D&D 5E (2014) Atheism/Agnosticism in 5e?

[trancejeremy]

Now, a word on atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is the position that gods don't exist - the reverse is theism, god(s) do exist. Agnosticism is the position that you can't prove that god(s) exist, gnosticism is the claim that you can indeed prove their existence. They are not the same question, but in non-theological circles they get conflated (badly) into one by laymen. It's a minor pet peeve of mine.

Most atheists are gnostics - they believe the lack of evidence for gods is itself proof of their nonexistence. The same holds true for most theists - they believe they can prove god exists, though to date all proofs ever offered have been subjective at best. Most agnostics choose not to believe in god(s) for lack of proof otherwise, I personally am an agnostic that chooses to believe in God despite the lack of objective proof. My logic for this lies outside the scope of what the forum rules will allow.

The thing is, despite the similarity in names, the opposite of an agnostic is not an gnostic. Gnosticism is a fairly specific type of religion, and the term has been around well before agnostics.

http://gnosis.org/welcome.html

 

[Rune]

Pascal's Wager works at least as well in a D&D universe as it does in any other.

The assumptions of that argument are flawed (at least in a typical D&D universe--won't discuss real world implications here):

The argument assumes a binary situation without consideration to other variables.

How do other deities factor in?

What if belief comes with a cost?

What if the reward for belief is undesirable?

 

[Michael Morris]

The thing is, despite the similarity in names, the opposite of an agnostic is not an gnostic. Gnosticism is a fairly specific type of religion, and the term has been around well before agnostics.

There are a great many words in all the languages of the world that have multiple meanings. I'm quite aware of the existence of the Gnostic sect of Christianity. In the context of my argument it should be quite clear I'm not referring to that sect.

 

[1of3]

The main issue to my mind that's being skipped over is the afterlife.

In most D&D settings, when you head of the pearly gates, there is a good chance you may spend a few days there before being summoned back t the local temple by your friendly priest. So there is not really the great sense of the unknown about what happens when you die.

So you die as a Atheist in the Forgotten Realms, you get taken to the wall of the faithless, a nice devil has a chat about this being the last time to sell your soul, assuming a Demon did not kidnap you on the way to the wall. And then just as your getting to hammer time, you end up back in Waterdeep....

That's the sort of thing that I think might make you reflect upon your beliefs.

For this to work, we must also assume that you can remember the trip. Maybe it's hazy. Or maybe you do remember clearly and then it turns out truth detection magic cannot verify it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The assumptions of that argument are flawed (at least in a typical D&D universe--won't discuss real world implications here):

The argument assumes a binary situation without consideration to other variables.

How do other deities factor in?

What if belief comes with a cost?

What if the reward for belief is undesirable?

In a typical D&D universe, with multiple competing deities each demanding a monogamous relationship from mortal worshipers (in the sense that, although there are other acknowledged gods, mortals are supposed to pledge themselves to just one immortal), picking a nominally "good" deity is certainly more rational than pledging oneself to a god that's alleged to be indifferent or, worse, actually hostile to mortals. (Who the heck is feeding those immortals with their worship is a whole other question ...)

 

[sunshadow21]

I would say that it would be near impossible for a character in a typical fantasy world to deny the existence of supernatural, extraplanar, and similar beings. Even LoTR has enough elements of that kind of thing that most characters in that world would understand that something else is out there. The challenge, and the part that can only be defined at a table, not by the rules, is precisely what that is and how it is perceived. Even in the FR, there is a plenty of room for interpretation; for all that the gods being made mortal and being forced to walk the earth was a big issue for the gods themselves, the comparatively small number of gods spread out amongst the several million people in the world would tend to dilute the overall effect on your typical commoner, and possibly even adventurer. Wizards and clerics could still argue all day about the precise nature of the source of their power, with both sides being able to make potentially legitimate claims that the other side is actually using the same source as they are, but are simply being delusional in their final understanding of it. Just because the gods are well defined in mechanical terms doesn't mean that they are going to be that clearly defined in the world, even in one such as FR. Personally, I like Eberron's description of the matter best, as it is the closest to what the vast majority of the people in any fantasy setting would view it; people know there is definitely something out there, but only a handful of people actually have the slightest idea of what it is. A high level adventurer would have a slightly better grasp of the actual details, but not necessarily all that much better unless they were actively trying search for that particular truth. A cleric would likely know quite a bit because they would want to find out the accurate truth to increase their own power, but even they may not look beyond the parts that give them their magic; most others probably wouldn't care enough to move past the vague definitions used by most of the world.

 

[deleteaccount]

With that statement you have clearly crossed the line into directly discussing religion. I will offer a single retort, then I'm bowing out of the thread.

So, let's get something perfectly clear here. If you claim not to believe, but know, you are a gnostic atheist by the very definition of the term. However your "knowledge" is no more provable than that of a theist. Trust me, I've seen theists state that they know that God exists. They are every bit as full of crap as you are in your claim that you know. Your claim is just as unproveable as theirs. The word in the English language for an unproveable claim is "belief."

Atheists don't claim to know, they disbelieve. Those making supernatural claims have the burden of proof. I think this will clear things up. There are infinite things not to believe in, and rejecting the claims as untrue (e.g. due to lack of evidence) does not mean you claim knowledge of a thing's existence and/or factuality.

Claiming atheist deny the existence of gods is a strawman and a common misconception among believers. Is e.g. Christians disbelief in ancient Sumerian and Hindu gods a type of gnosticism? I think not.

And yes, this is out of the bounds of this thread's subject matter.

 

[Emerikol]

In my world, the elves do not believe in the divinity of the Gods. They recognize there are powerful extraplanar beings, some good and some bad but they do not consider them worthy of worship. There are no elven gods in my current setting. The elves practice a form of ancestor reverence and akashic approaches to supernaturalism. Their "clerics" draw upon the power of their ancestors. (Or so they claim).

This question depends a lot on your world. I've ran both these types of worlds.

World Type #1 (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk)
The gods are active. They communicate their wishes to the "church" leaders. They offer power directly to those who are faithful.

In a world such as this almost everyone believes in the gods as powerful beings. Some though might not believe in their divinity. They might view the gods as nothing more than super powered people just like them.

In this world, you always have clerics who are aligned with their God. If you want to know if a church leader has fallen from grace just ask him to cast a high level spell.

World Type #2 (Eberron)
The gods are hands off. The religions are steeped in ritual and discipline. The leaders of the religion guide the faithful based upon holy texts and their perceived divine guidance though there is no direct communication in almost all cases.

In a world such as this some might doubt even the existence of the gods. They might view clerics as self deluded wizards. They might believe that it is a cleric's religious "training" that enables him to cast spells.

In this world, you don't know about where a cleric stands with his god. He might be a totally corrupt self serving religious charlatan who can cast ninth level spells without any problem. The reason is that it is the church practices that give him his power and not the gods themselves.



Right now in my current world, I run a modified version of number one. My clerics have to learn a great deal about their rituals and discipline to even be able to receive their power from the Gods but they do receive it from the gods. Except the elves of course who are more like the clerics in #2.

As you can see it is possible to mix and match these approaches from pantheon to pantheon.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Where do paladins fit into the type two model above? If you have a type two world then suddenly non lawful good paladins make a lot of sense.

 

[Michael Morris]

In this world, you don't know about where a cleric stands with his god. He might be a totally corrupt self serving religious charlatan who can cast ninth level spells without any problem. The reason is that it is the church practices that give him his power and not the gods themselves.

D&D rules, as written don't logically follow this principle. If magic has no sentience then anyone can invoke it - hence in the world view above there cannot logically be a split between the spells of wizards and clerics. Game balance demands otherwise though - so we arrive at a quandary.

My own setting divides magic into five distinct types. Study of any given type of magic precludes study of the others. No given character can master all spells.

Also, the above world type perforce bans spells that do put spell casters into direct contact with outer powers (or can do so) such as contact other plane, planar ally, and gate.