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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

There will be folks who believe in those gods. There will be folks who believe in those gods, but user different names. There will be folks who believe in gods that are admixtures of the real gods - taking the fertility aspect of Aphrodite, the wisdom aspect of Athena, and call it Frotberga. There will be people who believe in completely false gods (but, whose needs may or may not be served by a real god anyway).

Both Aphrodite and Athena were wain and self-centered, and in this situation they would probably fight over who would get to punish this "Frotberga" heretic.

 

[Voadam]

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.

This seems to be conflating powerful supernatural entity with god.

If there is a supernaturally powerful but false god, an efreeti or demon or something similar claiming to be a god, and you acknowledge it is a powerful supernatural entity but don't consider it a god and don't worship it, are you a nay-theist?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just going to chime in, the curvature of Earth is actually quite apparent on Earth. It’s called the horizon. On a smaller planet, the horizon would just appear to be closer (as it does on mars, only being about 1.5 miles away instead of 3 miles.) If the existence of the horizon isn’t enough to convince someone the earth is round, I don’t imagine it being closer would change that.

I meant a much smaller world. Think the the "Little Prince", where the curvature is much more drastic and apparent. I'm not saying it's hard to find the curvature of the planet on Earth, I'm just saying that a character in a world where the gods literally walk among mortals (like Theros) would be similar to a Flat-Earther on a Little-Prince "Earth".

 

[Mistwell]

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Mystara doesn't have deities, and instead has Immortals, so "Nay-Theists" would basically be those that refuse to serve the Immortals, and Flat-Earth Atheists wouldn't exist, instead having the possibility of Flat-Earth Theists, as people that believe that god(s) exist in the setting, even though they definitively do not.

I'm going to dispute this point. I have the rules and lore for Mystara Immortals, including the rules for playing them. I also have the 2e and 3e general rules and lore for deities, and am familiar with specific variants for different worlds.

Mystara's Immortals are deities. Their claims to uniqueness (ie, that they were theoretically all originally mortals, that they get their power through a particular source and method, and that they live in a different place) are absolutely all found in other D&D deities on various worlds. There is no basis for distinguishing them from D&D deities, other than that for some reason the game designers said so (without providing us any basis or argument for that claim that I'm aware of). We literally have the books telling us all about them, and the claims of TSR that they are different are demonstrably false, based on the material they themselves have published. I mean sure, someone can choose to be a Flat-Earth Immortalist that asserts that the Immortals are not the same as deities despite all the evidence, based on their faith in the Holy TSR I suppose.

The distinction between deities and other powerful supernatural beings in D&D has varied between the editions. In 1e and 2e for instance, there are demon princes that are actually also deities. In 5e, many warlock patrons are also deities (necessitating the PHB claim that they "are not gods" be interpreted to mean "are not necessarily gods, and do not grant warlock powers by virtue of being gods if they are"). Also in 5e, at least some demons princes (Graz'zt is the given example) have greater power than <a demigod capable of hearing prayers--which is more powerful than the demigod definition given in the DM and implies a form of actual deity based on the history of the game's definitions and usage>. Other editions have made sharper lines between what counts as a god and what doesn't--sometimes coming down to whether or not they can grant spells (which would at least be a clear and definite distinction), but other times being in nature the same as the false claim about Immortals not being deities.

So if you want to make a distinction between powerful otherworldly beings in D&D that are deities versus those that aren't, you're going to have to decide for yourself what that distinction is, since the game has been highly inconsistent about it.

Personally, I keep it straightforward and broadly encompassing. The "Immortal Powers" (terminology inspired by both Mystara and Planescape), the creatures most commonly worshipped as deities, are a specific type of powerful otherworldly beings in company with other specific types of otherworldly such as Archfey, Archfiends, Archomentals, Genie Lords, etc. Following the most common presentation, most of these beings can theoretically grant spells. The Immortal Powers' particular distinction is that their powerful nature primarily derives from alignment with universal principles (the sorts of things embodied by cleric domains--which is why they are more likely to have clerics).

Now a question. Where would Planescape's Athar fit in the terms in the OP? It's possibly the most iconic of D&D's Nay-Theists, but the definitions given actually exclude it from being classed as either a Nay-Theist or a Flat Earth Atheist! They believe that "the Powers" exist, but refuse to acknowledge that they are worthy of being considered deities. Their definition of what a true deity would be encompasses: 1) Would be morally worthy of worship, 2) Would not be capable of dying, 3) Would not need to derive power from mortals (an interpretation of deities that Planescape leaned into hard). Most of the Athar actually believe such a being (or beings) exists and is the true source of divine power (and there are Athar clerics who devote themselves to it), but it is "The Great Unknown", beyond mortal understanding or direct interaction.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Would be morally worthy of worship, 2) Would not be capable of dying, 3) Would not need to derive power from mortals

It seems like Ao the Overgod (and possibly the Luxon from Exandria) is/(are) basically the only deity/(deities) that would fit their definition of being a true god.

 

[jasper]

If I was homebrewing. The Nay people when died they would go into the wall as Ruin Explorer stated but healing spells would work on them. So no raises. The Flats no healing and no raises. Divine casters would have to pick at least one gawd.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I have no idea how much support for the below idea there is in canon D&D, but for my own fantasy writing and worldbuilding, my personal definition on what separates a "god" from a non-divine but still powerful immortal is as follows:

A god embodies an aspect of nature and/or an abstract principle, to the point that they are indistinguishable from the concept they represent. Or to approach the idea from the other direction, a god is an aspect of nature or abstract idea given sentience. To speak a god's name is to invoke their domain in the same breath. Likewise, to discuss and study any idea or aspect of nature is to study the god associated with it as well.

Using the Dawn War pantheon as an example (not canon, just a convenient example for this exercise), Avandra wouldn't be merely an immortal who can manipulate luck and change, she would be the very concepts of luck and change themselves given mind and form. Similarly, Corellon is beauty, Erathis is law, Kord is the storm, Melora is the sea, etc. Lesser beings may very well have physical or magical powers that can rival or even exceed the gods in certain respects, but they stand below the gods because their intrinsic existences don't have this kind of metaphysical import.

 

[Hussar]

If I was homebrewing. The Nay people when died they would go into the wall as Ruin Explorer stated but healing spells would work on them. So no raises. The Flats no healing and no raises. Divine casters would have to pick at least one gawd.

I have to admit, I don't have a huge issue with the Wall of the Faithless in FR. On a meta level, it works by forcing the players to confront the fact that their characters in this setting should have some sort of faith. Faith is a major element in the setting, particularly since the gods in FR are powered by faith. So, this is a giant signpost at the door of FR telling players, "Hey, would you mind getting with the program? In this setting, your character should have some degree of faith!"

I have no real problems with that. There are other settings which don't enforce faith, and they're perfectly fine too. Primeval Thule takes it even a step further where clerics aren't actually tied to the deity they worship - they can act in any manner they want. Their spells are really no different than wizard spells. It's an interesting take as well.

I gotta admit, I don't have an enormous problem with settings defining character parameters like this.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It's a one off tweet that didn't get a lot of engagement, but it might be an indication that the Wall might not be a thing going forward.