds is "the gods exist, but aren't that important to me." They may worship (venerate/appease) whichever one is most salient at one particular time, but they wouldn't have particularly strong ties to any of them.

So I'd suspect that most PCs (other than clerics) would be similar. The gods exist, to be sure. And they get crumbs of worship thrown their way when the PCs need something special, but otherwise are like the Tzar in Fiddler on the Roof:
This has been my reading too, from how settings tend to be depicted. I'd also get back to the locus of control here, where PCs are less likely to be particularly religious. Take the storm example upthread - praying for its end is what you do if you don't have weather control magic.

NovenFromTheSun

2018-10-23, 02:37 PM

After they have made that choice.
I inform them that thier character is a lost soul with a much more likelihood for Infernal intervention. Since they lack any divine protection for thier soul. Of course they may seek a patron deity in game.

I let the player knows that:
1) should you encounter a devil or thier servants you will become a soul of interest

What do the inhabitants of the good-aligned planes think of this? My D&D lore is a bit spotty, but in my understanding the upper planes have their own non-divine lords who aren't necessarily beholden to the gods; so would an unclaimed soul be as appealing to them as it is to the infernals? Of course, things might work differently in your setting.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-23, 02:58 PM

Millstone85

2018-10-23, 04:02 PM

What do the inhabitants of the good-aligned planes think of this? My D&D lore is a bit spotty, but in my understanding the upper planes have their own non-divine lords who aren't necessarily beholden to the gods; so would an unclaimed soul be as appealing to them as it is to the infernals? Of course, things might work differently in your setting.I find those to be strangely absent from 5e so far.

MM and VGtM celestials are all beholden to the good gods in one way or another:
* Angels are practically extensions of their gods.
* Couatls lost their creator but stay true to their missions.
* Empyreans are unruly, not fully emancipated, divine children.
* Pegasi, unicorns and ki-rins are literal godsends.

MToF eladrin are complicated. Some are humanoids, others are fey. Some are hinted to be in a similar position than the celestial eladrin of previous editions. But if so, it is with the grace of the Seldarine.

MadBear

2018-10-23, 04:13 PM

You can define atheists in a few different ways, just like you can define theism in a few different ways, but it's probably best to default to the way people within those groups tend to use the term to define themselves.

theism- belief in god
a-theism- without belief in god.

That's how my atheists friends and I all use that term.

So in my circles we tend to see this as:
Theism/atheism- what you believe
agnosticism/gnosticism- what you know

agnostic theist- believes in, but doesn't claim to know there's a god
gnostic theist- believes in, and claims to know there's a god
agnostic atheist- doesn't believe in, but doesn't claim to know there's a no god
gnostic atheist- doesn't believe in, and claims to know there's no god

Now the cool part is, language is mutable, and people change how it's used all the time. If you use those terms differently, that's fine. Just know that there are others who don't use those terms the way you do. Now, if you wanna complain that others are doing it wrong, all you're likely to do is be an ass, as all words and their meaning have changed over time.

Naanomi

2018-10-23, 07:07 PM

The character I envision being the most ‘atheistic’ in many classic settings is the alienist/Great Old One Warlock. Not all of them, but at least some have knowledge of and exposure to beings that kind of make the Gods look pretty pathetic, hard to take them seriously as targets of worship with that ‘larger perspective’ at hand (or tentacle)

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 07:59 PM

Definitely not.

Well, that's the dictionary definition, so you'll have to take it up with them. Also, what MadBear said.

Speely

2018-10-23, 08:13 PM

Atheists in Faerun are delusional, because deities are very much real there. It's not a philosophical concept or debate at that point. Those who oppose the idea of the gods are doing so knowing that they literally exist.

That clashes with atheism at its core. Atheism merely states that there is no good evidence for the existence of higher moral powers.

In Faerun, those powers literally exist, so the concept of atheism is silly there. That sounds like players bringing some meta stuff into the setting.

I say that as an atheist. When I play D&D, I am as aware of the religious truths as I can be, because otherwise my character would be willfully-clueless.

Newtonsolo313

2018-10-23, 08:32 PM

That was part of the discussion i had with my players. I just didnt mention it since the post was already long winded

right i’ve re read the OP and well i agree with you, the only mechanical change isn’t even really mechanical and it lines up really well with what i would expect the in universe benefits to be. After all just like dice fudging the players truly know if they received divine favor or if they are simply lucky.

edit: oh and the divinity shard thing is cool too

Callak_Remier

2018-10-23, 09:26 PM

right i’ve re read the OP and well i agree with you, the only mechanical change isn’t even really mechanical and it lines up really well with what i would expect the in universe benefits to be. After all just like dice fudging the players truly know if they received divine favor or if they are simply lucky.

edit: oh and the divinity shard thing is cool too

Thats something for particularly well made non- believer characters as a means of Retirement.

Tanarii

2018-10-23, 09:34 PM

Well, that's the dictionary definition, so you'll have to take it up with them. Also, what MadBear said.
Not the first time the dictionary and common mis-usage are totally wrong. And won't be the last.

Of course, the problem is the real meaning of the term and how it's come to be frequnetly mis-used requires a dive into real world religions and politics.

I'll make an analogy. It's like someone saying "I'm so depressed" when they've had a bad day. It's not what the word really means, it's just a common mis-usage due to it becoming pop psychology some time ago then entering the mainstream, so much that it's in the dictionary as "a state of unhappiness" with synonyms like glum and dejected.

Technically words mean how they're used to mean. But often the new slang meaning has nothing to do with what the word means. That's what it's like to use atheist to mean anyone who "doesn't believe in gods" as opposed to someone who actively disbelieves, disputes, and even goes out to prove the non-existence of gods.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 09:48 PM

Not the first time the dictionary and common mis-usage are totally wrong. And won't be the last.

Of course, the problem is the real meaning of the term and how it's come to be frequnetly mis-used requires a dive into real world religions and politics.

I'll make an analogy. It's like someone saying "I'm so depressed" when they've had a bad day. It's not what the word really means, it's just a common mis-usage due to it becoming pop psychology some time ago then entering the mainstream, so much that it's in the dictionary as "a state of unhappiness" with synonyms like glum and dejected.

That's not how linguistics works.

Tanarii

2018-10-23, 09:52 PM

That's not how linguistics works.Actually, it's pretty much exactly how linguistics works.

Disputes over the validity of new slang mis-used terms vs the traditional meanings is pretty common result of that fact hahaha

Edit: that laugh is also party at myself, because I've often been on the side of "words are how they're commonly used" in these kinds of discussions in the past. And this time I'm on the other side. I have to see the humor in that :smallamused:

raygun goth

2018-10-23, 10:01 PM

That's what it's like to use atheist to mean anyone who "doesn't believe in gods"

"Atheist" has been used in this sense, as in "lacks a belief in god," since the 1700s at least.

LudicSavant

2018-10-23, 10:02 PM

Disputes over the validity of new slang mis-used terms vs the traditional meanings is pretty common result of that fact hahaha

> Etymological roots for this meaning go back hundreds of years
> "New slang mis-used term"

*Facepalm*

Naanomi

2018-10-23, 10:13 PM

Common usage of words and technical usage of them often drift apart, but that doesn’t invalidate the technical use within the field of origin... just that sometimes you need to clarify you mean it that way. Any epistemologist or theologian will have a very specific meaning of the term atheist (though may want clarification ‘strong VS weak atheist’ or some variation thereof); and would want clarification in the use of the term ‘agnostic’ (this term has widely drifted from historical usage even amongst philosophers).

One of my bachelors is in ‘philosophy of religion’... hasn’t served me well in my life, but this is a topic I can easily explore (though not to deeply in specifics, I’ve already been dinged on forum rules for real-world religious discussion for exploring ritual cannibalism a few months ago)

Temperjoke

2018-10-23, 10:27 PM

"I don't believe elves exist."
"But there's one standing next to you."
"That's not an elf, it's just a tall, long-lived human with pointy ears. Elves don't exist."
"A tall, long-lived human with pointy ears? That's what an elf is."
"No it isn't, because elves don't exist. It's just another type of human."

MadBear

2018-10-23, 11:17 PM

Actually, it's pretty much exactly how linguistics works.

Disputes over the validity of new slang mis-used terms vs the traditional meanings is pretty common result of that fact hahaha

Edit: that laugh is also party at myself, because I've often been on the side of "words are how they're commonly used" in these kinds of discussions in the past. And this time I'm on the other side. I have to see the humor in that :smallamused:

The thing I find is, arguing over who is using the correct definition of a word seems to be super pedantic, especially when you know what someone else is using to word to mean. Dawkins, Harris, Seth Andrews etc. etc. all lack belief, and do not argue that they know a god doesn't exist.

So I'm not really sure what good point there is to make, even if we agree that "lack belief" is a new way to define what an atheist is. Especially, if that group in general defines themselves as lacking belief. I mean, I guess you can go around saying that they're all not atheists, but I'm pretty sure that conversation won't help anyone.

Reynaert

2018-10-24, 01:19 AM

Millstone85

2018-10-24, 01:40 AM

Elves are three foot high, live at the North Pole and make presents for children. And they're imaginary. ;)Elves hide their wasp-like appearance behind a glamour, live in parasitic universes and are often thwarted by witches. :smallwink:

No but really, such discussions on what makes one a nonbeliever, an agnostic, an atheist and/or an antitheist, those are always complicated and sensitive.

For the record, I am a "nonexistence as the default assumption" kind of guy. I think that falls under atheism, and maybe agnosticism too.

Beckett

2018-10-24, 08:18 AM

The thing I find is, arguing over who is using the correct definition of a word seems to be super pedantic, especially when you know what someone else is using to word to mean. Dawkins, Harris, Seth Andrews etc. etc. all lack belief, and do not argue that they know a god doesn't exist.

So I'm not really sure what good point there is to make, even if we agree that "lack belief" is a new way to define what an atheist is. Especially, if that group in general defines themselves as lacking belief. I mean, I guess you can go around saying that they're all not atheists, but I'm pretty sure that conversation won't help anyone.

I would argue that "lack belief" is generally counter to much of the actions or other notions atheists I encounter generally espouse, and it sounds a little better to the ear than "do not believe".

Secondarily, doing so implies that others need to bring proof or counters in debate. But, I have never once heard anyone respond to a question like "What religion are you" or "Do you believe in God<s>" with "I lack religion" or "I lack any belief in God<s>".

Instead you will hear "I am an atheist" or "I am not religious" or "I do not believe in God<s>".

The point being what one actually means does matter, <specifically within the context of the OP, but in general as well>, because they can be different things, and bring in various implications as well. If we have the premise that in D&D, gods do exist, and that there is some difference between a god, an immortal, and extremely powerful celestial/infernal/primal beings, and that there is factual evidence of their existence and interactions, different people's cultures and world views will be different than ours.

In a lot of cultures, tribes or towns, or whatever also used a particular god, or saint, ir angel, or similar thing as a form of moral boosting team mascot, not because they believed as a whole in that divinity, but because it made the group stronger.

In D&D, we don't often see things like this represented, family crests don't generaly have any religious imagry or patronage, governments don't claim any deity backed them (literally or through a church) to add credence, etc...

Even parties tend not to develope a sort of totem deity as often as they don't, which is kind of odd.

If you want to boost religions and deity's relevence in your games, these are the sorts of things I would focus on, and I imagine that would reduce the amount of "I don't care" about them in game.

You could also introduce concepts like churches, specifically of different faiths but similar outlooks in an area attempting to fund things like food pantries, shelters, ways to rebuild farms after a raid, that can show faiths as not just about making a bigger, better building, but active in life.

Unoriginal

2018-10-24, 08:34 AM

Surprisingly, lacking something is often expressed by a negative.

"This car has a lack of wheels" = "this car doesn't have wheels"

Beckett

2018-10-24, 09:01 AM

Surprisingly, lacking something is often expressed by a negative.

"This car has a lack of wheels" = "this car doesn't have wheels"

I am not an atheist, (or rather I lack disbelief 😛 ), but personally I would find "lack _____" as a bit offensive, as it implies you failed or do not have something you should.

MaxWilson

2018-10-24, 10:17 AM

So i have been wrestling with this question for a while now.

With the exception of a few Planes of existence (Darksun)
Gods exist Guarding facets of reality just by their very presence.

They indirectly influence events on the Prime Material plane on a Daily basis.
They have been directly involved in world shaking events in recent History.

Yet despite all of this from all my years of playing the game the large majority of player Characters have been atheists(edit for clarity: Characters that do not worship any god and sometimes even ignore there existence)

I have brought this up at my table and at all the games I'm involved in. With no clear consensus on why this happens.

Faith doesn't fit well into fantasy, particularly game-oriented D&D fantasy. Yes, there's an omnipotent being in control of the game universe, but everyone at the table is fully aware of that being's limitations: the DM can make things happen, but is not very good (by divine standards) at predicting what will happen to anything involving PCs, i.e. anything important. Therefore neither are any of the lesser gods he or she creates, if any. So they aren't very good at making or keeping promises, and ultimately D&D-style faith winds up being rooted neither in real fantasy archetypes (which are pretty shallow in the first place--D&D clerics are rooted in Van Richten, and there aren't even 10% as many famous fantasy priests in literature as there are famous fantasy warriors or wizards) nor in real-life faith.

Nothing bad happens to D&D if you as DM just decide that all gods in the game are false gods, pretenders with magical powers but no qualitative difference between them and any other NPCs. You can still have a cult of Lolth, clerics, warlocks, etc., but the PCs and players don't have to believe Lolth is anything more than a powerful demon, and perhaps she does not even exist at all except in drow religious texts. It doesn't hurt the game if players don't buy into the campaign religions, and once that expectation is set, it can even let you make those religions more interesting and real-world-based. E.g. you can introduce schisms.

Nifft

2018-10-24, 11:44 AM

Elves hide their wasp-like appearance behind a glamour, live in parasitic universes and are often thwarted by witches. :smallwink: Wasp-like appearance? Hmm... White Anglo-Saxon Parasites.

Yep, that's the Fair Folk which we all know and fear.

I am not an atheist, (or rather I lack disbelief 😛 ), but personally I would find "lack _____" as a bit offensive, as it implies you failed or do not have something you should.

Agree.

A person who isn't drowning doesn't "lack water"; a person who is drowning does lack air.

A healthy person doesn't "lack overeating"; a starving person does lack food.

"Lacking X" always means that X is something you should have.

Asmotherion

2018-10-24, 12:18 PM

The "beings called gods aren't real gods, they're just super-powerful beings that pretend to be gods" view is the one the Athar, from Planescape, take.

Maybe the atheism of the OP's characters, is this kind?

Looks legit, and overall what I would believe if I were in a D&D world.

After all, average humans co-exist with Mages who can reshape reality 1/Day, and Elves who might have met their grand grand (...) grandfathers, when they were still of considerable age. Some beings are Virtually Imortal/Defy Death, and there are shape shifting Dragons in the world who also happen to be fully sentient (much more intelligent than the average humanoid), and also spellcasters themselves. In such a setting, the line is quite blurry between what the powers of a mortal are, and when he can be considered a Deity or worshiped as such. At the same time, people who know about what can be accomplished by mortals, could be less eager to worship a Divine, questioning the nature of their divinity.

With an afterlife being a fact (as in ghosts, and proven by testimony of spells like Resurection), this part of the person that continues to the afterlife needs somewere to go (when not a ghost). This gives the logical asumption that at least an other realm exists.

Clerics also need to get their powers from somewere. However, this somewere needs not be personified. It can indeed be the Realm Itself that holds the power, making the Cleric some form of High Level Conjurer, attuned to that Realm (Instead of the Weave). The Deity could actually only be the "Avatar" or Guardian of the Realm, some kind of Monarch whose title and memories are passed on to the next suitable subject if he ever dies.

And this small theory explains how Atheism could work in a world with proven existance of the Divine.

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-24, 01:53 PM

The gods in D&D are powerful entities with their own agendas. A person can certainly acknowledge that those entities exist without paying any fealty to them or worshiping any of them. *golf clap* This right here is an opening that will allow the OP to
RTFM
And by that I mean the DMG. Specifically, pages 11-13 of the DMG.
Forces and Philosophies

Not all divine powers need to be derived from deities. In some campaigns, believers hold enough conviction in their ideas about the universe that they gain magical power from that conviction. (p. 13) The whole treatment of alternative religious systems (with no gods involved) is worth reading if the PC's are just not interested in having the 'in universe' reality of gods existing structurally be a feature of their divine casting class.

The game-mechanical and metaphysical problem to get around is that divine magic is a concrete and real thing "in-universe" such that something must connect the divine caster (Paladin, Druid, Cleric, Ranger) to The Weave since that is where their 'in-game" magic comes from. (Spells). A few powers come from, for example, an Oath (paladin) or Nature (Ranger) but spells come from The Weave. That's in the PHB, pages 200-205.
A cosmic force or philosophy(life, good, honor, peace, nature, music, truth, etcetera) can exist just as objective Good, Law, Chaos, and Evil exist as described in the game.
This really isn't that hard, so I have to ask the OP: did you read the DMG?
If you are a DM, and have not, then you have some homework to do. You have a tool right there to help your players out.

Look, it's the 21st century with modern science and everything, and a lot of people still believe in gods (or God). Some people still don't believe evolution is a thing, and by "some people" I mean enough people to make it an actual political movement. Thus it'll be no surprise if some people don't believe in gods in a world where gods actually exist and actively give proof of their own existence. Fair point, though I like Ganymede's take on it better for game purposes.

Someone who doesn't have a belief whether there is a god(s) or not is agnostic.
I spent the first 45 or so years of my life as an agnostic. I have been told by atheists that I was actually an atheist, and I have had to tell a few of them to piss off: I know who I am, what I believe, and where I stand.

An atheist does not believe there is a god. I would edit that to read "an atheist does not believe that there is any god, nor are there any gods" but we are getting a bit to close to RL moralizing and flame wars and being told "don't tell me what I do or don't believe" ... see my experiences above.

In a world with "real" gods I would prefer to introduce antitheism than atheism. Yes, nicely said. That fits into the DMG p. 11-13 sort of approach.

Nice Post *Golf Clap*

"Atheist" has been used in this sense, as in "lacks a belief in god," since the 1700s at least. Yeah, I am pretty sure Voltaire used it in that sense, but I suspect that he was writing in a different language than English.

PS: a good friend of mine who is an RL atheist has played a variety of druids. He's an outdoorsy kind of guy. His focus/worship on Nature in character, over the editions, as a force or philosophy has fit into the 5e model like a hand into a well made glove. So he's a druid again, go figure. :smallbiggrin:

Unoriginal

2018-10-24, 02:31 PM

I am not an atheist, (or rather I lack disbelief 😛 ), but personally I would find "lack _____" as a bit offensive, as it implies you failed or do not have something you should.

I spent the first 45 or so years of my life as an agnostic. I have been told by atheists that I was actually an atheist, and I have had to tell a few of them to piss off: I know who I am, what I believe, and where I stand.

Well, I'm an atheist, and I too know who am I what, I belive, and where I stand.

Hecuba

2018-10-24, 02:37 PM

Well, that's the dictionary definition, so you'll have to take it up with them.
(Just quoting you because you provoked the thought - not as any sort of rebuttal).

The problem with that is that common usage is far less precise than the dictionary definition: some of the terms necessary to deal with this in a meaningful way aren't in common usage in English at all.
This is because a broad swath of possible positions in the described D&D world aren't commonly applicable questions in every real-life religion (much less the one a given player happens to belong to, if any).

If you want to get into this in your campaign, there are a lot of questions to consider.
As a far-from-exhaustive list:

What is a god?
This is the question of ignosticism/theism/deism/pandeism/monism.
Do the gods really exist and are they gods?
This is the question of theism/atheism.
Is there one god or many?
This is the question of monotheism/polytheism.
Are the gods virtuous?
This is the question of eutheism/dystheism/maltheism.
Normally, I would say are the gods good - but that gets into the [Good]/Good/good mire for D&D, which is unnecessary (even if it is less messy in 5e)
Should you worship the gods?
This is the question of latrism/alatrism.
Should you worship one god or all of them?
This is the question of monolatry/pantheism/kathenotheism/henotheism.
Does any of this matter to you?
This is the question of apatheism.
How certain of these beliefs are you?
This is the question of gnosticism/agnosticism.

You need not dig into all of these questions: but if you want to play an "atheistic" character (to use the broad, imprecise meaning) in a D&D setting, I find it helps to have an idea of which of these questions (or other questions not listed) your character answers differently than the cultural presumptions of whatever setting you are playing in.

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-24, 03:38 PM

Well, I'm an atheist, and I too know who am I what, I belive, and where I stand. Good.
My recommended edit is more inclusive than what you wrote, since it accounts for both the rejection / disbelief of a god (monotheism) as well as the rejection or disbelief of any god/or gods (polytheism/pantheism/animism). :smallwink: Put another way, what you wrote is a sub set of the more general case that I offer. The more general case can't fit into your narrower case.
Take it or leave it, as you like. That particular attempt at a clear and generally applicable description has been tempered by a rather lengthy discourse with a variety of atheists, agnostics, believers (and others) over the years (to include my less than satisfying encounters noted previously).

For the purposes of D&D 5e, and the polytheistic structural build of the multiverse, my description/definition is superior. Why? Let's break down the text.
an atheist does not believe that there is any god, nor are there any gods
That covers any and all of them; see the PHB for a list (or at least a starting list ..)
versus

An atheist does not believe there is a god.
Which one does this character not believe in? OK, she doesn't believe in Lathander. There's a long list of others, then ...

and FWIW, over the years and through the editions, it's been interesting to watch at the table some of the PC and NPC interactions that begin with, or get contentious, regarding "I don't believe in your god" ... but they apparently believe in a different one. It's all interesting and fun at the game table, though the RL history of that over the years has had some seriously nasty side effects.

Asmotherion

2018-10-24, 04:14 PM

I am not an atheist, (or rather I lack disbelief 😛 ), but personally I would find "lack _____" as a bit offensive, as it implies you failed or do not have something you should.
I'm an agnostic philosophical pantheist (Closely relating to atheist).

I'm also not a snowflake to be ofended by such insignificant matters. Worst case scenario, it's a passive agressive comment which is kinda funny if you think about it.

Best case scenario, the other person didn't even mean any harm.

Back in my generation we could make a joke, or speak our mind freely without "offending" every millenial fresh from the crib. I miss the '90s so much.

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-24, 04:16 PM

Back in my generation we could make a joke, or speak our mind freely without "offending" every millenial fresh from the crib. I miss the '90s so much. The information age has, paradoxically, given birth to a new form of censorship, or at least attempts at censorship, but it isn't all coming from Big Brother.

But it has also given us fun things to do like kick ideas around on this forum, or play Diablo III and Starcraft and Counterstrike and Call of Duty with friends who are thousands of miles away.

We take the bitter with the sweet.

Asmotherion

2018-10-24, 04:49 PM

The information age has, paradoxically, given birth to a new form of censorship, or at least attempts at censorship, but it isn't all coming from Big Brother.

But it has also given us fun things to do like kick ideas around on this forum, or play Diablo III and Starcraft and Counterstrike and Call of Duty with friends who are thousands of miles away.

We take the bitter with the sweet.

I'd still take my Diablo I and Slightly Censored Playboy Magazine together with being able to express myself without activelly engaging in a debate. Still, Skyrim does make a strong point.

KorvinStarmast

2018-10-24, 05:15 PM

I'd still take my Diablo I and Slightly Censored Playboy Magazine together with being able to express myself without activelly engaging in a debate. Still, Skyrim does make a strong point. Ah, those were the days. A beyond naked mage, 3@30. The Tank Mage, aka God Mode. The Warrior using Teleport to take out those annoying succubi on Hell Diff. (Soul burners?) And of course ... Fresh Meat! :smallcool:

Millstone85

2018-10-24, 05:44 PM

Here is one of my favourite bits from the DMG p13...
A person can be devoted to the philosophy of good and offer worship to various good deities, or revere the force of nature and also pay homage to the gods of nature, who might be seen as personal manifestations of an impersonal force.

I would play with this.

Forces and philosophies primarily manifest as places. For the force of nature, that place is the natural world. For a philosophy, that place is an astral dominion, which may be part of one of the great clusters known as the Outer Planes.

Therein also lie reincarnation cycles and afterlives. The force of nature ensures rebirth for all souls, until one is sufficiently attuned to a philosophy to be drawn to its astral dominion, or to the force itself to become a nature spirit.

Sometimes, attunement crosses into full embodiment. A soul becomes the interpret of a force or philosophy's alien mind, and now appears to be the ruler, or one of the rulers, of the corresponding place. This is considered ascension to godhood.

Each player should then be asked what their character believes in, and how that character would live knowing this "what" is also a "who".

A PC violently opposed to the gods would be fated to serve in the astral army of the Godslayer, a Kratos-like figure determined to slay themself last.

Sizzlefoot

2018-10-24, 06:30 PM

As others have stated, an atheist isn't just someone who doesn't worship any gods. Nor is it someone who just "ignores the existence of gods". This implies that there are gods, that it's a scientifically proven fact, and yet some people choose to deny this. Which, ironically enough, sounds similar to certain religious extremists in our world. Before you ask this question, make sure you actually know what an atheist is.

Beckett

2018-10-24, 07:53 PM

I'm an agnostic philosophical pantheist (Closely relating to atheist).

I'm also not a snowflake to be ofended by such insignificant matters. Worst case scenario, it's a passive agressive comment which is kinda funny if you think about it.

Best case scenario, the other person didn't even mean any harm.

Back in my generation we could make a joke, or speak our mind freely without "offending" every millenial fresh from the crib. I miss the '90s so much.

I think you might misunderstand. I wasn't talk about anyone. I was saying that "I lack _____" sounds worse than "I don't ____".

I think you missed the smiley and "a bit" parts.

Thrudd

2018-10-24, 11:30 PM

MaxWilson

2018-10-24, 11:38 PM

Fun fact: in the Roman empire, Christians were persecuted on the charge of atheism (among other things). It was not that it was thought they didn't believe in any god, they clearly did- just not the ones they were supposed to. Agnostic also at one time meant "not a Gnostic" which was a thing Christians were, as well.

An atheist of my acquaintance on Usenet used to have this quote in his .sig:

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

This is one reason I have always had warm feelings towards atheists--I feel that I can relate to them pretty well in some ways. Atheism, in this sense, has always been a part of Christianity's heritage. The Old Testament devotes huge amounts of verbiage to pointing out that people are worshipping stones, trees, rocks, and other things which are not gods at all and have no power at all to save you, to fulfill their promises, or even to speak or think. Look at Elijah and the priests of Baal for a poignant example.

So anyway, I find this Roman-era usage of "atheism" pretty reasonable here, and I will gladly own up to being this kind of atheist and assert that God is an atheist in this sense too.

Mordaedil

2018-10-25, 04:30 AM

This is clearly violating the forum rules right here, we're not longer discussing the applicability in game, but real world positions.

Please cut that out.

Millface

2018-10-25, 09:31 AM

Unoriginal

2018-10-25, 10:06 AM

We're getting confused here because as players and DMs we know that gods exist, but that doesn't mean that PCs do, or even necessarily should. There are many ways to be atheist in the Forgotten Realms.

There are all kinds of stories linking Greek and Roman gods to human interaction on Earth. How many people believe those stories? Almost absolute zero at this point. Unless a divine being shows up directly to your character and shows his/her power, you're being perfectly reasonable if your character decides not to believe in any of it. Even if one does, you live in a world where mortal spell casters can alter the world on a massive scale that, unless you're one of them, you don't understand whatsoever. Any being saying they're a "god" could easily just be one of those mortals putting on a show.

The Webster definition of lowercase god is a superhuman being with control over nature or the fates of mortals. We have regular mortals in the FR who would fit this description, so we'd have to assume that to be a god in the FR you have to be superhuman on that scale, not our scale here on Earth. At that point, how does a being sufficiently prove that they're something greater than the powerful mortals who walk Faerun? Destroy a mountain? Heal from a grievous wound? Stop time? These are all things mortals can do, any being claiming to be a god could easily just be one of those, and not truly divine.

On our scale, a level 20 Druid or Monk would be a god for sure. They live forever, have massive powers etc... But in the FR, they're just powerful mortals. That's important to keep in mind.

Thing is, once again, being a god in D&D isn't directly correlated with power, and the people of the world would generally have some level of understanding of that.

Gods are generally powerful, yes, but it's not a criteria. Again, the Trickster Gods of Omu are a good example: even at their peak they could empower no more than an handful of Clerics and

the nine of them got defeated by one lich (ableit a very powerful one). And after half a century of worship starvation, the most they can do offensively is 3d6 of psychic damages when they're in pure "this ****er must die" mode.

Mortals in Eberron are justified not believeing in gods, because the way their Crystal Sphere is built means you're not going to have the gods intervene directly.

On FR or other worlds like that, though? The divine expresses itself loud and clear. Even a lvl 1 cleric probably get a nod from their god when they use their Divine Intervention. Local spirits can be divine and they're not likely to let you forget. You can have tea with a demigod just by joining their political club. Tiamat tried to show up. Etc.

Sure, it's not Greek or Norse mythology level of god-mortals interactions, but someone who think there is no divine entity at all is more like someone who believes that X rare animal doesn't exist despite the fact it's been scientifically observed by other people during said someone's lifetime.

JackPhoenix

2018-10-25, 10:11 AM

Snip

FR is pretty bad at this, because its "gods" can be killed (and do at least once per edition), often by mortals, some are ascendant mortals, and don't have much of an effect on their supposed portfolios, with the exception of Mystra (who tends to get killed more often than any other god every time there's a change in the rules). They also exist entirely at the whim of a more powerful being.

They are just a category of outsiders, more powerful than most, but hardly exceptional. Being forced to join them was trully a downgrade for Asmodeus.

Millface

2018-10-25, 10:41 AM

Thing is, once again, being a god in D&D isn't directly correlated with power, and the people of the world would generally have some level of understanding of that.

Gods are generally powerful, yes, but it's not a criteria. Again, the Trickster Gods of Omu are a good example: even at their peak they could empower no more than an handful of Clerics and

the nine of them got defeated by one lich (ableit a very powerful one). And after half a century of worship starvation, the most they can do offensively is 3d6 of psychic damages when they're in pure "this ****er must die" mode.

Mortals in Eberron are justified not believeing in gods, because the way their Crystal Sphere is built means you're not going to have the gods intervene directly.

On FR or other worlds like that, though? The divine expresses itself loud and clear. Even a lvl 1 cleric probably get a nod from their god when they use their Divine Intervention. Local spirits can be divine and they're not likely to let you forget. You can have tea with a demigod just by joining their political club. Tiamat tried to show up. Etc.

Sure, it's not Greek or Norse mythology level of god-mortals interactions, but someone who think there is no divine entity at all is more like someone who believes that X rare animal doesn't exist despite the fact it's been scientifically observed by other people during said someone's lifetime.

Has it, though? Been observed, that is. By whom? Bigfoot has been "observed". Hell, almost half the US doesn't believe in man made climate change and that's been scientifically observed.

"Tiamat tried to pass into the Prime! Adventurers stopped it, we saw it with our own eyes!" to which the skeptic replies "Yeah, sure, a 'god of dragons'. Was probably just a really big hydra that some adventurers are blowing out of proportion for fame and glory. I'm not buying it."

The cleric got a nod from his god? Sure. Moses talked to a bush. Right. Religious people talk about feeling God all the time, I'm not saying they don't, but it's not harder to disbelieve it in FR. I'm having tea with a demi-god? What makes him a demi-god, how do I know he's a demi-god? Elminster could take this chump, and he's no god. If he says he's a demi-god why do I just automatically believe him? What show of power did he give me that high level mortals can't replicate? Is the only prerequisite for godhood having worshipers? Many high level mortals have worshipers, they're still just mortals. Not buying it.

It's not power that dictates a god, sure, but you need something to prove to the skeptic that you're not just some regular mortal with one of the many crazy power sets that regular mortals can attain. Power is generally the measuring stick for that. What makes the trickster gods gods? They sound like angry spirits to me, and not gods at all. Angry spirits pretending to be gods aren't gods because you call them gods. They don't dictate my fate any more than any ghost or powerful mortal can. Any power hungry king has more effect on my life than these "gods".

It is, once again, the Player who knows that they're gods assuming that because they know it it must be accepted as truth by a PC actually living in the world. Living in the world, you don't get a book that tells you inarguably what is true or not true about your universe. You have to decide for yourself, and where there's autonomy and free will, there will be people who don't believe.

Millstone85

2018-10-25, 11:38 AM

In the Discworld saga, one of the temples in the city of Ankh-Morpork is the Temple of Small Gods.

It is dedicated to the bajillion gods that are little more than tiny sparks of faith drifting in the magical currents of the Disc. Some never got or seized the chance to grow in power, while others are vestiges. Surprisingly, the temple is an impressive and very frequented building. Lots of people go there for nondescript weddings and funerals.

I like fantasy worlds where such tulpa-like entities are the motor of religions. But I really have a hard time thinking of them as true gods, whether or not they have great power. And I think characters could reach the same conclusion in-universe.

In my opinion, the true Discworld gods are the Auditors of Reality. They are similar to small gods in that they are individually insignificant and there is a bajillion of them. But their shtick is that nothing can exist is they aren't observing it. They are the fundamental presence. And yeah, they are antagonists, because they find that life is a pain in the ass to monitor, and really clutters their celestial bureaucracy. Fortunately, they are too lawful to just look away and let it go *puff*.

Tectorman

2018-10-25, 12:37 PM

The cleric got a nod from his god? Sure. Moses talked to a bush. Right. Religious people talk about feeling God all the time, I'm not saying they don't, but it's not harder to disbelieve it in FR. I'm having tea with a demi-god? What makes him a demi-god, how do I know he's a demi-god? Elminster could take this chump, and he's no god. If he says he's a demi-god why do I just automatically believe him? What show of power did he give me that high level mortals can't replicate? Is the only prerequisite for godhood having worshipers? Many high level mortals have worshipers, they're still just mortals. Not buying it.

It's worse than that. Even if the claimant gives a show of power that can't be replicated, that doesn't mean "being a deity" is the cause. To people who have never seen a lich before, "Lo, and did I become 'killed' or so you fools thought, but verily did I come back for destroy the pretty box, you didn't, and by this deed shall I define myself as a 'god', now bow" is as much proof as anything else that the lich is a god. As far as they know, his feat is unreplicable. We know his unreplicable feat not only IS replicable but also ISN'T proof of divinity, but how would someone in-universe know?

Millface

2018-10-25, 12:45 PM

It's worse than that. Even if the claimant gives a show of power that can't be replicated, that doesn't mean "being a deity" is the cause. To people who have never seen a lich before, "Lo, and did I become 'killed' or so you fools thought, but verily did I come back for destroy the pretty box, you didn't, and by this deed shall I define myself as a 'god', now bow" is as much proof as anything else that the lich is a god. As far as they know, his feat is unreplicable. We know his unreplicable feat not only IS replicable but also ISN'T proof of divinity, but how would someone in-universe know?

They certainly wouldn't, and on the other side of that coin, an actual god could come down and say/act the same way, and that doesn't mean that a character in that universe would necessarily believe what they're saying because, as you've pointed out, mortals can do those things, too, and often lie about divinity.

Point being, just because the source material tell us that gods exist in the FR doesn't mean that PCs must believe in them. Just because the signs of them are all over the place doesn't mean PCs must believe in them. In universe it would be no different at all than making that decision on our Earth today. Characters in the Forgotten Realms don't have the source materials. They have stories, anecdotal evidence, and their own experiences, just like we do.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-25, 12:55 PM

Millface

2018-10-25, 01:07 PM

Something I've been pondering:

In many D&D campaigns, the most powerful mortals can become deities, deities are killed, or depowered. Deities are visible forces on the world. They sometimes do unusual or harmful things to the world, and they sometimes do great good. They rely on the belief and support of mortals. Deities have a hierarchy, and battle among themselves on occasion. Some powerful mortals exceed the power of certain deities. What's the best representation of a "D&D deity" in the real world?

A corporation (or perhaps government).

Unlike real world deities, D&D deities are not unknowable or necessarily mysterious (although they do have secrets).
Unlike real world deities, individuals can aspire to one day control the power of a D&D deity.
D&D deities are expected to directly or indirectly provide services to their believers.
There are many D&D deities, focusing on distinct service portfolios.
Someone can casually support many D&D deities, gaining benefits from each.
Some D&D deities are trying to save the world, some are trying to destroy it, some have shifted priorities over the years, and some are just trying to maintain their power and position in a changing world.

That's one reason I think D&D religion would be very different from real world religion: D&D deities are visible, active forces. A devout D&D character isn't saying something like "I love the theoretical Sun Deity, and have faith that she will shine down her life-giving energy on my crops for years to come!" Instead, it's more like "I love Disney (or Marvel, or Tesla, or Apple)! They make great products that I want to buy and enjoy!"

D&D religions do not require faith.

Do they not? I've read a ton of FR novels and yeah, gods show themselves to heroes of the stories sometimes (not really that often), but to regular people or low level adventurers? No, they absolutely do not. Do you have a source that says that Pelor comes down to everyone and magically grows their crops for them in plain sight of the entire village every year? Like... that's not how it works.

D&D Deities absolutely require faith on behalf of the average adventurer or artisan/citizen. Only extreme outliers in any of the source material have had enough interaction with the gods that they can be certain without a shred of reasonable doubt.

You know without a doubt that they exist in the FR universe, but how does Joe down at the butcher's shop know that? Does he have a DMG?

Tectorman

2018-10-25, 01:29 PM

They certainly wouldn't, and on the other side of that coin, an actual god could come down and say/act the same way, and that doesn't mean that a character in that universe would necessarily believe what they're saying because, as you've pointed out, mortals can do those things, too, and often lie about divinity.

Point being, just because the source material tell us that gods exist in the FR doesn't mean that PCs must believe in them. Just because the signs of them are all over the place doesn't mean PCs must believe in them. In universe it would be no different at all than making that decision on our Earth today. Characters in the Forgotten Realms don't have the source materials. They have stories, anecdotal evidence, and their own experiences, just like we do.

It even remains true when you scale it up from "random people who have never seen a lich" to Elminster. He regularly interacts with beings that he accepts as deities but how does he know?

Is it a spell? Does he have a Detect Deity spell? And how does he know that's what it does? If I invent a Scroll of Detect Lich, sell it to you as a Scroll of Detect Deity, and you point it at a lich and it dings, have you detected a deity?

Is it because Mystra says so? "Sorry, but I just checked in with my goddess, and she says What's-His-Name isn't a deity." "What a coincidence. I just checked in with Waziznam (you pronounced it wrong, by the way) and he says she isn't a deity."

Is "deity" just what Elminster is willing to allow himself to impressed by?

Thrudd

2018-10-25, 01:42 PM

This is primarily a question of two parts:
A. How developed is the setting in question? Do terms like god, divine, atheism, have some established range of meanings- are there defined cultures and religions to provide the context to which characters can relate? If not, then anything is really possible. Just because clerics say they get magic powers by praying to gods doesn't mean that non-clerics know this to be true.

B. Even if the setting is developed, how much of that do the players actually know? are they sufficiently informed/immersed in the setting that they are able create a character that gels with the setting and its established cultures and religions and understanding of gods and divinity? Or are the players basically defining this element of the setting through their characters- ie, if they say their character is atheist because they've never seen proof of gods, and the DM doesn't refute this possibility, then the setting is now one in which there must be some number of people that haven't seen clear proof of the gods.

If the DM doesn't take the time to describe the setting in a way that helps the players put themselves in the mind of a person living there, then the players will defacto be helping to define the fictional people's views on the gods and religion in that setting, possibly colored by their own real-world beliefs and definitions of god, atheism, etc.

If you're a player, why would your character define god according to your real world thoughts about that word, rather than how it is used in the fictional world? Why would your character think there is a difference between a "real god" and an immortal (as far as you know) and impossibly powerful being that lives in its own dimension and grants magic powers to groups of worshippers? Why would they define god differently than everyone else in the world around them? If, according to the world the character lives in, gods were once mortals who gained divine power, and can be killed or delivered and are replaced sometimes, then why doesn't your character use the same word for those beings as everyone else does?

You can definitely say that your character doesn't like or respect the gods, doesn't think they deserve worship, etc, but unless they belong to a religion or practice a philosophy which has redefined the terms in common use in that world (ie, there are "real gods" that have different properties from all those other "so called gods" that clerics pray to), it would be strange for them to deny the term "god" to beings the setting has designated as such.

Whether or not the character would be able to rationally doubt the very existence of gods is another matter, but in D&D it is impossible to doubt that magic exists, and it is clear to all adventurers, and probably everyone else, that there is a group of people with real magic powers who claim their powers come from gods. At best, a skeptic might consider clerics to be sorcerers or wizards who are making up religious stories about how their magic powers work. They're just very insular and secretive groups who don't share their spells with people that aren't in their religion.

Millface

2018-10-25, 02:06 PM

Whether or not the character would be able to rationally doubt the very existence of gods is another matter, but in D&D it is impossible to doubt that magic exists, and it is clear to all adventurers, and probably everyone else, that there is a group of people with real magic powers who claim their powers come from gods. At best, a skeptic might consider clerics to be sorcerers or wizards who are making up religious stories about how their magic powers work. They're just very insular and secretive groups who don't share their spells with people that aren't in their religion.

Yes, agreed here. You either believe in gods and that clerics do get their powers from immortal beings that control our fates and control nature, or you see that your town Wizard has magic and can do minor miracles and he has no religion to speak of, so you assume that Clerics are just eccentric and attribute their magic to some higher power for the same reason a person today would attribute surviving a car accident to either 1. God's grace or 2. Their own good reflexes.

Again and again, where there is free will and autonomy, and a shred of viable reasonable doubt, there will be skeptics who don't believe in the mainstream ideas. At one point almost the entire human earth was religious in one way or another, even though examples of real, physical proof of a deity are few and far between and told in stories from long ago, and I imagine almost everyone in the FR acknowledges gods as being real, but certainly not everyone would, certainly some people would think that they have a better explanation, that everyone else is being hoodwinked.

There will always be people with tinfoil hats.

Naanomi

2018-10-25, 02:07 PM

You can definitely say that your character doesn't like or respect the gods, doesn't think they deserve worship, etc, but unless they belong to a religion or practice a philosophy which has redefined the terms in common use in that world (ie, there are "real gods" that have different properties from all those other "so called gods" that clerics pray to), it would be strange for them to deny the term "god" to beings the setting has designated as such.
Forgotten Realms even had an example of this: after the Time of Troubles cults worship AO as the 'only true God' (they called themselves 'ministers' not clerics because they didn't get spells) appeared. Fate conspired to shut their group down, implied to be the action of AO to avoid direct worship

Tiadoppler

2018-10-25, 02:24 PM

Do they not? I've read a ton of FR novels and yeah, gods show themselves to heroes of the stories sometimes (not really that often), but to regular people or low level adventurers? No, they absolutely do not. Do you have a source that says that Pelor comes down to everyone and magically grows their crops for them in plain sight of the entire village every year? Like... that's not how it works.

D&D Deities absolutely require faith on behalf of the average adventurer or artisan/citizen. Only extreme outliers in any of the source material have had enough interaction with the gods that they can be certain without a shred of reasonable doubt.

You know without a doubt that they exist in the FR universe, but how does Joe down at the butcher's shop know that? Does he have a DMG?

I never intended to suggest that Pelor comes down and does things in full view of every villager, but rather that the actions of D&D deities are both detectable and tend to be famous, widely shared bits of news or gossip. Even if some deity-caused event only occurs every few months, and takes many more months for the news of it to be spread across the world, it'd still provide some evidence of these powerful beings existence. The stories of powerful Wizards, Liches and Dragons would only make the stories of Deities more believable. If there are immortal beings with immense Arcane power, why not immortal beings with immense Divine power.

Perhaps I should have said:

"D&D religions do not necessarily require faith in the un-observable."

The point I was trying to make was that "religion as a service provider" is a pretty common D&D campaign trope. Whether it's clerics or paladins, the world is observably reacting to the power of these entities-commonly-known-as-deities. Joe the butcher has heard how his neighbor's kid got gored by a bull, and the cleric came out to see him. The cleric said a few words and golden light spread out from his holy book, sealing the boys wounds.

Joe has no first-hand evidence, but he could go ask his neighbor what happened. Joe isn't certain about the nature of D&D divinity, but he can still recognize the benefits of paying lip service to the very, very powerful entities that inhabit his world. It's pragmatism, even if Joe has doubts that this so-called-deity is actually capital-D Divine.

That's why I like the idea of a character who recognizes all of these "D&D deities" as powerful beings who exist, but says "well yeah, they exist, but they don't meet my standards for gods."

Is "deity" just what Elminster is willing to allow himself to impressed by?

I vote yes. This is my new definition of "deity".

Millface

2018-10-25, 02:40 PM

Perhaps I should have said:

"D&D religions do not necessarily require faith in the un-observable."

The point I was trying to make was that "religion as a service provider" is a pretty common D&D campaign trope. Whether it's clerics or paladins, the world is observably reacting to the power of these entities-commonly-known-as-deities. Joe the butcher has heard how his neighbor's kid got gored by a bull, and the cleric came out to see him. The cleric said a few words and golden light spread out from his holy book, sealing the boys wounds.

Joe has no first-hand evidence, but he could go ask his neighbor what happened. Joe isn't certain about the nature of D&D divinity, but he can still recognize the benefits of paying lip service to the very, very powerful entities that inhabit his world. It's pragmatism, even if Joe has doubts that this so-called-deity is actually capital-D Divine.

That's why I like the idea of a character who recognizes all of these "D&D deities" as powerful beings who exist, but says "well yeah, they exist, but they don't meet my standards for gods."

That's a qualifier I can much more easily get behind, but I still do think that for many people it does require faith in the unobservable. You see crops grow and call it the blessing of Pelor, Joe sees crops grow and calls it proper irrigation and timing. Unless Joe doesn't give lip service to Pelor and year after year after year his harvest is less than his neighbor who he knows uses poor technique but prays daily, there's no real evidence for Joe, other than being told that prayer gives blessings, that Pelor is real.

The only way for Joe to be sure is to try to pray and check the results, or for Pelor to visit him personally, which, again, doesn't happen for regular folk. I think that most people sometime in their life flirt with religion no matter how they're raised, certainly. We're curious, we test the waters. If I pray to God for the first time and the next day I lose my wallet or get mugged or into a car accident? I mean, these things happen. Even in D&D the gods aren't monitoring every single follower to make sure bad things don't happen. This correlation between lip service and better outcomes is, I think, going to be less observable in the community than you're assuming for our strange Atheist named Joe.

Just like today. There are stories everywhere of people hearing God's voice, people having near-death experiences and seeing heaven or hell, miracles and cancers that disappear. The stories are everywhere in the world today, our world. That doesn't mean I have to believe it's all God's doing. Historically speaking, gods have always filled the gaps of human knowledge. Once we know the scientific reason for something (i.e. the Sun not being pulled by Apollo) those gods fall by the wayside. The same can be said for the Forgotten Realms.

It's well and good that most people think that good crops come from worshiping Pelor, but there will always be some who disagree. Pelor is good, I doubt he's smiting crops of folk who don't worship him. If their technique is good, their harvest will also be good. Even D&D gods aren't showing themselves to every single mortal as definitive proof that they're the cause of events. Because of that, there will always necessarily be faith involved.

Thrudd

2018-10-25, 02:50 PM

That's why I like the idea of a character who recognizes all of these "D&D deities" as powerful beings who exist, but says "well yeah, they exist, but they don't meet my standards for gods."

I think you need to ask, on what basis would this character have a different standard for gods than does everyone else in their world? You, in the real world, might have a different idea of what is "divine", but why does your character? Are they a member of a minority sect that has different religious beliefs or a heterodox philosophy?(in FR, are they maybe a follower of Ao)? Even if the character doesn't think the clerics' gods are all that great, what makes him/her think there is anything greater that they would decide they needed to rename the beings that others call gods? Why wouldn't the greater thing be called a new name, instead of reassigning the name for those other beings the clerics worship?

It seems like it is carrying our world's religious ideas and definitions over into the fictional world, instead of defining/describing the character's ideas in the context of the fictional world.

The word "gods" in the D&D world means those beings that give clerics spells. There is no reason to think they have another definition for "god" that might allow some other type of being to be more god-like than the normal gods. That's like saying a duck shouldn't be called a duck because there might be some other, purer, more duck-like creature that better fits the meaning of "duck". Ducks are called ducks because people decided that was the word for them. When they saw a swan, they gave it a different name because it was a different thing.

hamishspence

2018-10-25, 02:51 PM

Is "deity" just what Elminster is willing to allow himself to impressed by?

I vote yes. This is my new definition of "deity".

Elminster snarks at Ao to his face (in the Shadows of the Avatar trilogy, book 2: Cloak of Shadows - before Ao sends him on a mission). No amount of "impressedness" will entirely silence Elminster's snark.

Afterwards:

"Foosh!" he said in shocked tones. "A "be a good boy" lecture and half my wine gone! I don't think I can afford to entertain Overgods!"

raygun goth

2018-10-25, 02:58 PM

Mortals in Eberron are justified not believeing in gods, because the way their Crystal Sphere is built means you're not going to have the gods intervene directly.

There are even non-deity related religions in Eberron that grant spells. It's also worth considering that the supplements themselves are nonspecific as to whether or not their gods exist, and several Eberron religions are directly contradictory and mutually exclusive. I also doubt that Eberron is even in a crystal sphere, but that's more for Spelljammer's sake than Eberron's.

As for FR and its gods, "gods" and mortal beliefs are that setting's theme, in as much as Dark Sun is "sword and planet" and Eberron is "magic is part of the actual world" and Greyhawk is "dull and boring." Depending on how close to 1358, I think is the year, people wouldn't have a choice but to acknowledge that gods exist, considering that's the year all of them decided to duke it out on the mortal plane. They're also always personally intervening despite the supposed rule that they can't in pretty much every mortal affair. "Because gods" is the answer the setting gives to everything from "why is 1700s Spain right next to 200s AD Scotland?" to "why can't the Thayans even decide what they're about?" to "what's even the point of halflings?"

If I wanted my players to have their PCs worship or even acknowledge gods, I'd have them show up. Sure, commoners might never see one, but PCs ought to barely be able to turn around without gods asking them for junk. That's how the Odyssey worked. The Eddas are like this. Pretty much all the source material involves gods piddling around the mortal realms, even in stuff as recent as weird fantasy (which is the primary source material for D&D) has gods paying attention to mortals (note: in weird fantasy, this is usually Not Good).

So yeah, have Thor show up, ask the PCs to check out his pecs.

Tiadoppler

2018-10-25, 03:19 PM

I think you need to ask, on what basis would this character have a different standard for gods than does everyone else in their world? You, in the real world, might have a different idea of what is "divine", but why does your character? Are they a member of a minority sect that has different religious beliefs or a heterodox philosophy?(in FR, are they maybe a follower of Ao)? Even if the character doesn't think the clerics' gods are all that great, what makes him/her think there is anything greater that they would decide they needed to rename the beings that others call gods? Why wouldn't the greater thing be called a new name, instead of reassigning the name for those other beings the clerics worship?

It seems like it is carrying our world's religious ideas and definitions over into the fictional world, instead of defining/describing the character's ideas in the context of the fictional world.

The word "gods" in the D&D world means those beings that give clerics spells. There is no reason to think they have another definition for "god" that might allow some other type of being to be more god-like than the normal gods. That's like saying a duck shouldn't be called a duck because there might be some other, purer, more duck-like creature that better fits the meaning of "duck". Ducks are called ducks because people decided that was the word for them. When they saw a swan, they gave it a different name because it was a different thing.

Why wouldn't a D&D universe have philosophers or fiction authors who question the nature of their reality? Even in D&D books there are arguments over certain characters' divinity or 'godhood'. It's okay for characters to be imaginative. You seem to be under the impression I'm bringing Earth religions into D&D (when even Earth religions have no set definition of deity!). Many people in the real world have different definitions of things, or different perspectives on faith and religion. Why would D&D characters be less complex (the answer, of course, is that few DMs and players bother to flesh out their characters' belief systems, but I digress)?

Yes, I'll acknowledge that a D&D society that had a belief system around different type of beings (than D&D deities) would think of different words to describe them (other than the Common word for Deity or God or Cleric Sponsor or Worship-Eater or whatever).

Unoriginal

2018-10-25, 03:29 PM

There are even non-deity related religions in Eberron that grant spells.

Well, it's the case of most other settings, too. Philosophies or concepts can also grant you spell.

I also doubt that Eberron is even in a crystal sphere, but that's more for Spelljammer's sake than Eberron's.

It was confirmed it was. Though Eberron's is singularly odd.

Thrudd

2018-10-25, 03:46 PM

Why wouldn't a D&D universe have philosophers or fiction authors who question the nature of their reality? Even in D&D books there are arguments over certain characters' divinity or 'godhood'. It's okay for characters to be imaginative. You seem to be under the impression I'm bringing Earth religions into D&D (when even Earth religions have no set definition of deity!). Many people in the real world have different definitions of things, or different perspectives on faith and religion. Why would D&D characters be less complex (the answer, of course, is that few DMs and players bother to flesh out their characters' belief systems, but I digress)?

Yes, I'll acknowledge that a D&D society that had a belief system around different type of beings (than D&D deities) would think of different words to describe them (other than the Common word for Deity or God or Cleric Sponsor or Worship-Eater or whatever).
It could have philosophers with different ideas, but those ideas would be formed around the language and culture they exist in. For instance, Empedocles and other philosophers didn't say the gods aren't really gods because they aren't the ultimate powers- they said something like "even the gods are created and destroyed and subject to greater universal forces".

So the character in a world where gods are like this might say "I think there is something greater than the gods" or "there must be a being that is like a god to the gods" or "the gods aren't really in control of everything that happens" or "the gods are lying about who and what they are" - but it would be strange to say "I don't think the gods are really gods." They're really something, and the word people in that world gave to that something is "gods".

If a character has a different definition of something from most of the rest of the culture they are living within, that's a thing I'd think the player would need to explicitly explain- possibly requiring the permission of the DM to establish the existence of a school of philosophy or new religion in the setting that they belong to, or establishing that they are from a different culture that has different views and definitions (again with DM's permission to create that culture in tbeir setting).

Naanomi

2018-10-25, 03:53 PM

Well, it's the case of most other settings, too. Philosophies or concepts can also grant you spell.
I would say... some but not most. I can't think of any 'philosophies' granting spells in Mystara, Dragonlance… originally it was a Planescape concept I think

It was confirmed it was. Though Eberron's is singularly odd.
In 5e it was defined to be so, yes... though in 3e it was explicitly an example of an 'alternative cosmology' beyond the Deep Shadow. Having weird microcosm Prime-Worlds with strange rules isn't new though, Athas most obviously but Mystara also and others.

]So the character in a world where gods are like this might say "I think there is something greater than the gods" or "there must be a being that is like a god to the gods" or "the gods aren't really in control of everything that happens" or "the gods are lying about who and what they are" - but it would be strange to say "I don't think the gods are really gods." They're really something, and the word people in that world gave to that something is "gods".
Though the linguistics around "We don't call them Gods because people on Prime worlds call all kinds of things 'Gods'... powerful wizards or nature spirits or even just statues and mountains... so instead we use the more technical term "Powers"; only provincial Primes still use the term 'Gods' seriously" is part of DnD history

Tiadoppler

2018-10-25, 03:56 PM

It could have philosophers with different ideas, but those ideas would be formed around the language and culture they exist in. For instance, Empedocles and other philosophers didn't say the gods aren't really gods because they aren't the ultimate powers- they said something like "even the gods are created and destroyed and subject to greater universal forces".

So the character in a world where gods are like this might say "I think there is something greater than the gods" or "there must be a being that is like a god to the gods" or "the gods aren't really in control of everything that happens" or "the gods are lying about who and what they are" - but it would be strange to say "I don't think the gods are really gods." They're really something, and the word people in that world gave to that something is "gods".

If a character has a different definition of something from most of the rest of the culture they are living within, that's a thing I'd think the player would need to explicitly explain- possibly requiring the permission of the DM to establish the existence of a school of philosophy or new religion in the setting that they belong to, or establishing that they are from a different culture that has different views and definitions (again with DM's permission to create that culture in tbeir setting).

Fair enough. The limitations of the English language have foiled me once again. Yes, in-universe, the characters would be using different terminology for the concept of "higher deities" or "metagods" or "+1 Deity of Not-answering-prayers". My perspective is that of a DM who is creating these different cultures for my campaign worlds, not that of a player trying to add a custom culture to an existing campaign setting. I could definitely see it being disruptive if a player demanded their own personalized religious organization be added to the game.

Millstone85

2018-10-25, 03:59 PM

I also doubt that Eberron is even in a crystal sphere, but that's more for Spelljammer's sake than Eberron's.
It was confirmed it was. Though Eberron's is singularly odd.Yeah, according to this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JHyJj8C21c&t=24m24s), the progenitor wyrms gave the crystal sphere its own orbiting demiplanes and warded the whole from standard planar influences. And now, that shield is breaking down.

But this should at most be a sidebar about how to include Eberron in a Planescape or Spelljammer campaign.

No clue what it currently looks like in the online pdf. I will buy the book when it is printed.

Edit: Eh, funny, Crawford talks about Ao and other "truer gods" further into the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JHyJj8C21c&t=29m36s).

Tectorman

2018-10-25, 04:18 PM

If you're a player, why would your character define god according to your real world thoughts about that word, rather than how it is used in the fictional world? Why would your character think there is a difference between a "real god" and an immortal (as far as you know) and impossibly powerful being that lives in its own dimension and grants magic powers to groups of worshippers? Why would they define god differently than everyone else in the world around them? If, according to the world the character lives in, gods were once mortals who gained divine power, and can be killed or delivered and are replaced sometimes, then why doesn't your character use the same word for those beings as everyone else does?

You can definitely say that your character doesn't like or respect the gods, doesn't think they deserve worship, etc, but unless they belong to a religion or practice a philosophy which has redefined the terms in common use in that world (ie, there are "real gods" that have different properties from all those other "so called gods" that clerics pray to), it would be strange for them to deny the term "god" to beings the setting has designated as such.

Whether or not the character would be able to rationally doubt the very existence of gods is another matter, but in D&D it is impossible to doubt that magic exists, and it is clear to all adventurers, and probably everyone else, that there is a group of people with real magic powers who claim their powers come from gods. At best, a skeptic might consider clerics to be sorcerers or wizards who are making up religious stories about how their magic powers work. They're just very insular and secretive groups who don't share their spells with people that aren't in their religion.

Good point. That is indeed an aspect of the world itself that exists of its own accord and either needs to be bought into, or not. And it touches on something even more fundamental, I think, than the world-building itself. The idea of whether players are even going to buy into that aspect of the world or not.

You can have a world where part of it, or even the only part the PCs will ever see, is stricken with rampant societally-dictated gender roles. Or where cities are a new thing in civilization, one whose occupants are logistically and sanitarily unprepared to deal with, so enjoy living in a world where one-third of all people die to a single disease like the Plague (except, it's the Plague augmented by magic!)

Remember the Robot Chicken sketch where the wife wants to fantasize about being ravished by Captain Jack Sparrow and the husband proceeds to emphasize all the scurvy and disgusting health issues that pirates of that era would have had to deal with?

For some players, there are certain aspects of a setting that they're just not going to buy into. Even if not buying into that part of the setting means they're walking from the game. And their not buying into those aspects isn't some kind of failing on their part (not directed towards Thrudd, specifically).

However, it's trivially easy to explain, at least in FR's case, how an alternative definition of "deity" would arise. The premise of FR, to my knowledge, is that long ago, we came up with stories of vampires, werewolves, magic, dragons, etc. Except we didn't come up with it at all. Instead, our world was connected to another where those elements of myth actually existed (that world being FR). So our myths and fantastical creatures are their "daily news cycle".

It's therefore plausible for ideas from our world (including the definition of a "true" deity to be completely at the top of the top, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) to be in FR, as well, thanks to that same connection.

Thrudd

2018-10-25, 06:33 PM

Good point. That is indeed an aspect of the world itself that exists of its own accord and either needs to be bought into, or not. And it touches on something even more fundamental, I think, than the world-building itself. The idea of whether players are even going to buy into that aspect of the world or not.

You can have a world where part of it, or even the only part the PCs will ever see, is stricken with rampant societally-dictated gender roles. Or where cities are a new thing in civilization, one whose occupants are logistically and sanitarily unprepared to deal with, so enjoy living in a world where one-third of all people die to a single disease like the Plague (except, it's the Plague augmented by magic!)

Remember the Robot Chicken sketch where the wife wants to fantasize about being ravished by Captain Jack Sparrow and the husband proceeds to emphasize all the scurvy and disgusting health issues that pirates of that era would have had to deal with?

For some players, there are certain aspects of a setting that they're just not going to buy into. Even if not buying into that part of the setting means they're walking from the game. And their not buying into those aspects isn't some kind of failing on their part (not directed towards Thrudd, specifically).

However, it's trivially easy to explain, at least in FR's case, how an alternative definition of "deity" would arise. The premise of FR, to my knowledge, is that long ago, we came up with stories of vampires, werewolves, magic, dragons, etc. Except we didn't come up with it at all. Instead, our world was connected to another where those elements of myth actually existed (that world being FR). So our myths and fantastical creatures are their "daily news cycle".

It's therefore plausible for ideas from our world (including the definition of a "true" deity to be completely at the top of the top, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) to be in FR, as well, thanks to that same connection.
Its fine to make characters that don't buy into prevailing social customs- that buck trends and fight the power- I'd sort of expect them to, in a lot of cases. But they still exist in a particular context and reality that needs to be addressed in the portrayal. It's only a problem if their views require importing real world stuff that contradicts the fictional reality or makes no sense in the fictional world.

Tectorman

2018-10-25, 07:01 PM

Its fine to make characters that don't buy into prevailing social customs- that buck trends and fight the power- I'd sort of expect them to, in a lot of cases. But they still exist in a particular context and reality that needs to be addressed in the portrayal. It's only a problem if their views require importing real world stuff that contradicts the fictional reality or makes no sense in the fictional world.

In broad strokes, I'll agree to that, but there are certain things where, depending on the player, there is no buying in, pushing the player to buy in is going a step too far, and the division between the player's portrayal and the context just never gets addressed, or the context changes to not be an issue, or the player has to walk.

It's one of the reasons why alignment is steadily becoming more peripheral (not peripheral enough, IMO). Morality as something knowable and measurable? For some players, that is a freaking huge ask, even on a provisional basis. Assigning the word "deity" to the likes of merely Erythnul or Pelor? Same thing.

Beckett

2018-10-25, 07:35 PM

I don't think it is really that difficult. The average butcher will know that taking their terminally sick child to the local temple is much more likely to save the child than taking them to the local pleasure palace college or wizard academy. And when all the experts in the various fields tell you that most miracles come from wisdom and faith in the divine and not occult study or dancing jigs, and it is as much a given deity as the mortals faith and spirituality that allows it to work in the mortal realms, it all starts to seem pretty obvious.

Sure, it is possible to not believe, but these rare characters should be about the equivalent as the real world scientific community tends to views the worst examples of Creationists and Flat World advocates who are also Ancient Alien believers.

<Note, this is not a jab at any of those, I'm simply saying how others tend to view them>

Nifft

2018-10-25, 07:47 PM

the local pleasure palace college

Are you talking about Vassar?

Beckett

2018-10-25, 09:03 PM

Are you talking about Vassar?

I was just making a joke about Bard school.

Thrudd

2018-10-26, 01:01 PM

In broad strokes, I'll agree to that, but there are certain things where, depending on the player, there is no buying in, pushing the player to buy in is going a step too far, and the division between the player's portrayal and the context just never gets addressed, or the context changes to not be an issue, or the player has to walk.

It's one of the reasons why alignment is steadily becoming more peripheral (not peripheral enough, IMO). Morality as something knowable and measurable? For some players, that is a freaking huge ask, even on a provisional basis. Assigning the word "deity" to the likes of merely Erythnul or Pelor? Same thing.

If a player has trouble using the words god or deity or divine in a fictional context, I'm sure that's a thing they could explain and work out with the DM. Certainly it is often possible to make a character that doesn't talk about or think about the setting's gods and religions at all. There's usually no need for the character to specify a stance on the matter. It only would be an issue when a player was insisting on being polemic/antagonistic towards the fiction in a way that disrupts immersion - like insisting on their character holding and expressing the player's real world religious beliefs (or lack of them) and bringing it up whenever they see a cleric or a temple or whatever.