In a fantasy world filled with magic and miraculous beings, will the religious concepts of the locals be completely different from the human of Earth?

[cbwjm]

Yeah, DnD faiths and pantheons are a little weird since, while the common people might worship the pantheon, clerics have been shoehorned into worshiping a very specific god, often forsaking the others. I think also the pantheons often don't feel like one, the forgotten realms pantheon just seems to be a mishmash of gods with little relationship to the others.

 

[bloodtide]

So let's discuss a question:
are those Athas' Socerer king/queens considered actually gods (although very weak gods)? what is the real difference between them and the god-kings of Mulhorand and Unther?

The Great Divide here is the gods have more knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, understanding and place then mortal beings. In general, a god is a being far beyond whatever you can think of as a being.
An easy one is gods don't need anything material, they are far beyond such things. So when you see a Sorcerer King whining they they need YOU to build them a ziggurat, you know they are not a god. A real god could build something so mundane as a pile of rocks with no effort.

So what kind of Paladin is Dexter?

He has the personality of a perfect Anti-Paladin. But Dexter, of course, is not a Paladin. He is an Investigator Roguish Constable.

​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How D&D handles religion is of course in many ways weird, and common magic certainly would warp societies in myriad of ways. But I still actually think that objectively real gods that actually affect things helps us get closer to the mindset of people of the past. Atheism is modern concept, and in a sense, so is faith. Ancient people did not think of the divine in such terms. To them it was just a part of the world they lived in. I'll quote myself from an old thread:

I actually am not a huge fan of gods being a matter of faith in a fantasy setting. When talking about fantasy religions our impressions are greatly coloured by rather modern notions, and especially those related to Christianity. I don't think "having faith" really was a thing for many historical religions, it was not even really a thing for medieval Christians! These people lived in a world that was magical. (And by this I mean their understanding of the world.) Gods, power of rituals and prayers etc were not articles of faith for them, they were the facts of nature. So in that sense obviously existing gods that grant miracles if you perform the correct rituals is actually relatively historically accurate depiction of how the ancient people thought the world worked.

We don't believe in gods any more. Not really, not like the ancient people did. To us, if we believe at all, it is more like hoping, whilst to them it was knowing. We live in the world of science, they lived in world of spirits and magic. That is how they explained and understood the world. Gods were real to them, like gravity is real to us. Now of course from the modern perspective they were mistaken, but that doesn't change how they experienced the world. So to get a modern jaded and cynical roleplayer into a mindset of a person who believes in gods and magic, then easier way to do it is just show and tell them that in this world gods and magic are real, not just that maybe they are but you can pretend that your character believes in it.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Ancient people did not think of the divine in such terms. To them it was just a part of the world they lived in.

Mostly, yes.

But a fair number of Greek and Roman philosophers were either atheistic or theomachistic, and it's not hard to envisage a world where their ideas either prevailed or became more widespread - i.e. backed by a sympathetic imperial power. (While it's fair to say that imperial polities tend to recognize the utility of religion in entrenching their own power, other ideologies can potentially be just as effective.)

Atheótēs (godlessness) was usually levelled as an accusation, but some philosophers even self-identified as such.

Diagoras of Melos ("The First Atheist," 5th c. BCE) mocked the Eleusinian mysteries and was accused of impiety.
Critias (5th c. BCE) suggested that religion was a human invention to control behaviour, not divine reality
Prodicus of Ceos (5th c. BCE) said the gods were merely anthropomorphized natural forces
Theodorus of Cyrene (4th c. BCE) denied divine providence and the existence of the gods
Epicurus (4th-3rd c. BCE) said the gods - if they existed - lived in bliss and were divorced from and uninterested in human affairs
Euhemerus (about the same time as Epicurus) believed the gods were merely fictionalized accounts of historical characters
Lucretius (1st c. BCE) denied divine providence and wrote that religion was a source of fear and cruelty
Pliny the Elder (1st c. CE) said the universe itself was the only true divinity, and called the afterlife "a fabulous fiction"

There are also those who were theomachists - i.e. who despised the gods: Euripides, Lucian of Samosata.

 

[Anonym]

The Great Divide here is the gods have more knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, understanding and place then mortal beings. In general, a god is a being far beyond whatever you can think of as a being.
An easy one is gods don't need anything material, they are far beyond such things. So when you see a Sorcerer King whining they they need YOU to build them a ziggurat, you know they are not a god. A real god could build something so mundane as a pile of rocks with no effort.


He has the personality of a perfect Anti-Paladin. But Dexter, of course, is not a Paladin. He is an Investigator Roguish Constable.

​

but god-kings of Mulhorand and Unther like Gilgeam still demand huge amount of labor and donations, even though they are true gods.

And Athas' Socerer king/queens, although they may not be true gods, are at least extremely powerful Wizard and Psion who can use spells and psionic powers to get most of they want, although not so easily as true gods.

so they demand labor and donations perhaps just to satisfy their ego and pay salaries to their cleric and subordinates.

and for your "The Great Divide here is the gods have more knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, understanding and place then mortal beings. In general, a god is a being far beyond whatever you can think of as a being."——————
So their only difference is being stronger and smarter, and that's all?
Just like a level 20 wizard is as powerful as a god to a level 1 commoner, but they are still both mortals.
No, what you're saying is not a fundamental difference, but rather a further indication that the so-called 'true god' is just more powerful socerer king/queens.

 

[Anonym]

A few thoughts, FWIW.

I don't think that looking to modern expressions of polytheism (e.g. Hellenism, Asatru, Romuva) is particularly useful in trying to illuminate the - rather odd - D&D religious worldview. Nor do I think that looking at certain aspects of contemporary Hinduism has much to offer: as much as a continuity with antiquity is more demonstrable, modern Hindu polytheism is still very much a product of modernity. Contemporary religions are a function of contemporary times, with regard to their mores, praxis and worldview.

The default D&D paradigm seems to be - largely - one of monolatry. I have my patron god, you have yours, and while we each accept the existence of other deities, we each - for whatever reason - believe that ours is the "correct" deity to worship. This brings D&D religion most closely into alignment with Bronze Age or Iron Age patterns, where different cities or ethnopolities had a tutelary deity - except, in the case of D&D, this worship doesn't seem to be particularly localized (although more so in Greyhawk than FR). Which is to say, it doesn't really resemble anything in our own world's history.

I don't find nontheism in a D&D setting particularly implausible. Unless someone - along with a group of other people - witnesses the manifestation of a deity in their full majesty, I think that denial is entirely reasonable.

A deity appeared to me [it was an episode of madness]
We encountered an angelic servant of a deity [it was not what it claimed]
The priests of Heironeous use divine magic [its source is not what they claim]

Etc. etc. And given how humans are adept at denying demonstrable, replicable facts (think flat-earthers and vaccine-deniers) in order to accord with their existing worldview....

People may otherwise view deities as merely entities of a different order, impostors, useful allies, symbolic constructs, objects unrelated to the pursuit of spiritual truth, phantoms or hallucinations, irrelevant, or simply nonexistent. Regardless of their specific position, they don't deem deities worthy of worship.

but no matter what they really are, they are extremely powerful beings who can effortlessly torture and kill the vast majority of mortals.

when a Socerer King of Athas asks you to worship him as a god, and you are just a lv1 commoner, it is best to do so, even if you know clearly that he is not a god.
If you want to mock him or deny that he is a god, it's better to wait until he is killed.

 

[Morrus]

and even they believe in their faith which claim they would enter the heaven after death,they still sh*t their pants while the Death coming for them.

The language filters are there for a reason. And the fact that you tried to circumvent them shows that you know that perfectly well. Watch your language, and do not try to circumvent the filters, please.

 

[bloodtide]

but god-kings of Mulhorand and Unther like Gilgeam still demand huge amount of labor and donations, even though they are true gods.

Also for 4,000 years, the beings on Toril were Manifestations of gods....not the gods themselves as they were cut off from thier true divine slelfs on the planes.

and for your "The Great Divide here is the gods have more knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, understanding and place then mortal beings. In general, a god is a being far beyond whatever you can think of as a being."——————
So their only difference is being stronger and smarter, and that's all?
Just like a level 20 wizard is as powerful as a god to a level 1 commoner, but they are still both mortals.
No, what you're saying is not a fundamental difference, but rather a further indication that the so-called 'true god' is just more powerful socerer king/queens.

It's not just "power" and "book knowledge", it is a deeper and more fuller understanding of the Cosmos, Creation, Life, Death and Everything. A 1st level wizard and a 20th level wizard both still point a finger and cast a spell, levels does not bring understanding, wisdom or anything else.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Yeah, DnD faiths and pantheons are a little weird since, while the common people might worship the pantheon, clerics have been shoehorned into worshiping a very specific god, often forsaking the others. I think also the pantheons often don't feel like one, the forgotten realms pantheon just seems to be a mishmash of gods with little relationship to the others.

I think the problem is the other way round. D&D's initial approach to religion was inspired by polytheistic gods as superficially understood by the writers.

It is correct that there were dedicated clerics in the ancient worlds to a single god. If you were a flamen dialis, you were tasked to ensure that proper worship was given to Jupiter, and you wouldn't do religious ceremonies involving Mars, there were dedicated priests for other gods. But this view somehow leaked in a way that D&D priests now sounds more like monotheists priest of their god. A flamen dialis wouldn't conduct worship for Mars, but they'd offer sacrifices and honor Mars, and all the other gods, whenever it was appropriate. They'd propitiate Neptune before travelling at sea, like every other worshipper of the pantheon. With the FR idea that each god took care of their worshipper's afterlife, the "concurrent monotheisms" model, more akin to henotheism, was applied to basically everyone in the setting. This lessened the logic of pantheons, since you necessarily placed the god that will take you to your afterlife above the other members of the pantheon and not worship the complete pantheons as ancient romans or greek would have. I feel the shoehorning happened more with regular worshippers than priests.

I'd also not be surprised if a priest of Lathander, or most god characters, didn't make an offering to Umberlee before embarking on a ship, given how they are mostly played, thinking of evil gods as enemies, despite them being members of the same pantheon and deserving equal worship.

Some campaign actively set this up. Rime of the Frostmaiden has humans actively countering Auril's plans. Yet she's a member of the Faerûnian pantheon and the game doesn't really explore how to propitiate her.

What makes you feel that pantheons don't feel like one is this lack of overarching cohesiveness. Gods within a pantheon can be at war, it happened during the Trojan War. But that doesn't mean that Agammemnon could taunt and threaten a priest of Apollo, and the god's retaliation was expected and the pro-Greek gods didn't intervene to prevent Apollo killing livestocks and sending a plague to the Greek camp.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

How D&D handles religion is of course in many ways weird, and common magic certainly would warp societies in myriad of ways. But I still actually think that objectively real gods that actually affect things helps us get closer to the mindset of people of the past. Atheism is modern concept, and in a sense, so is faith. Ancient people did not think of the divine in such terms. To them it was just a part of the world they lived in. I'll quote myself from an old thread:

Atheism is modern in the sense that it is the result of scientific method. "You claim there is a God, so you need to prove it". It makes sense that one might not trust anyone who say there is a god, or claims to be a god, if they can't provide evidence of their claim. But the emergence of scientific method in a typical D&D setting wouldn't have the same effects. Gods, or supernatural beings able to warp reality, are demonstrably present. You can physically visit the Fugue plane and witness souls of believers being gathered by the envoy of their respective god, and you can (with appropriate magic) travel the their destination plane and see what happens. You can raise a dead and ask him. Not everyone will be able to do that, but universities would be able to have both a scientific reasoning and no atheisms or disbelief about the existence of gods. It would be like disbelieving the Earth is a sphere.

I don't think that people in such an universe would be in a position to have faith. They don' need faith, since they can know. I posit their relationship with those über-powerful beings would be more transactional like the ancient roman religion was. "I'll do X, so you will do Y". If the invoked god fails to do Y, it's not because there is a doubt about the existence of gods, but about the quality of the ritual, or the necessity to seek an explanation as to why the proper ritual didn't work.

So in that sense obviously existing gods that grant miracles if you perform the correct rituals is actually relatively historically accurate depiction of how the ancient people thought the world worked.

Yeah. To answer the thread's title, the religious concept of the local wouln't necessarily be different from the humans of Earth, but they might be very different from the concept of religion held by some contemporary Western Europeans.