• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

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.
There seems to be some unspoken assumptions going into the assertion that the Olympians are “just giants.” If they are giants with all the same capabilities that are attributed to them as gods, calling them giants rather than gods is a semantic distinction with no practical difference. The “just” suggests some unspecified practical difference between gods and giants. To know whether the person making this assertion was a nay-theist or a flash-earth atheist, I would need to know what that practical difference is.
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."
Right, so that’s a belief that there are no gods, and therefore would fall under the definition of flat-earth atheist. Assuming, of course, that in this world there is falsifiable proof that the Aesir are indeed gods. Otherwise they would just be an (round-earth?) atheist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is why I mentioned the Goa'uld. In fact,
I don’t know what that is.
Thor is literally answered by the show on this very topic.
You’ll have to walk me through it.
A doppleganger POSING AS THE KING isn't the same as the real king, right?
Yes, and I can point to several practical difference between a doppelgänger and the king. Can you do the same between a god and an entity that has the power of a god but somehow isn’t really a god?
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.
What makes this hypothetical creature not a god though? Maybe they’re not the god they’re posing as, but there must be some quality that differentiates between “a god” and “not a god” that this creature lacks, right? What is that quality?
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.
Great, so what does this atheist believe these tricksters lack that distinguishes them from gods?
It's the Goa'uld from Stargate.
Again, you’ll have to explain this in more detail.
 

I don’t know what that is.

You’ll have to walk me through it.

Yes, and I can point to several practical difference between a doppelgänger and the king. Can you do the same between a god and an entity that has the power of a god but somehow isn’t really a god?

What makes this hypothetical creature not a god though? Maybe they’re not the god they’re posing as, but there must be some quality that differentiates between “a god” and “not a god” that this creature lacks, right? What is that quality?

Great, so what does this atheist believe these tricksters lack that distinguishes them from gods?

Again, you’ll have to explain this in more detail.
Goa'uld use technology to pose as the gods of various species they encounter. In D&D terms, it would be like mind flayer using illusion magic and psionic trickery to appear as a deity of a halfling village to fool them into thinking the mind flayer is their actual deity. Only once someone is smart/brave enough to challenge the "deity" with something that they cannot do but their god could do, would they be revealed for the fraud they are.
 

Goa'uld use technology to pose as the gods of various species they encounter. In D&D terms, it would be like mind flayer using illusion magic and psionic trickery to appear as a deity of a halfling village to fool them into thinking the mind flayer is their actual deity. Only once someone is smart/brave enough to challenge the "deity" with something that they cannot do but their god could do, would they be revealed for the fraud they are.
Right, so then the fundamental belief you’re describing isn’t that the gods exist but aren’t gods, it’s that the gods don’t exist. Something else is posing as the gods, and using trickery to make people believe they are the gods.
 

In a world where clerics exist, atheism can't really exist.

Cleric: My deity gives me power.
Atheist: There is no such thing as deities, your spells come from some powerful natural source.
Cleric: But if I behave in conflict with my god's wishes, they withdraw their power. A natural source wouldn't care about that.
Atheist: So, its a powerful natural source with a moral code.
Cleric: Which is pretty much the definition of a god.
Well, no. The argument isn’t “some natural source”, it’s “your faith and quite possibly the Will and faith of those others who share your faith.”
 

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).
My gnome in my friend’s campaign worships place spirits, ancestors, and the Tuatha, who are the ancient Fey beings who once ruled over the great northern Fey kingdom and are now spirit beings that live in the Ethereal like any spirit (there are very few planes, and the Feywild is places in the world). He considers none of them gods. His ancestor who fought a balor to protect her clan when the mountain spat fire and fiends 1500 years ago was not divine, and is now simply memory and spiritual will, to be honored and venerated and made offerings to.

He doesn’t believe that the Zelesian God exists, though their Angels certainly do, nor the archetypal (Commedia dell'arte style) masked gods of the Veneliese.
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”?
The spirits I give offerings to by leaving cups of milk and honey as part of a generation ritual in potted plants outside my apartment aren’t gods. Why would I call them such? Yet I pray to them and give offerings and rituals of veneration, which I genuinely believe in.
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?”
As someone who practices a faith that includes Thor, this is easy to me. One is theist, the other is atheistic, for a start. If I believed that Thor is an archetype that some folks venerate in order to center themselves on a set of principles, or that he exists but is simply a trans dimensional alien with hyper advanced technology that ancient people encountered and mistook for something more than that, that is very distinct from believing that Thor makes the storm come by divine will, but also that Thor is a dumb jerk and no one should worship him.
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.
Not really. How does he control the weather? In D&D terms, if he is casting high level spells and using powerful magic items, that’s just a Wizard with access to 12th level spells.

If he makes the storm come by his will, because he is the storm, that’s a god.

In terms of my own game, gods can change the laws of the universe, because their Will is what defines those rules.
 

My gnome in my friend’s campaign worships place spirits, ancestors, and the Tuatha, who are the ancient Fey beings who once ruled over the great northern Fey kingdom and are now spirit beings that live in the Ethereal like any spirit (there are very few planes, and the Feywild is places in the world). He considers none of them gods. His ancestor who fought a balor to protect her clan when the mountain spat fire and fiends 1500 years ago was not divine, and is now simply memory and spiritual will, to be honored and venerated and made offerings to.
This still seems semantic to me. If the character doesn’t want to call the things he worships “gods,” that’s fine, but if it quacks like a duck...
He doesn’t believe that the Zelesian God exists, though their Angels certainly do, nor the archetypal (Commedia dell'arte style) masked gods of the Veneliese.
Sure, he follows his own belief system. I don’t think either flat-earth atheist or nay-theist would be an appropriate description for him. I mean, unless the Zelesian God falsifiably exists and this character disbelieves in them despite the evidence.
The spirits I give offerings to by leaving cups of milk and honey as part of a generation ritual in potted plants outside my apartment aren’t gods. Why would I call them such? Yet I pray to them and give offerings and rituals of veneration, which I genuinely believe in.
Well, ok, but now we’re getting into real-life faith, which is rather different since in real life (unlike in many D&D settings) Gods can’t be falsifiably proven to exist.
As someone who practices a faith that includes Thor, this is easy to me. One is theist, the other is atheistic, for a start. If I believed that Thor is an archetype that some folks venerate in order to center themselves on a set of principles,
Ahh, but veneration is not the same thing as worship.
or that he exists but is simply a trans dimensional alien with hyper advanced technology that ancient people encountered and mistook for something more than that,
And this hypothetical person worships the alien?
that is very distinct from believing that Thor makes the storm come by divine will, but also that Thor is a dumb jerk and no one should worship him.
He seems like a rather intense entity to work with, from what I’ve heard.
Not really. How does he control the weather? In D&D terms, if he is casting high level spells and using powerful magic items, that’s just a Wizard with access to 12th level spells.

If he makes the storm come by his will, because he is the storm, that’s a god.
So, is a storm elemental a god? I’m trying to understand where one draws the line between “god” and “not god” in concrete, practical terms. Casting spells and making things happen by one’s will seem, in practical terms, to have little to no distinction. Being the storm certainly seems practically different than controlling it by one’s will, but lots of things in D&D worlds embody elements, or concepts, and not all of them get counted as gods. So again, what’s the difference?
In terms of my own game, gods can change the laws of the universe, because their Will is what defines those rules.
Ok, this seems like a meaningful distinction. Thank you. So, in your game, the difference between “god” and “not god” is that the former’s Will defines the laws of the cosmos, whereas the latter are bound by those laws.

Presumably there are specific entities in your world whose will defines the cosmos then, yes? By the definitions given as I understand them, a flat-earth atheist in your world would be someone who doesn’t believe those specific entities exist (despite falsifiable evidence that they do). A nay-theist would be someone who believes that these specific entities do exist, but does not believe their will actually defines the laws of the cosmos.
 

In my current campaign, I decided to do something a little different. Basically, anything extra-planar, or at least celestials, were considered "small gods". Local kami of various pools, rock formations, that sort of thing. So, all over the setting, there are a bunch of celestials sort of hanging out in all these locations. The creator gods were all very far away and unreachable. Clerics got their powers from the sort of "divine pool" but, were not actually tied to any single god, unless they wanted to. So, you had some clerics who oversaw shrines and whatnot and other itinerant clerics who would venerate any god.

It was a nice change of pace. I kind of wish I had been able to explore more of it, but, it just didn't seem to happen.
 

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

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

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

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.
In D&D Gods are generally a subset of supernatural being.

They have been used in a couple different contexts throughout D&D.

First: As a source of power and sometimes a relationship for clerics (usually) and sometimes other divine magic classes (druids, paladins, rangers, etc.). In AD&D's 1e DMG they were the only beings who could grant high level clerical magic. Rituals could do first and second level spells with no god, and lesser divine beings could grant mid level cleric spells and the top ones were gated behind the demigod, lesser god, greater god hierarchy.

There was some exceptions to this with 2e philosophy clerics and 3e concept clerics not needing gods to tap divine magic.

D&D has at points gone in hard on the divine versus other power source distinctions so gods are connected to divine power and things like arcane warlock patrons are categorically different resulting in both giving power but in different categories.

Secondly: as tough monsters. They have stats or manifestations of them do and they can be fought, sometimes as an end boss. This has varied on how defined they are and what the defining characteristics. Whether they are beings with defined powers (1e Deities and Demigods) or narrative cosmological figures where specific manifestations have defined stats (2e Forgotten Realms god books) has varied.

Third: as a narrative element to justify some neat weird stuff with some thematic connotations. This god did it is similar to magic did it but can throw in distinctive flavor elements of the specific god.

Fourth: Sometimes gods are tied into worshipers. There is often a relationship between worshipers and a god's power. This has varied by sourcebook and world story.

Fifth: Gods are sometimes tied into the the afterlife of their worshipers. In lots of D&D the death cosmology ties a worshpper to their god on the outer plane once they die. There are exceptions such as 4e and the Shadowfell, Eberron and Rokugan with their different death/ghost planes.

Sixth: The planes. Sometimes godhood is defined in part in removal from the world to other planes. In some D&D only lesser gods can be on the world, with greater gods only making certain manifestations on the world and needing to primarily be on the outer planes. In 4e the astral was the general source of divine power and the home of most gods with exceptions for Torog trapped in the Underdark due to a specific story and the Raven Queen's connection to the Shadowfell as the death goddess. This has varied a lot. 2e Greyhawk mentioned the specific things of gods agreeing to stay off the prime material plane with exceptions like Cuthbert being allowed to manifest to balance out Iuz, while 1e Greyhawk had a bunch of gods whose plane was listed as the material.

Seventh: Gods can be born or made. Ascension is often a thing in D&D, though usually there are also natural gods who were always gods.

Eighth: Gods may or may not be immortal. Whether gods can be killed or whether only manifestations of them can is something that has varied.

Ninth: Hearing prayers, divine senses, and divine intervention. This varies a lot but some D&D grant gods the ability to hear prayers to them, sense things in their portfolio, and or mess around in general on the mortal plane. Sometimes this is in class features like clerical spell selection and paladin code violations where the gods directly make judgments that impact specific characters, sometimes it is like 3e deities and demigods where all gods can sense things related to their portfolio. Other times gods are statted as powerful monster/heroes with no such special thematic senses.

Tenth: Beings who are worshiped by denizens of the world or recognized as gods. Narratively this provides justification for churches, temples, cults, crusades, sacrifices, rituals, and such as elements in the game.

The definitions and dividing lines vary a lot and can be fuzzy. Throughout D&D there have been a lot of gods across a broad spectrum, but also throughout D&D most supernatural beings have not been considered gods even though they could serve a lot of the same functions as gods.

In my own campaigns I generally keep it vague like Eberron where there can be lots of theories about gods and the divine, but little that can be definitively pinned down. I like cosmologically to go with divine as a power source thing and clerics and such to simply be spellcasters who tap into divine power even though a lot of them believe it is because of specific gods directly and consciously granting them power. This also allows a range of gods as beings so Thor could be a cosmological storm god, a being with tons of divine power and a storm aspect, or a being who hits giants hard with a hammer, or an actual D&D storm giant, or not exist at all. I like the idea of cults to gods that do not exist, or to hero worship like the Greeks had, or ancestor worship, or non deity religions, or to worshiping powerful but non divine beings like giants and dragons who get no extra power from it at all. I also like having divine beings like angels and varying gods. I think the idea of gods as Mage the Ascension style paradigm workers but inverted in part to be shaped by worshipers conception of them is a fun one.
 

In D&D Gods are generally a subset of supernatural being.
Right, but I’m asking what defines that subset.
They have been used in a couple different contexts throughout D&D.

First: As a source of power and sometimes a relationship for clerics (usually) and sometimes other divine magic classes (druids, paladins, rangers, etc.). In AD&D's 1e DMG they were the only beings who could grant high level clerical magic. Rituals could do first and second level spells with no god, and lesser divine beings could grant mid level cleric spells and the top ones were gated behind the demigod, lesser god, greater god hierarchy.

There was some exceptions to this with 2e philosophy clerics and 3e concept clerics not needing gods to tap divine magic.
Being a source of magical powers is not unique to gods. This is not a practical difference between gods and warlock patrons.
D&D has at points gone in hard on the divine versus other power source distinctions so gods are connected to divine power and things like arcane warlock patrons are categorically different resulting in both giving power but in different categories.
If divine magic is defined as magic granted by gods and arcane magic is magic that isn’t granted by gods (but can be granted by entities-that-aren’t-gods), defining gods as entities that grant divine magic is circular logic.
Secondly: as tough monsters. They have stats or manifestations of them do and they can be fought, sometimes as an end boss. This has varied on how defined they are and what the defining characteristics. Whether they are beings with defined powers (1e Deities and Demigods) or narrative cosmological figures where specific manifestations have defined stats (2e Forgotten Realms god books) has varied.
Being powerful and having stats are not unique to gods. This is not a meaningful difference between gods and other powerful entities.
Third: as a narrative element to justify some neat weird stuff with some thematic connotations. This god did it is similar to magic did it but can throw in distinctive flavor elements of the specific god.
This is vague and does not clearly identify any practical distinction.
Fourth: Sometimes gods are tied into worshipers. There is often a relationship between worshipers and a god's power. This has varied by sourcebook and world story.
Yes. Gods are worshipped. This is my proposal for what practically differentiates gods from other powerful beings.
Fifth: Gods are sometimes tied into the the afterlife of their worshipers. In lots of D&D the death cosmology ties a worshpper to their god on the outer plane once they die. There are exceptions such as 4e and the Shadowfell, Eberron and Rokugan with their different death/ghost planes.
Right, so the worship of gods has various benefits, including potentially what afterlife you’ll go to, and the gaining of divine magic. The worship is still what’s defining the difference.
Sixth: The planes. Sometimes godhood is defined in part in removal from the world to other planes. In some D&D only lesser gods can be on the world, with greater gods only making certain manifestations on the world and needing to primarily be on the outer planes. In 4e the astral was the general source of divine power and the home of most gods with exceptions for Torog trapped in the Underdark due to a specific story and the Raven Queen's connection to the Shadowfell as the death goddess. This has varied a lot. 2e Greyhawk mentioned the specific things of gods agreeing to stay off the prime material plane with exceptions like Cuthbert being allowed to manifest to balance out Iuz, while 1e Greyhawk had a bunch of gods whose plane was listed as the material.
Gods are not the only entities to come from other planes, or to be unable to manifest in the material plane. This is not a practical difference between gods and other extraplanar entities.
Seventh: Gods can be born or made. Ascension is often a thing in D&D, though usually there are also natural gods who were always gods.
Lots of things can be born or made. This is not a practical difference between gods and other beings.
Eighth: Gods may or may not be immortal. Whether gods can be killed or whether only manifestations of them can is something that has varied.
Lots of things can be immortal, and lots of things can be mortal. This is not a practical difference between gods and other mortals/immortals.
Ninth: Hearing prayers, divine senses, and divine intervention. This varies a lot but some D&D grant gods the ability to hear prayers to them, sense things in their portfolio, and or mess around in general on the mortal plane. Sometimes this is in class features like clerical spell selection and paladin code violations where the gods directly make judgments that impact specific characters, sometimes it is like 3e deities and demigods where all gods can sense things related to their portfolio. Other times gods are statted as powerful monster/heroes with no such special thematic senses.
Ok, this one’s not bad. In some settings, gods can hear prayers from their worshipers or otherwise sense things related to their portfolio. I’m not sure this is necessarily unique to gods - can a warlock patron hear their warlock’s invocations of their name, or sense when their warlock uses their power? I’m inclined to say yes, but it is probably setting-dependent. It’s also tied to worship, so I’m inclined to file this under “benefits of worshipping a god” in settings where it’s present.
Tenth: Beings who are worshiped by denizens of the world or recognized as gods. Narratively this provides justification for churches, temples, cults, crusades, sacrifices, rituals, and such as elements in the game.
Again, worship seems to be the practical defining feature of godhood.
The definitions and dividing lines vary a lot and can be fuzzy. Throughout D&D there have been a lot of gods across a broad spectrum, but also throughout D&D most supernatural beings have not been considered gods even though they could serve a lot of the same functions as gods.
Right, that’s my point. That leaves room for a character to believe that what others worship as gods are in fact other sorts of supernatural being, and therefore not to be worshipped. Such a character would be a nay-theist. A flat-eath atheist would be a character who believes the entities others worship as gods don’t exist at all (despite evidence to the contrary).
In my own campaigns I generally keep it vague like Eberron where there can be lots of theories about gods and the divine, but little that can be definitively pinned down. I like cosmologically to go with divine as a power source thing and clerics and such to simply be spellcasters who tap into divine power even though a lot of them believe it is because of specific gods directly and consciously granting them power. This also allows a range of gods as beings so Thor could be a cosmological storm god, a being with tons of divine power and a storm aspect, or a being who hits giants hard with a hammer, or an actual D&D storm giant, or not exist at all. I like the idea of cults to gods that do not exist, or to hero worship like the Greeks had, or ancestor worship, or non deity religions, or to worshiping powerful but non divine beings like giants and dragons who get no extra power from it at all. I also like having divine beings like angels and varying gods. I think the idea of gods as Mage the Ascension style paradigm workers but inverted in part to be shaped by worshipers conception of them is a fun one.
Yeah, I do too, which means flat-earth atheists couldn’t really exist in my campaign, just like they can’t exist in Eberron. There are probably atheists, but they’re definitionally not flat-earth atheists because the things people worship as gods can’t be proven to exist.

Well, most of them, anyway. Bahamut and Tiamat definitely exist, as does the Raven Queen, but there are absolutely people who believe they’re just very powerful dragons and/or a very powerful witch or hag, and shouldn’t be worshipped as gods. Those people would I guess be nay-theists by these definitions? But, like, my world has many different religions; most followers of, say, the celestial gods wouldn’t believe the elder dragons are divine. I suppose there could be people who don’t believe they exist at all, but again, I’m not sure flat-earth atheist would necessarily be an accurate description for them because they might believe in the existence and/or divinity of other gods. Avandra canonically was a real woman who existed, though there are almost certainly people who doubt the historical accuracy of accounts of her life, and there are likely also people who don’t believe she ever really existed and that stories of her were just propaganda.

That’s the thing, these categories are really only applicable to settings where there is a defined set of gods who are known to exist and known to be the only gods. Once you introduce reasonable doubt and multiple belief systems, they kind of break down.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top