Atheists in a generic D&D world...

[Alcino]

My players are going to spend some time in a city where the intellectual arts are at their finest. The noble and burghess social classes are over-represented and most of the magic industry revolves around convenience, such as self-cleaning heated carpets and the such.

In such a liberal place, I want to have two groups of people, all respectable, intelligent and socially recognized with opinions that, while nothing special in modern society, are downright unsettling in a D&D setting.

First of all, I want an atheist movement, whether organized or not. I want to have philosophers who argue that there are no gods and that even divine magic can be explained without resorting to the presence of gods. Obviously, those people are tert'ly wrong, especially in my campaign context of religious war (Heironeus followers vs Hextor followers, two adjacent nations).

Instead of myself enunciating arguments against the D&D pantheon's existence, I want to hear your pure, unbiased opinion on the subject. What would your arguments be?

The other group would be called the Society for Science, in some sick use of the word "science". They're a high-class organized club with regular meetings and discussions and certain political weight. Its most renowned member is a prolific non-magic surgeon who argues that getting healed by divine magic is putting yourself in unknowable debt. While not an atheist, he definitely opposed to direct divine intervention.

Simply put, this group sees magic in general as something very unnatural whose long-term consequences would be similar to what the modern world currently fears about global warming. As a quick example, evocation spells keep bringing extra energy in this world, and spells can create stone or metal that comes from nowhere and stay forever.

One could argue that for every Firewall, there's a Wall of Ice and that every Wall of Stone meets its Disintegration, but the Society believes that until the effects of magic and its supposed balance can be properly studied, the world should ban the use of magic or risk an eventual catastrophe.

Among my player are a druid, a sorceror and a favored soul, so they're bound to have frictions with those two groups -- especially if the sorcerer goes with his plan and rents a mansion to throw a high-class reception.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The atheists can argue that all manifestations of divine power are actually drawing from an internal power pool similar to a sorcerer, just influenced by faith and with different results. All visitations are illusions created by the same power, which is limited not by faith, but by how much power you believe you have.In fact, you should have one who has divine power of some chaotic god with the trickery domain. He uses this as "proof" of there being no gods, since he doesn't believe, but in reality the god is helping him to unbalance the current society without him realizing it.

[Mikeavelli]

Well, you've already got the Athar from Planescape to base a philosophy on as far as a lack of gods goes, they've got nothing to do with the balance of introducing more energy into the world from nowhere, but here's the godless arguement;

"Gods" exist, there's no doubt about that. Clerics recieve spells of healing and such from them in return for faith, miracles happen, and hell, if you're playing in the campaign of a pretty new DM like the last one I had, they take bodily form and interact with people left and right! If you feel like it, you can take a hop, skip, and a jump up to the planes and chill with your chosen god on their home plane.

Ergo, it's safe to say they exist, and faith is a little more about choosing which one to worship instead of whether or not to worship at all.

However, a different point of view says that yes, while they exist, they're not "gods" at all. Those omnipotent beings that grant mere mortals spells are powerful, yes, but they're not gods, they didn't create anything, and those that claim to have done so are [i[lying to you[/i].

As far as evidence is concerned, the fact that you can get spells from faith in a concept as opposed to a specific god seems to imply it's the faith that's important, not the god.

also, gods can die. This may have never happened on your world and be a moot point, but the classic D&D view of gods is that they wither away and die when too many people stop believing in them.

And I'm spent.

[Jack Zander]

Well their biggest example would be clerics without deities but ideals. Clerics simply believe in something so strongly, that their faith in that idea is manifested into magic. They have an inner power that is channeled and strengthened through their faith. They believe they have the power, and so they do. I think, therefore I am.

[graymachine]

I think you problem you are encountering here is thinking that atheists would argue against magic in a D&D world. This is exactly opposite the case. Since there is repeatably verifiable evidence of the existence of magic, no real atheist would deny it. Obviously, it is part of the natural world, whether arcane or divine. In fact, atheism would use it to make an even stronger case against god(s) than simply using natural reason; for example, one would point to clerics being empowered by "concepts" as equally well as by "gods." This obviously shows that the power actually comes from the individual and that person simply needs a focus, however irrational, to channel their abilities.

If you choose to level out your atheists, I would suggest the Ur-Priest PrC. While, as an atheist, I find the alignment requirement of the class as being evil, frankly, offensive, it is a good place to go with empowered, philosophical wise men. I would recommend, though, getting rid of the alignment restriction all together, as I think all alignments are capable of reason.

[Hawriel]

I never saw a wall of fire or ice or stone as some thing that just pops into being. Wizards cannot creat some thing from nothing. Thats the povince of gods if they existed. I would see some one in your scientific rational movment would argue that. To creat a wall of stone it does not pop into being I would naturaly think that it would be constructed from what ever earth was available. If that material was not stone already than the spell would take what ever dirt, mud, clay, sand what have you and reconfigure it into stone. A wall of fire is easer. Thats magic yanking physics by the short hairs. Firewall like any other fire spell creats heat that will do what ever the spell effect calls it to do. The spell manipulates molicules to the point whare the friction causes combustion. Ice works in revers. It would gather together any water or other liquids in one place. Then slow the liquid molicules down creating ice. thats just my take on how magic would work in that sercomstance. Sence your athiest peaple still believe in and use magic even though they dont believe in gods. A cleric would be another form of wizards to them. with a massia complex. I can see thoughs peaple having this kind of conversation. God made it so my wifes operation worked and she is going to totaly recover. Well Im sure the doctors who when to med school for eight ears and have been practicing for 20 years who performed the 8 hour operation might have somthing to do with your wifes recovery.

[Human Paragon 3]

Well their biggest example would be clerics without deities but ideals. Clerics simply believe in something so strongly, that their faith in that idea is manifested into magic. They have an inner power that is channeled and strengthened through their faith. They believe they have the power, and so they do. I think, therefore I am.

Not only that, but an Archivist can cast spells out of a "prayer book," tapping into "divine" power from any deity or ideal without believing in ANYTHING. I think this points to an internal or possibly arcane source for divine power.

One other school of thought could be that the "gods" exist, but they are in actuality very powerful mortals and they've done nothing to earn the adoration or prayers of intelligent, free-thinkers. Really, they just inspire mindlessness (the flock), buck-passing (give yourself up to a higher power, "god" wills it), and bloodshed (my god is better than your god!).

Both of these progressive, "enlightened" views, or any described by the learned posters above, could be the flavor of the week philosophy for your sophisticated atheists.

[Mewtarthio]

First off: Is there actually any downside to magic in your world? I mean besides things like "people exposed to fireball spells tend to develop sever, possibly fatal, burns." I'm talking about any unexplained or unintended downsides, be they as dangerous as Whitelight Shakes or simply as inexlicaple/unintentional as Spelltouched feats (sure, it's beneficial, but if a potential side effect of barkskin is that your skin gets thicker in sunlight, people will get worried). If so, they'd be bringing this up as evidence of how dangerous magic is.

If not, I honestly don't see them getting very far. It's like those people who claim cell phones cause cancer: It might be true, but most people are willing to take the risk. Basically, I've got these reasons:

• Magic is convenient. Cure light wounds is much more helpful than any mundane healing, from bleeding and leeching to bed rest and modern drugs. Nobody wants to give that up.
• Magic is widespread. There is little you can do to avoid magic short of excising yourself from society (at least at mid-to-high levels; your average commoner will do just fine). It would be like going without electricity in the modern world: It can be done, but you will be virtually unable to interact with anyone else in a manner that's considered "normal."
• Magic is powerful. People in power don't like being challenged. These people in power can assassinate you with magic and use magic to cover their trails. They could dominate you to make it look like an accident. They could disinitigrate the body so it just looks like you've gone missing. They could use programmed amnesia (at really high levels) to make you argue for their own side.

That being said, this antimagic group could get some following among people not normally exposed to magic. If you've got a lot of low-level villiages with little magic in the world, they could find support there. If there's a dead magic zone somewhere in the world, they'll have their own city there. If there's a race in the world that cannot use magic (I believe it's called the Karsites?), those guys will join. From a strictly economic perspective, it makes perfect sense: If you can't get it (or don't want it) anyway, you might as well deny it to your competitors. From a strictly psychological perspective, it still makes perfect sense: Man fears what he cannot understand, and it's difficult to understand something you can't use, so they're bound to believe that magic is either dangerous or immoral.

Note that, if possible, you can try to mitigate the above points by including strong technology that closes the power gap. Throwing in downsides to magic makes it even better, since people tend to avoid excess risk: If a certain herbal concoction, along with a day of rest, can help you recover swiftly from wounds, people will take it over a healing spell that could potentially go horribly awry and make you explode.

[Kultrum]

In all technicality aren't the D&D "gods" little more that hyperpowerful outsiders with delusions of grandeur? I've played more that one atheist based on this assumption.

[ZebulonCrispi]

I had a friend who played an Atheist in a high-magic setting once.

It went great until a goddess of chaos heard about him.

[graymachine]

I never saw a wall of fire or ice or stone as some thing that just pops into being. Wizards cannot creat some thing from nothing. Thats the povince of gods if they existed. I would see some one in your scientific rational movment would argue that. To creat a wall of stone it does not pop into being I would naturaly think that it would be constructed from what ever earth was available. If that material was not stone already than the spell would take what ever dirt, mud, clay, sand what have you and reconfigure it into stone. A wall of fire is easer. Thats magic yanking physics by the short hairs. Firewall like any other fire spell creats heat that will do what ever the spell effect calls it to do. The spell manipulates molicules to the point whare the friction causes combustion. Ice works in revers. It would gather together any water or other liquids in one place. Then slow the liquid molicules down creating ice. thats just my take on how magic would work in that sercomstance. Sence your athiest peaple still believe in and use magic even though they dont believe in gods. A cleric would be another form of wizards to them. with a massia complex. I can see thoughs peaple having this kind of conversation. God made it so my wifes operation worked and she is going to totaly recover. Well Im sure the doctors who when to med school for eight ears and have been practicing for 20 years who performed the 8 hour operation might have somthing to do with your wifes recovery.

Apologies if I misinterpreted; cutting through these spelling errors is like venturing into the darkest heart of Africa.

I would point out that the "rational movement" as you put it, still starts from the same vantage point as atheists in the real world start from: The burden of proof isn't on them. A theist asserts that there is a god (pick one, they're a dime a dozen) and the rationalist, to coin your phrase, asks for proof of this god (keep in mind that god doesn't mean, in this context, a certain stat block, or some certain level of magical power; it means the absolute maker of all that is.) The Theist casts some clerical spells and says, "Ha! There's your proof!" The rationalist scoffs and says, "Is that all?" and cast the same spells, being a cleric of Truth (at least as he see it to put people at ease.) Then the rationalist Plane Shifts to Sigil for kicks and watches him try to incorporate his beliefs (which are primitive from the perspective of any Planeswalker) the greater aspects of the D&D cosmos.

The point that these rationalists would rest on is that the burden of proving their believes (assertions about the nature of reality) falls on the theists. No proof means no serious consideration, at least as a sane being. If there were proof these rationalists would be the first to convert.

[Saint George]

In all technicality aren't the D&D "gods" little more that hyperpowerful outsiders with delusions of grandeur? I've played more that one atheist based on this assumption.

This would be the idea I would go with. How do you have any proof that what you are talking to is a god? It could just be some big ol' thing from beyond the stars with way more magic than you.

There was a great article in Dragon about this at some point... they even had a prestige class that devoted itself to fighting these "outsiders". It was sort of like a monk that could banish with a touch. I think the capstone power was a punch that could actually cut a cleric off from their god. Man, I need to find that magazine...

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I think lawful and good would be the most upset. Lawful because he is disturbing the way things are and good because he is removing moral constraints from peoples minds. I could see a chaotic deity backing them for the sheer hell if it, and protecting them from the other gods.

[graymachine]

First off: Is there actually any downside to magic in your world? I mean besides things like "people exposed to fireball spells tend to develop sever, possibly fatal, burns." I'm talking about any unexplained or unintended downsides, be they as dangerous as Whitelight Shakes or simply as inexlicaple/unintentional as Spelltouched feats (sure, it's beneficial, but if a potential side effect of barkskin is that your skin gets thicker in sunlight, people will get worried). If so, they'd be bringing this up as evidence of how dangerous magic is.

If not, I honestly don't see them getting very far. It's like those people who claim cell phones cause cancer: It might be true, but most people are willing to take the risk. Basically, I've got these reasons:

• Magic is convenient. Cure light wounds is much more helpful than any mundane healing, from bleeding and leeching to bed rest and modern drugs. Nobody wants to give that up.
• Magic is widespread. There is little you can do to avoid magic short of excising yourself from society (at least at mid-to-high levels; your average commoner will do just fine). It would be like going without electricity in the modern world: It can be done, but you will be virtually unable to interact with anyone else in a manner that's considered "normal."
• Magic is powerful. People in power don't like being challenged. These people in power can assassinate you with magic and use magic to cover their trails. They could dominate you to make it look like an accident. They could disinitigrate the body so it just looks like you've gone missing. They could use programmed amnesia (at really high levels) to make you argue for their own side.

That being said, this antimagic group could get some following among people not normally exposed to magic. If you've got a lot of low-level villiages with little magic in the world, they could find support there. If there's a dead magic zone somewhere in the world, they'll have their own city there. If there's a race in the world that cannot use magic (I believe it's called the Karsites?), those guys will join. From a strictly economic perspective, it makes perfect sense: If you can't get it (or don't want it) anyway, you might as well deny it to your competitors. From a strictly psychological perspective, it still makes perfect sense: Man fears what he cannot understand, and it's difficult to understand something you can't use, so they're bound to believe that magic is either dangerous or immoral.

Note that, if possible, you can try to mitigate the above points by including strong technology that closes the power gap. Throwing in downsides to magic makes it even better, since people tend to avoid excess risk: If a certain herbal concoction, along with a day of rest, can help you recover swiftly from wounds, people will take it over a healing spell that could potentially go horribly awry and make you explode.

I'm confounded: where does this idea that atheists would deny the existence of magic, if it were provable, come from?

[graymachine]

I think lawful and good would be the most upset. Lawful because he is disturbing the way things are and good because he is removing moral constraints from peoples minds. I could see a chaotic deity backing them for the sheer hell if it, and protecting them from the other gods.

Well, I don't think any deity of D&D would back this group, as they are ultimately gunning for them. Furthermore, morality has nothing at all to do with believing in gods. In fact, believing in such things breeds the grounds in which the most horribly immoral things are done.

[Shadowdweller]

As perhaps hinted at previously, I think you might be better off with a society that rejects deities rather than one that does not believe in the existence of deities. Arugments or lines of thought might run something along the lines of "Deities are nothing but metaphysical parasites." (Steal power from mortals in the form of prayers); or "We have no need of any save ourselves to make our society function."; or even "We bow before nothing."

Well, I suppose it's easily possible to have large populations that are simply delusional (as is the case where people don't believe in something that is a fact of life) but...I guess I just personally find the above more compelling.

[graymachine]

As perhaps hinted at previously, I think you might be better off with a society that rejects deities rather than one that does not believe in the existence of deities. Arugments or lines of thought might run something along the lines of "Deities are nothing but metaphysical parasites." (Steal power from mortals in the form of prayers); or "We have no need of any save ourselves to make our society function."; or even "We bow before nothing."

Well, I suppose it's easily possible to have large populations that are simply delusional (as is the case where people don't believe in something that is a fact of life) but...I guess I just personally find the above more compelling.

Shadow's suggestion here seems like the best one; given that the "deities" can be proven to exist (regardless of them not being truly divine), such a society would probably view them as parasites. The other road, which I disagree with as well, that everyone's simply delusional seems to be a bit beyond the pale. A society that revers reason would seem to be least likely to be delusional en masse.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Hey, I have nothing but hatred for most religions, I'm just trying to say how the gods themselves would react to this.

[graymachine]

Hey, I have nothing but hatred for most religions, I'm just trying to say how the gods themselves would react to this.

As far as I understand the metaphysics of D&D, the deities don't determine the alignments or, for the most part, enforce them directly. Therefore, the deities' reactions are pretty much irrelevant, given their famous policy of non-interference.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

No, but churches do, and the good churches have more influence than evil ones in D&D, so good gods would be hurt more than evil ones by the atheists interference.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

Well...given the history and lore of DnD...anyone who is an athiest is kinda thick...as Gods are very prolific and tied to a great many things. People have even 'proven' that the Gods truely exist by visiting them in their realms, their avatars visit occasionally...

An 'athiest' as we know it, one who denies the existance of any 'god' is pretty dumb since they can and do show up...they are in fact there...it does not require faith, it is knowledge.

Now...Dragon Magazine had an article at one point for Athar Dragon Magazine #287, p.45-6...they were clerics who abandoned their power and have forsaken their gods...they say the gods are false and that there is a greater power than even the gods. I think...at 3nd level of the prestige class, they gain back their spellcasting ability and start to gain various immunities and bonuses against the divine magic of other spellcasters. I think they even get domains again. They are able ot tap into the cosmic power that feeds the gods and as such say that if mortals can tap the sam power, that the 'gods' are just mortals who have reached levels of power normal mortals have yet to achieve...sure they are from other planes of existance...but that doesn't mean that they are not just like men...It fits into the whole 'overgod' theory hinted at in many parts of DnD lore.

Note...when it comes to the gods, there have always been two wild cards what seem to know more than they let on...one is a good diety that is fairly obscure...the other is Asmodeus. Legend says that Asmodeus as we know him is mearly an avatar...that the true form of Asmodeus is that of a giant dragon/serpent that fell shortly after creating the cosmos...cast down by the other who helped him create all and maybe some of the first gods...It is said that when he fell, the crater became the nine levels of Hell, that the rift below Narsuss(sp?) actually holds his true body...hints of his massive divinity come from his blood...when spilled, the drops become perfect pit fiends. In the same book where the roumor is mentioned...it also said that if anyone ever voiced such an opinion...they usually met a very gruesome demise very soon afterwards.

[Nowhere Girl]

One other school of thought could be that the "gods" exist, but they are in actuality very powerful mortals and they've done nothing to earn the adoration or prayers of intelligent, free-thinkers. Really, they just inspire mindlessness (the flock), buck-passing (give yourself up to a higher power, "god" wills it), and bloodshed (my god is better than your god!).

Interestingly enough, a similar line of thinking to this very one informs one of my characters' behavior (specifically Naenre, my faithless drow), although she's not really consciously aware of it as such yet.

To respond to the original post, though, and speaking as an atheist myself, I'll have to partly piggyback on what graymachine said: no truly rational atheist is going to deny the existence of magic in the face of overwhelming evidence of its existence. What you need to do is to decide where, in your world, evidence to support what people believe is sorely lacking. That will be where atheists begin asking questions.

If the gods regularly pop in for lunch or to smite the odd mortal, no sane person is going to doubt they exist. Thinkers might still ask questions about what the true nature of those "gods" really is (assuming such questioning won't immediately lead to being struck dead, in which case everyone will very quickly and fearfully shut up ... or else die and then shut up), but they're not going to stand there and insist that nothing just showed up and wiped out an army when everyone was right there watching it happen.

By contrast, if no one's ever actually seen one of these alleged gods, well ... that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Another thing to consider is the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism. I'm a "weak" atheist (also often called agnostic), which basically means I don't believe simply due to a lack of evidence, the same way I don't believe vampires or dragons exist. If I met a dragon tomorrow, naturally I'd revise my opinion of dragons. If I'd never seen a car or any reasonable evidence for the existence of cars before, I might doubt cars exist, but as it happens, I see them every day. If modern science hadn't already proven they exist, I'd doubt the existence of atoms if someone brought them up. This is logical and is the same reason I don't believe there's really a living version of Strawberry Shortcake.

"Strong" atheism is the type of atheism that actively seeks to prove there isn't a god (or gods, as polytheism deserves at least a passing mention). I think it's a highly irrational way of thinking and makes even less logical sense, on the whole, than believing in something (such as a god or gods) without sufficient evidence.

There's also a good Wikipedia entry on the subject.

Finally, I apologize to anyone I might have offended. My intent was only to give the OP somewhat useful (I hope) feedback.

[graymachine]

Well...given the history and lore of DnD...anyone who is an athiest is kinda thick...as Gods are very prolific and tied to a great many things. People have even 'proven' that the Gods truely exist by visiting them in their realms, their avatars visit occasionally...

An 'athiest' as we know it, one who denies the existance of any 'god' is pretty dumb since they can and do show up...they are in fact there...it does not require faith, it is knowledge.

Umm. It seems you didn't understand what I was talking about. You seem to be promoting the idea that something can call itself a god, display certain powers which many other things in D&D can do, and that makes it a god. If this is an acceptable argument to you then I have some swamp land I want to sell you. I don't doubt, from the D&D atheist's perspective, that plenty of people have encountered these beings that call themselves 'gods' that are no means divine. By virtue of the proven existence of magic, something this person would consider a natural force, then it seems reasonable that such beings (impostors to the throne, as it were) would exist. Furthermore, the D&D deities could never prove their divinity since they would never be able to break the mechanics, as it were. I'd ramble some more, but sleep is calling.

[Nowhere Girl]

Umm. It seems you didn't understand what I was talking about. You seem to be promoting the idea that something can call itself a god, display certain powers which many other things in D&D can do, and that makes it a god. If this is an acceptable argument to you then I have some swamp land I want to sell you. I don't doubt, from the D&D atheist's perspective, that plenty of people have encountered these beings that call themselves 'gods' that are no means divine. By virtue of the proven existence of magic, something this person would consider a natural force, then it seems reasonable that such beings (impostors to the throne, as it were) would exist. Furthermore, the D&D deities could never prove their divinity since they would never be able to break the mechanics, as it were. I'd ramble some more, but sleep is calling.

Just to piggyback one more time, interestingly enough, in the anime One Piece, there's a character named Enel who insists he's a god and has seemingly godlike powers. He could very easily convince anyone in our modern world that he's a god with the power he wields.

He's not. He's just a guy who was empowered by something called a Devil's Fruit and has a head full of faulty wiring. That's it.

[Lord Iames Osari]

In a "generic" D&D world, where the gods are assumed to physically show up every so often, and where there are likely to be elven eyewitnesses of the last manifestation, together with the ability of high-level magic to open a gate to a deity's home plane, I don't think atheism as it exists in our world is possible, not on any large scale or timeframe.

Once an atheistic movement reaches a certain size or has existed long enough, someone with enough power to travel the planes will try to prove that gods don't exist by traveling to the "supposed home" of a god, only to find that hey, there's the god who's existence they've been denying - assuming, of course, that the gods haven't already decided to put the threat to rest and manifested in front of the atheists already.

A society might conceivably refuse to worship the gods, but denying that they exist is just plain stupid, assuming a "generic D&D world", and to be a true atheist, you have to deny that gods exist.

[herrhauptmann]

Alcino, I'd recommend doing some research on the late 18th and early 19th century philosophers. Especially American Colonials, and the French, who were the first to have little day parties discussing things of the philosophe viewpoint.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Robespierre and others are good people of the age to examine.

[Accersitus]

It is important to define what a god is.

1.In many settings the deities are manifestations that are created by
sentient beings. These deities rely on faith to give them power, and
without sentient beings believing in them they fade away into oblivion.
An example of this is the chaos gods in the warhammer world that are
manifestations of the negative side of the feelings of the sentient beings.
Although they are powerful entities, this kind of deity is limited by believers
and the power of it's aspect in the world. Divine spell casters of a deity like
this would most likely use their own power when casting spells since
they are part of what made the deity(depends on how sentient/independent
you make this kind of deity. If it's a truly sentient being, it could focus the
power it gets from it's followers and give it to the casters, or the deity
could just be a collection of the knowledge and power of the believers,
and all the divine casters draw their power from their collection)

2.The other kind of deity is the omnipotent all powerful god (or group of gods
who embody the different aspects of creation and have total control of
their aspect) who created the world/universe. This deity would not need
believers to maintain it's power, but it would most likely require the
deity to grant powers to it's worshipers. These clerics could also use
their own power when casting spells, but it could be both ways.

3.Other than this you have the option that divine casters are just casters
who draw their power from a different source(druids/rangers from nature,
arcane casters from some kind of background radiation(magic) that exist in
the world, and cleric/paladin from some other kind of energy.

In my opinion the debate would go around theories similar to the
3 scenarios, where the atheists debate either the third point, or the first
point where the deities are just a manifestation of our collective minds,
and not omnipotent beings.
Since the divine spells can come from just the power of the individual
in all 3 cases, it's hard to prove/disprove the existence of deities.
Spells that communicate with deities can be easily explained in the
2nd part, can be explained in the first part if you for example say
that the deity knows all that the believers it was made from knows
or more, and need quite some explaining in the third part.
In my opinion the first option is the best since it's very flexible.

[AslanCross]

Now...Dragon Magazine had an article at one point for Athar Dragon Magazine #287, p.45-6...they were clerics who abandoned their power and have forsaken their gods...they say the gods are false and that there is a greater power than even the gods. I think...at 3nd level of the prestige class, they gain back their spellcasting ability and start to gain various immunities and bonuses against the divine magic of other spellcasters. I think they even get domains again. They are able ot tap into the cosmic power that feeds the gods and as such say that if mortals can tap the sam power, that the 'gods' are just mortals who have reached levels of power normal mortals have yet to achieve...sure they are from other planes of existance...but that doesn't mean that they are not just like men...It fits into the whole 'overgod' theory hinted at in many parts of DnD lore.

The Athar are a movement of former clerics who only reject the known gods as pretenders. They are not truly atheist, as they believe that there is a/an omnipotent deity/set of deities/force (whom they call the Great Unknown) that is responsible for the actual creation of all existence. They believe that the deities who are currently alive (as well as those who have died) got their divinity from something called the Crystal Cask, which predated the gods as they are known.

There is, however, what seems to be a truly atheist subsect of Athar, who believe that even the Great Unknown is a cosmic scam. They wish to embrace "the true knowledge of reality," which according to them is that there really is no god at all. However, the Planar Handbook says that nobody truly knows what these rebel Athar believe in.

BTW: The Athar are based on the Astral plane. They have observatories from which they view the corpses of the dead gods there. Apparently they get a kick out of it.

[graymachine]

In a "generic" D&D world, where the gods are assumed to physically show up every so often, and where there are likely to be elven eyewitnesses of the last manifestation, together with the ability of high-level magic to open a gate to a deity's home plane, I don't think atheism as it exists in our world is possible, not on any large scale or timeframe.

Once an atheistic movement reaches a certain size or has existed long enough, someone with enough power to travel the planes will try to prove that gods don't exist by traveling to the "supposed home" of a god, only to find that hey, there's the god who's existence they've been denying - assuming, of course, that the gods haven't already decided to put the threat to rest and manifested in front of the atheists already.

A society might conceivably refuse to worship the gods, but denying that they exist is just plain stupid, assuming a "generic D&D world", and to be a true atheist, you have to deny that gods exist.

Arg, the ghost of poor reasoning wrests me from my sleep. So, a short rebuttal to this line of thinking. I put the IRL you in a time machine loaded with (functionally indestructable) tools for pretty much everything in the modern age and, to go even a step farther and in a matrix-move, use a computer to give you the most complete education possible. Then I set the dial for the Bronze Age, break the machine so it can't come back, and wave bye. Bu all of the arguments I've heard thus far, I've just made a god since it's willing (assumably) to call itself that and has the power to back it up. Plus people can go to it and say, "Wow, Jim-bob the Drunken Hillbilly is really really here! I guess that makes him really a god!" I feel a sense of accomplishment in having my hand in the making of the being, or at least one of the being, that causes everything to come into existence. The fact of the matter, though, is that there is nothing divine in this situation, except maybe me, since I'm spending my time going around making gods. Well, I think my point is clear enough not to draw it out. So, Deus ex quiesco.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Umm. It seems you didn't understand what I was talking about. You seem to be promoting the idea that something can call itself a god, display certain powers which many other things in D&D can do, and that makes it a god. If this is an acceptable argument to you then I have some swamp land I want to sell you.

Here's my rebuttal:

Can mortals automatially get a natural 20 on every roll they make? Deities of a certain power level can.

Can mortals grant spells without any effort whatsoever? Deities can.

Do mortals have portfolios? Deities do.

Can mortals perform multiple actions related to their portfolio as free actions in a single round? No, because mortals don't have portfolios. Deities can.

Some more things that deities can do, RAW, that mortals can't:

Alter Reality - It's like a better version of wish.
Divine Creation - Can mortals create living beings out of nothing? No? Deities can.
Know Secrets - Can a mortal figure out how you lost your virginity and what your first word was just by giving you a once-over? Deities can.
Supreme Initiative - Can mortals go first, every single time? (Hint: The answer is "No," because even Batman still has a finite number of spells per day.)

Arg, the ghost of poor reasoning wrests me from my sleep. So, a short rebuttal to this line of thinking. I put the IRL you in a time machine loaded with (functionally indestructable) tools for pretty much everything in the modern age and, to go even a step farther and in a matrix-move, use a computer to give you the most complete education possible. Then I set the dial for the Bronze Age, break the machine so it can't come back, and wave bye. Bu all of the arguments I've heard thus far, I've just made a god since it's willing (assumably) to call itself that and has the power to back it up. Plus people can go to it and say, "Wow, Jim-bob the Drunken Hillbilly is really really here! I guess that makes him really a god!" I feel a sense of accomplishment in having my hand in the making of the being, or at least one of the being, that causes everything to come into existence. The fact of the matter, though, is that there is nothing divine in this situation, except maybe me, since I'm spending my time going around making gods. Well, I think my point is clear enough not to draw it out. So, Deus ex quiesco.

We're talking about D&D gods, graymachine, not a RL hypothetical, and D&D gods are governed by certain rules. Here are the relevant links. Read and enjoy.

And you know what happens because of those rules? It means that in D&D, we can tell when something really is a god, and when it's just calling itself a god.

So, getting back to your scenario - sure, I could call myself a god, and be worshipped as a god by those poor deluded Bronze Age shmucks. But if you statted me out, I'd just be a low- to mid-level expert with a lot of skills and equipment. Not a Divine Rank or Salient Divine ability in sight. Therefore, by the power of RAW, your argument is defeated.