D&D 5E Atheism in DnD

[Arial Black]

No, but it doesn't mean those things are games, gods or religions, either.

The point is that these beings are what they are, and what label others choose to give them doesn't alter that.

Take Tyr for example: he has whatever stats he has, whatever portfolio, whatever powers, grants whatever spells to worshippers...but whether some mortals label him as a 'god' or not doesn't change one single thing about what he actually is.

 

[Umbran]

Take Tyr for example: he has whatever stats he has, whatever portfolio, whatever powers, grants whatever spells to worshippers...but whether some mortals label him as a 'god' or not doesn't change one single thing about what he actually is.

Well, there are still some issues (some, depending on edition)

3rd Edition, for example, has specific and explicit allowance for a cleric or paladin to *not* have a god, even in a world that otherwise does have gods.

This mechanic means a lot for the atheist. Yes, you follow a god, good cleric, but I do not, and I can do exactly the same things as you! It is then rational to ask that cleric, "Are you *sure* that it is your god giving you those spells?" If deific magic can come without a god, are you sure that *any* of it actually comes from gods?

 

[Arial Black]

Well, there are still some issues (some, depending on edition)

3rd Edition, for example, has specific and explicit allowance for a cleric or paladin to *not* have a god, even in a world that otherwise does have gods.

This mechanic means a lot for the atheist. Yes, you follow a god, good cleric, but I do not, and I can do exactly the same things as you! It is then rational to ask that cleric, "Are you *sure* that it is your god giving you those spells?" If deific magic can come without a god, are you sure that *any* of it actually comes from gods?

Neither the cleric nor his god care one whit about the atheist cleric. The god isn't changed by it, the cleric still gets his spells granted.

The 'is it really a god' question has no useful answer. In real life we can ask 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin', but no matter how that question is answered, reality does not change.

The pins don't care. If angels were to exist, they wouldn't care what you thought or be changed by it.

I could walk round saying 'cars are not really cars', and how would that help? How would that be a meaningful belief/

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Neither the cleric nor his god care one whit about the atheist cleric. The god isn't changed by it, the cleric still gets his spells granted.

Therefore, what?

I thought this thread was about whether atheism in D&D is possible, but you seem to be arguing that it's not obligatory. Granted, but isn't that changing the subject?

 

[transtemporal]

The point is that these beings are what they are, and what label others choose to give them doesn't alter that.

That might be true but really depends on how your ecology works. Do mortals affect/reflect the gods or do gods affect/reflect mortals? Is it a symbiotic or a parasitic relationship? Does it change over time?

In FR at least, I thought the gods power was directly related to their worshippers?

 

[GSHamster]

Another question is how much the gods affect the natural world. Let's take a coastal village. Are fisherman who pray to the Sea God rewarded with larger catches?

Perhaps the question is not "is Zeus a god?", but "what is the efficacy of prayer?". A world where prayer is routinely rewarded, where faithful farmers have larger harvests than atheist farmers, is a world where it is very hard to deny the gods.

On the other hand, if godly powers are restricted to clerics and special servants, where ordinary worship has no effect, then being an atheist is much easier. It's easier to claim that such beings are just extra-powerful and should not be worshipped.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Perhaps the question is not "is Zeus a god?", but "what is the efficacy of prayer?". A world where prayer is routinely rewarded, where faithful farmers have larger harvests than atheist farmers, is a world where it is very hard to deny the gods.

Ehm, maybe not. Correlation isn't causation, after all. In real life, Mormons live something like 7 years longer than the average American--one could argue that this is a clear vindication of what they call the "Lord's Law of Health". Or one could argue that it's just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and someone has to live the longest. Has anyone, in D&D or in real life, ever done a study on the empirical effects of faithfully living Christianity/Buddhism/Islam/etc., or do we just rely on informal assumptions about causality that match up with our biases? I mean, I can certainly tell you that my experience is that living my religion makes me happier and more successful, but what reason do you have to believe me? D&D would be exactly the same way--even if it works, there's no way to prove it to someone who is not interested in having it proved to them.

Besides, for social reasons the unfaithful farmers are likely to try to pretend to be faithful (for money laundering purposes if nothing else), so you'll get a muddy signal.

 

[MG.0]

Maybe active deniers like atheists sap the gods' powers much more than simple non-believers. That would be fun to roleplay.

 

[Bacon Bits]

IMNSHO, the above is more a disproof than a proof. Something which gets its power from mortals is ipso facto not a god. It's just another kind of magic user.

A god's power would run in the other direction: predating and superior to/independent of any mortal power. A Darksun Sorcerer King gets his templars' power from the elemental planes, not from his subjects. Zeus and Gaia had power, in Greek mythology, long before they ever created mankind. Coyote in Navajo legend doesn't depend on worshipers for his power. I can't think of ANY religious tradition in which the god's power scales up or down with his number of worshippers. Ergo, anything which behaves that way is disproving its own religious tradition and is not what it claims to be: if humans created Zeus then Greek mythology is proven false.

Changing the definition of what a deity is is moving the goal posts. That doesn't fly.

First, we have to recognize that deities factually exist in most D&D cosmologies. Every book calls them deities. Every stat block lists them as deities. The DM and players, external to the imaginary universe of the game, know that these entities being deities is as factual as the Dex bonus an Elf gets, or the d8 damage a sword deals. It's not a matter for us as players to debate whether or not they *are* deities. By definition they are. They do gain power when worshiped. They have dominion, sometimes absolute dominion, over some realm of existence. They are literally de jure deities because the rulebook says they are. However you choose to define "deity" you have to include these entities in that definition or you've fundamentally altered the cosmology of the campaign setting.

The question, then, is, "How can a character who does not know the truth establish the truth?"

 

[prosfilaes]

Changing the definition of what a deity is is moving the goal posts. That doesn't fly.

First, we have to recognize that deities factually exist in most D&D cosmologies. Every book calls them deities. Every stat block lists them as deities. The DM and players, external to the imaginary universe of the game, know that these entities being deities is as factual as the Dex bonus an Elf gets, or the d8 damage a sword deals. It's not a matter for us as players to debate whether or not they *are* deities. By definition they are.

If the Monster Manual described a vampire as a shambling unintelligent creature that eats brains, I'm sure most of us would agree that that was wrong. Likewise, we all have our own idea of what the word "deity" means, and we are free to believe that WotC is misusing the word in their texts. It is a very loaded word.

However you choose to define "deity" you have to include these entities in that definition or you've fundamentally altered the cosmology of the campaign setting.

No; the cosmology of the campaign setting is not fundamentally changed by the the definition of an English word. If we agree on the powers of Tyr, et. la., in the Forgotten Realms, whether we call them deities is irrelevant.

The question, then, is, "How can a character who does not know the truth establish the truth?"

Huh wah? PCs like people in real life tend to be overconfident about their knowledge of the truth. If a player wants to make his PC about a search for the truth, that's cool, but if a player wants to make his PC just believe in something, that's also cool. And a lot of the discussion surrounded the definition of deities; a PC who decides that the so-called gods aren't worthy of the title God is not making a statement that is disprovable, that has a real truth value.