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

[Charlaquin]

I am just trying to figure out your point of view here.

It seems to be that any supernatural being is a god, but the defining factor is a supernatural being who is worshipped.

If you have a definition you think is better, by all means propose it.

So the world with one efreet who is worshipped and no other supernatural beings is a world with a god.

I mean, yeah? The only supernatural entity in the cosmos, worshiped by its people? Seems like a god to me.

No requirement for a concept of the divine or sacredness separate from being supernatural.

Divinity and sacredness are defined by those who worship the entity as such, no?

Not the standard D&D one of gods being a subset of supernatural divine beings (excluding non-divine supernatural beings and lesser divine beings such as angels).

But what sets that subset of divine beings apart from those that are excluded? If it’s something other than being worshipped, I don’t see it.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know they exist, you just don't think they're deities. Instead, they're just really high level monsters or NPCs posing as a god. It's godhood you're disbeliving.

Right, that’s the definition of a nay-theist.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You know they exist, you just don't think they're deities. Instead, they're just really high level monsters or NPCs posing as a god. It's godhood you're disbeliving.

As @Charlaquin pointed out, that's literally what a Nay-Theist is. If someone believes that the entities themselves exist, but doesn't believe that they're gods and/or refuses to worship them, that's the definition of a Nay-Theist.

 

[Voadam]

How is Ao not "morally worthy" of worship? Or the Luxon?

I meant to specifically say Ao, I am unfamiliar with Luxon.

Ao in the Avatar trilogy is just a more powerful being than the gods who gets instructions from corporate above him and tells all the gods "you've been doing it wrong" changes the rules on them, blinds Tyr for objecting, and sends them onto the mortal plane to run amok in a lord of the flies environment that turns into deific avatar hunger games. He's something of an abusive manager, not a moral exemplar. He ties their power to mortal worship which might seem like a win for mortals once things shake out. The end result though is gods are highly driven to seek out means to acquire worship, providing an incentive for them to demand or extort or otherwise force it out of mortals and a build up of churches and structures to maximize worship, with lots of them being from evil gods.

Later you find out about his creation of the Wall of the Faithless partway through Realms history altering the afterlife punishment scheme horrifically for those not henotheistic enough.

On the neutral end in 3e there is some talk of him starting up the Realms cosmologically and creating Shar and Sune to get things going.

Those who try to worship Ao (at least in 2e) are specifically left out in the cold by him, exactly what he condemned the gods for doing.

If someone has some lore on him that shows him doing some active good of moral worth I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[Mistwell]

Right, that’s the definition of a nay-theist.

Not quite. A nay-theist knows they are deities but refuses to worship them anyway. This is a person who does not know they are deities, and just thinks they're posing as deities. It's the Goa'uld conspiracy theory.

 

[Mistwell]

As @Charlaquin pointed out, that's literally what a Nay-Theist is. If someone believes that the entities themselves exist, but doesn't believe that they're gods and/or refuses to worship them, that's the definition of a Nay-Theist.

It's not, you're missing a subtle but meaningful difference, as I just responded to Charlaquin with. Refusing to worship a god is not the same as genuinely disbelieving they are a god.

 

[Voadam]

As @Charlaquin pointed out, that's literally what a Nay-Theist is. If someone believes that the entities themselves exist, but doesn't believe that they're gods and/or refuses to worship them, that's the definition of a Nay-Theist.

I think I am reading these definitions differently from you two.

From your original post a nay-theist is "A person that acknowledges the existence of a deity (or deities) in a world that truly has one/them, but refuses to worship them (for a variety of reasons). The "nay" in the name isn't about the existence of the deities, it's about the individual's worship of them."

And for the flat-earth atheist "A person that lives in a world that truly has a deity/multiple deities but refuses to acknowledge their existence or believe in them."

Someone who says "What you call Zeus is just a storm giant. The Olympians are all just giants. There are no gods." I would not call a theist who has acknowledged the existence of the gods, even though he acknowledged the Olympians are beings. I would classify him as an atheist for not believing in the gods, even though he believes in the beings that are called gods.

Or to make it even less supernatural "What you call the Aesir are myths built up about real mortal past kings whose stories have been exaggerated into folklore then into mythology over time. There are no gods."

 

[Charlaquin]

Not quite. A nay-theist knows they are deities but refuses to worship them anyway. This is a person who does not know they are deities, and just thinks they're posing as deities. It's the Goa'uld conspiracy theory.

Can you explain to me what the practical difference is between “I believe Thor exists but I don’t believe he’s a god” and “I believe Thor exists and is a god but I don’t think he should be worshipped?” Either way you believe in the existence of a being who controls the thunder and don’t believe that being should be worshipped. The only thing these two stances seem to disagree on is what word to use to describe the entity they both believe exists and should not be worshipped.

 

[Voadam]

A Nay-Theist believes in gods and does not worship them.

A Nay-Atheist does not believe in gods and does not worship them.

A Yay-Theist believes in gods and worships them.

A Yay-Atheist does not believe in gods but worships them anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

Can you explain to me what the practical difference is between “I believe Thor exists but I don’t believe he’s a god” and “I believe Thor exists and is a god but I don’t think he should be worshipped?” Either way you believe in the existence of a being who controls the thunder and don’t believe that being should be worshipped. The only thing these two stances seem to disagree on is what word to use to describe the entity they both believe exists and should not be worshipped.

This is why I mentioned the Goa'uld. In fact, Thor is literally answered by the show on this very topic.

A doppleganger POSING AS THE KING isn't the same as the real king, right?

A creature posing as a deity, with intent knowing deities are a real thing in that universe and they're not one of them, is meaningfully different than an actual deity.

This athiest thinks deities used to exist but they're all dead or gone, and the things remaining which call themselves deities are just creatures who are tricking humanoids into thinking they are gods when really they're just trickster higher level NPCs trying to take advantage of gullible humanoids to give them stuff. It's the Goa'uld from Stargate.