D&D General Nay-Theists Vs. Flat-Earth Atheists in D&D Worlds

[Voadam]

That’s a nay-theist. Someone who believes the gods exist, but doubts their godhood or and/or their worthiness to be worshipped.

I'd disagree.

Definitionally the naytheist as defined above can believe the gods are gods, they simply decide not to worship them.

Saying there are powerful beings that others call gods is not the same as acknowledging the powerful supernatural beings are actually gods. The flat earth atheist could consider them simply variants of warlock patrons with different PR that others call gods. Thus the quotes around "deities".

Such a flat-earth atheist could also choose to worship such a being they do not consider actual gods for a number of reasons (cultural practice, fear of consequences of not worshiping, feeling the being is worthy of worship).

 

[el-remmen]

My last homebrew was a flat world.

In my current homebrew all gods regardless of portfolio or ethos can have clerics of any alignment. Gods never withdraw their power, that is for different sects to sort out through internecine conflict.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd disagree.

Definitionally the naytheist as defined above can believe the gods are gods, they simply decide not to worship them.

Saying there are powerful beings that others call gods is not the same as acknowledging the powerful supernatural beings are actually gods.

I don’t see a practical difference between acknowledging that the gods exist but doubting their godhood and acknowledging that the gods exist and are gods but aren’t worthy of worship. Both characters seem to believe the gods exist and are powerful supernatural beings, but don’t believe that power entitles them to worship. The only thing they seem to disagree on is what word to use to describe these beings.

The flat earth atheist could consider them simply variants of warlock patrons with different PR that others call gods. Thus the quotes around "deities".

What is the practical difference between a god and a warlock patron, if not that the former is worthy of worship and the latter is not?

Such a flat-earth atheist could also choose to worship such a being they do not consider actual gods for a number of reasons (cultural practice, fear of consequences of not worshiping, feeling the being is worthy of worship).

To worship something you don’t believe to be a god would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. How exactly are you defining “god”?

 

[Voadam]

I don’t see a practical difference between acknowledging that the gods exist but doubting their godhood and acknowledging that the gods exist and are gods but aren’t worthy of worship. Both characters seem to believe the gods exist and are powerful supernatural beings, but don’t believe that power entitles them to worship. The only thing they seem to disagree on is what word to use to describe these beings.

There is the key difference.

Why would a flat earth atheist necessarily feel that power does not entitle the being to worship?

If a dragon demands worship as a god and you believe it is supernaturally powerful but not a god you can feel it's power entitles it to demand whatever it wants. If it is a good dragon there might be hero worship style worship that is earned or just given.

What is the practical difference between a god and a warlock patron

Exactly

, if not that the former is worthy of worship and the latter is not?

The practical difference? The power they grant? Whether they have a church and temples or just cultic shrines?

To worship something you don’t believe to be a god would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms.

Not to me. Prayers and public reverence and participation in rituals would be enough. It may be insincere worship, but it is still worship. I believe there was a greek and roman strain of thought that even though the gods are not actually real, public piety and respect for the gods including worship and offerings and rituals is important and salutatory.

How exactly are you defining “god”?

Not as something that is definitionally entitled to worship.

 

[Sithlord]

I really have no desire to get into complex theology or moral philosophy in my games. But I did find the flat earthers interesting because in my setting the world is flat. And there is a few crackpots that believe the world is round. Nothing really comes from it other than when we say someone is a roundearther it normally means they are into conspiracy theories.

 

[Charlaquin]

There is the key difference.

That’s not a difference, that’s something both the character who believes the gods exist but aren’t gods and the character who believes they’re gods and aren’t worthy of worship agree on.

Why would a flat earth atheist necessarily feel that power does not entitle the being to worship?

They wouldn’t, that’s my point. That’s the core belief of the nay-theist worldview. “Sure, these powerful entities exist, but their power does not entitle them to worship.” If a character believes that, they’re a nay-theist, whether they use the word god to describe those powerful entities or not. A flat-earth atheist is someone who believes those entities (again, whether they call them “gods” or not) do not exist, despite their falsifiable existence in the setting.

If a dragon demands worship as a god and you believe it is supernaturally powerful but not a god you can feel it's power entitles it to demand whatever it wants.

That’s different than the worship of a god. That’s cowtowing to its demands for fear of retribution, not worship. The closest analogy would be paying lip-service to a self-proclaimed god-emperor to avoid being executed. It has really nothing to do with belief (or lack thereof) in the divine supremacy of the beings others call gods and worship willingly.

If it is a good dragon there might be hero worship style worship that is earned or just given.

Now you’re stretching the definition of worship.

Exactly

The practical difference? The power they grant?

They both grant magic power in exchange for service. That’s not a difference at all, let alone a practical difference.

Not to me. Prayers and public reverence and participation in rituals would be enough. It may be insincere worship, but it is still worship. I believe there was a greek and roman strain of thought that even though the gods are not actually real, public piety and respect for the gods including worship and offerings and rituals is important and salutatory.

If you believe the gods aren’t real, you’re an atheist, even if you think participation in the rituals performed in their service are still worthwhile. If you’re an atheist in spite of incontrovertible evidence the gods exist, you’re a flat-earth atheist. If you do believe the gods exist, you’re a theist. If you don’t believe they should be worshipped despite their existence, you’re a nay-theist. It’s not complicated.

Not as something that is definitionally entitled to worship.

Great, then how are you defining it?

 

[Tonguez]

I'd disagree.

Definitionally the naytheist as defined above can believe the gods are gods, they simply decide not to worship them.

Saying there are powerful beings that others call gods is not the same as acknowledging the powerful supernatural beings are actually gods. The flat earth atheist could consider them simply variants of warlock patrons with different PR that others call gods. Thus the quotes around "deities".

Such a flat-earth atheist could also choose to worship such a being they do not consider actual gods for a number of reasons (cultural practice, fear of consequences of not worshiping, feeling the being is worthy of worship).

It seems to be a cultural issue about how the term god is defined.

The Japanese word Kami can refer to god or spirit or ancestor or natural phenomena or even an ethical principle. Kami are venerated and shown respect (worship) as aspects of nature. They can also be ignored in favour of other kami

in a world where people know these things are real, know that they can exert real world influence and know that they are worshipped, how is it possible to deny their existence and not ‘beleive they exist’ even if they arent worthy of worship?

 

[Krachek]

You should add another philosophical view for Npc,
Those who believe that they are only playing a role in an illusionary world, being the pawn of some unknown beings. It is the bhuddist philosophy applied to DnD!

 

[Voadam]

They both grant magic power in exchange for service. That’s not a difference at all, let alone a practical difference.

To clarify since you did not pick up my meaning.

The practical difference is in the type of power a god versus an arcane entity patron grants, divine (cleric or druid or paladin or ranger) magic versus arcane (warlock) magic.

 

[Charlaquin]

To clarify since you did not pick up my meaning.

The practical difference is in the type of power a god versus an arcane entity patron grants, divine (cleric or druid or paladin or ranger) magic versus arcane (warlock) magic.

That’s still not a practical difference. If you believe that the entities that grant powers to clerics are fundamentally the same as the entities that grant powers to warlocks... so what? The only difference between the powers is what entity grants them. Whether you call one or the other a god is just semantic.