Heresy in D&D

[wrecan]

Disbelief in the established gods is either a new religion or it is atheism, neither of which is heresy.

The 17th century rabbinate of Amsterdam, and the early 20th century rabbinate of Odessa would disagree with you, as they excommunicated Spinoza and Trotsky, respectively, for teaching others that the heretical belief that the Jewish God doesn't exist.

 

[Celebrim]

Indeed. Disbelief in the established gods is either a new religion or it is atheism, neither of which is heresy.

Socrates didn't teach disbelief in the established gods in the sense that you mean it. Exactly what Socrates got into trouble for is well established in the Plato dialogues. Socrates did not claim that the gods did not exist; in fact he claimed that they must exist. What Socrates claimed was firstly that the mythic stories about the gods couldn't possibly be true, and secondly that the priests and other leaders in his community could not possibly have true knowledge of the gods nor could they possibly teach wisdom or virtue to the public. Claiming that the gods are real, but that the orthodox claims about the gods are false, and that you alone have true knowledge of the gods hetrodox nature, and that the orthodox priesthood lacks the right or even the ability to teach wisdom and virtue is heresy and was certainly treated as such even in relatively tolerant Athens.

Socrates does not appear to have completely abandoned the notion of the Olympians and the surrounding pantheon, and to the extent that he may have had internally a different conception of them, we don't have to believe that Socrates's mind was fully understood to his accusers. And certainly his behavior leaves a great deal of confusion even in a modern reader as to the extent which Socrates maintained a belief in the Orthodox Greek pantheon of his day, as of his asking a friend to sacrifice a cock to Aesculapius on his behalf demonstrates.

Teaching young people to disrespect their elders and ask awkward questions that expose their elders' ignorance hasn't anything to do with religion at all.

Among other things, it certainly does when those elders are also the priesthood. And while the real motivation behind his death was probably that he'd insulted several very powerful men and had publicly attacked the democracy and its leaders, the charges brought against him weren't sedition and treason but religious in nature. Or do you deny that "impious acts", "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities." are religious charges? Granted, the 'introducing new deities' charge was patently false in a literal sense, and so for that matter were the other two. They only make any sense at all in the light of what Socrates was teaching, and the arguments we have recorded with people like Antyus if they are the language used to state that Socrates is a heretic.

Regardless of whether atheism and other religions count as heresy, in a D&D Socrates' enemies would have had to trump up different charges against him. The existence of the state gods would be demonstrable, so a man who claimed they did not would not be believed and would thus present no threat. He would be a harmless lunatic.

In D&D a state can have a state backed official religion. In fact, while I haven't addressed this aspect of heresy because I've focused on the more global heresies in my campaign world, the sort of heresy now being addressed - and of which Socrates stood accused - would be far more common. Each country and sometimes each city usually has a select number of official patron deities which you are required as a citizen to acknowledge though piety, worship, and usually tithes. Teaching beliefs contrary to those taught by the officially sponsered priesthoods will get you brought up on charges of impiety or heresy as appropriate. Publicly teaching disrespect of those dieties or teaching the worship of a 'foreign' deity will get you brought up on charges of blasphemy or introducing foreign dieties as appropriate. The fact that the state gods demonstrably exist only makes the states more zealous to enforce laws against heresy and blasphemy, not less so.

Once again, you are imposing modern sensibilities on the sitaution. Socrates wasn't debating atheism versus theism with the leaders of Athens. He was debating the question of from whense comes religious and spiritual knowledge and authority, and calling into question whether they had any of this authority. What he was teaching was heretical in its most basic and important way; if the religious leaders didn't have special knowledge of the gods and were in fact fools, then they had no right to tell anyone else what to do or how to live.

Heresy as a secular legal charge will exist anywhere that you have a state backed religion.