Gods, planes, afterlife, and the common man

[Bullgrit]

When you can (theoretically) walk into the local church and have a cleric cast Augury to get the answer "Does the afterlife exist?" or "If I'm a bad person will I go to badafterlifeplace?" and you get an answer, that pretty much confirms it.

You ask the priest to ask his god if his god exists? The priests "cast a spell," asks the question, and then turns to you and says, "Yes, my god exists."

That's odd. I asked the hedge wizard down the road the same question, and he did the same thing and said, "No."

Bullgrit

 

[Stormonu]

You ask the priest to ask his god if his god exists? The priests "cast a spell," asks the question, and then turns to you and says, "Yes, my god exists."

That's odd. I asked the hedge wizard down the road the same question, and he did the same thing and said, "No."

Bullgrit

For one thing, the rules don't tell us if the priest gets some sort of "out loud" answer or if its quietly whispered in his ear or divined from goat entrails, so how do we know? It could even be if it is an out-loud answer, the hedge wizard uses magic mouth to produce the lie he wants a person to hear.

I can show you a video of the autopsy of an alien from Area 54. The majority of people believe that to be a hoax, but couldn't explain how it's a hoax.

You can show me pictures of Africa, take me to the zoo and show me African elephants and I can turn to you and say, "I've never really been to Africa, how does this prove it exists?"

Poeple's acceptance of reality is often more often based on people's say so - and their documentation - than first-hand proof.

In the D&D game, the so-called proof is pictures, anecdotes, research or eye-witness accounts written down in holy texts. In one case, the holy text of a religion may be derived from the actual text a god wrote and disseminated to his followers - or via a prophet. Other texts may have "researched" via Augury or Contact Other Plane. An artist may have adventured to Hell and drawn images in his journal that's he brought back. Perhaps peasants have witnessed a portal being opened to hell and recount their experiences to others.

All of these would be factual information passed to others that could be collabrated by others. Many individuals would not have had their own such experiences, but just like we "know for a fact" that Africa exists and what it is like from the compiled, collaborated experience of others, those in the fantasy game would "know for a fact" about the afterworld from similar such collections and documentations.

In your example, it may be the word of one wizard's answer to the repeated answer of a hundred clerics. Does that make more sense?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's not a matter of what I consider proof. Such an answer is irrelevant.

Imagine a discussion forum, out there, where they discuss playing the game "Real World". Someone starts a point with, "In a world were aliens are real . . ."

"But the people in Real World don't know aliens are real. You only know it from metagame knowledge; because you see their stats in the books."

"Of course the people in Real World know about aliens because of all the evidence -- they've given signs, they interact with the people, etc. What would you consider proof to the people of Real World?"

The common accepted facts of the society that I live in unless I have reason to believe otherwise from personal experience.
So I buy into the basic scientific world view common in the West. Now i was trained as a scientist and thus have good direct observation about some of it. However, a lot has to be accepted as given at face value. It may or may not be true by some absolute measure but it works for most things right now.
Now as to aliens, they may or they may not exist but no one has shown me anything that might constitute proof of their existence.

So I suppose that no-one actually living in a world has the kind of absolute knowledge that the metagame knowlege that the players have of the game, not even the gods.

Does that satisfy you?

The idea of this happening often enough for folks to figure out the percentage makes me chuckle.

Test subject: "Orcus. Orcus. Orcus. Orcus. Orcus. Orcus." RRRAAAAWWWWRRRR! CRUSH! BLAST!

Researchers: "OK, how many times did this one say it? Six? Could be a 1 on d6 chance. But he might have just gotten unlucky. Let's keep trying. Bring in the next test subject."

Bullgrit

Oh they won't or don't need to know the percentage only that it happens. Dead people, suphurious smell in the air. Lot on undead in the aftermath and large smoking hoof prints with the occasional survivor (may be 1 in a 100 events or so) to tell what happened or maybe you could ask with speak with dead, or the undead could tell you.
People then realise that saying Orcus at all is a pretty bad idea.

 

[Bullgrit]

So I suppose that no-one actually living in a world has the kind of absolute knowledge that the metagame knowlege that the players have of the game, not even the gods.

That is my point. When discussing how NPCs in a game world should/would/could act, we shouldn't start from the premise that the NPCs know with metagame assurance that things work a certain way.

Why wouldn't good folks embrace death? It leads to a wonderful afterlife, guaranteed.

Why wouldn't evil folks change their ways? They know what happens in the afterlife, guaranteed.

Dead people, suphurious smell in the air. Lot on undead in the aftermath and large smoking hoof prints

That right there would make a fantastic scene for starting a D&D campaign. Wouldn't it? Unholy crap!

Bullgrit

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That is my point. When discussing how NPCs in a game world should/would/could act, we shouldn't start from the premise that the NPCs know with metagame assurance that things work a certain way.

Why wouldn't good folks embrace death? It leads to a wonderful afterlife, guaranteed.

Why wouldn't evil folks change their ways? They know what happens in the afterlife, guaranteed.

That right there would make a fantastic scene for starting a D&D campaign. Wouldn't it? Unholy crap!

Bullgrit

Yes it would make a good opening scene for a new campaign.

On the subject of certainity, the lack of objective certainity in the real world has not stopped some people (in some cases quite a lot) from acting as if their belief system was a certainity. Frex the recently disabused notion that asset prices were on an inexorable upward trend.

 

[Kaodi]

Why wouldn't good folks embrace death? It leads to a wonderful afterlife, guaranteed.

Why wouldn't evil folks change their ways? They know what happens in the afterlife, guaranteed.

Those are not questions that only pertain to a hypothetical world where everyone can tell that gods exist. Plenty of people in the real world believe their religions teachings with every fibre of their being. What do they do?

 

[Merkuri]

The average D&D commoner will probably have as much belief in magic and the gods as the average real-world medieval commoner. Which is to say, a whole heck of a lot.

Did you know that dragon attacks were common in the real-world in the middle ages? At least, they were often written down as the cause of crop loss and other tragedies. For peasants, that was proof enough.

The difference between a D&D commoner and a real-world commoner is that a D&D commoner has a tiny chance of actually experiencing these magical or divine effects, whereas a real-world commoner did not.

Can atheists exist in D&D? Yes, but they were probably as common as they were in the real-world middle ages. And, if I recall, they were pretty much nonexistent back then.

The only way that "magic is real" can affect a D&D culture, in my opinion, is if the higher-ups in that culture have first-hand experience of gods and magic. The political environment can change drastically if your god-given ruler was literally blessed by a god in person, and if that ruler can be raised from the dead if needed.

But I think you're right that on a daily basis for most people life would not be much different in a D&D world than it was in the real middle ages. They would be as certain about their afterlife as a real-world peasant was.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's not a matter of what I consider proof. Such an answer is irrelevant.

Imagine a discussion forum, out there, where they discuss playing the game "Real World". Someone starts a point with, "In a world were aliens are real . . ."

"But the people in Real World don't know aliens are real. You only know it from metagame knowledge; because you see their stats in the books."

"Of course the people in Real World know about aliens because of all the evidence -- they've given signs, they interact with the people, etc. What would you consider proof to the people of Real World?"

I'd say that big thing is that in most of the published settings, there's consistency among all of the faithful about each others gods.

That is to say: If a follower of god X meets a follower of god Y, they most likely know the same details about god Z, and the source will often be their own god or their church hierarchy (ie - supposedly from their god). Now, their opinions and moral colouring may well be different, but stories about which god dislikes which god, and descriptions of the gods are consistent.

That's held up by the mechanics of the religion skill in every edition that I can think of.

Everything beyond "there are aliens and they fly" is pretty radically different between any two alien believers.

The idea of this happening often enough for folks to figure out the percentage makes me chuckle.

I doubt they've got it pegged to a percentage, but they most likely have enough stories and evidence of destruction that "don't say the names of the demon lords" is either a common law/religious edict, or the names themselves are forbidden lore.

 

[Hussar]

For example, (which I brought up earlier):

When someone posts something like this:They are saying our metagame knowledge of the D&D world is in-game knowledge for the NPCs. I'm arguing that most (99.99---%) in-game NPCs do not have this information in absolute factual form -- they don't have the rule book on how the universe works.

But, absolute factual form is an impossible standard even in our world. Trying to claim that as a standard is a false premise.

For another example: In AD&D1, the DMG said there was a 5% chance of a demon lord showing up when his name is mentioned aloud. (I presume this idea came from the old Real World superstition that you shouldn't mention the devil's name for fear of drawing his attention to you.)

Now, there is a big difference between in-game superstition about speaking a demon's name aloud, and an NPC knowing for an absolute fact how the universal mechanics work.

Why? It's only a superstition if it's not repeatable. The in-world truth is, if you say a demon lords name enough times, he's going to come and visit you. This isn't a belief, it's a demonstrable fact. I doubt most people would need a demonstration after the first city or perhaps the second one, burned to the ground.

Another example that I mentioned earlier, is ghosts. Ghosts exist in D&D -- they're right there in the book for us to see. But do people in the D&D world know this as fact?

Why wouldn't they? Undead are hardly that rare in most D&D settings. It's not terribly difficult to create one. Greyhawk has undead ARMIES. Krynn had an undead castle owned by a death knight in the middle of a city. Middle Earth had barrow wights. Why wouldn't undead be just as real to the common person as elves?

Would a D&D NPC saying, "There's no such thing as ghosts," be dismissing a superstition, or would he be simply insane for denying the existence of something that does, in fact, exist. Is "There's no such thing as ghosts," the same as, "There's no such thing as trees"? Or elves?

Bullgrit

He'd probably be insane. Most D&D settings have undead all over the place. Whether it's undead armies, undead kingdoms or just undead wandering the countryside. Why would he deny something that is pretty much integral to the setting?

Looking farther afield, you get Scarred Lands. There you have a setting where the gods and the titans walked the lands for thousands of years. It's only in the last couple of centuries (if that) that you couldn't see a god or a titan on a fairly regular basis. Denying the existence of gods in that setting would be insane.

Forgotten Realms has had direct divine intervention on any number of occasions. Bhaal fathering multiple progeny. Time of Troubles. Mystra and her bunch. Never mind that you have demons and devils appearing all over pretty much every setting trying to do stuff.

Extra planar beings are not all that rare in a D&D setting. Would it be that out of line for people to have a pretty solid grasp on what happens to you after you die?

 

[Hussar]

Heh, reading this thread reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Feet of Clay. In the final scene, the Golem, Dorfl, is accosted by the heads of the major religions of the city, who demand that he be destroyed as an abomination:

Another priest said, "Is it true you've said you'll believe in any god whose existence can be proved by logical debate?"
"Yes."
Vimes had a feeling about the immediate future and took a few steps away from Dorfl.
"But the gods plainly do exist," said a priest.
"It Is Not Evident."
A bolt of lightning lanced through the clouds and hit Dorfl's helmet. There was a sheet of flame and then a trickling noise. Dorfl's molten armour formed puddles around his white-hot feet.
"I Don't Call That Much Of An Argument," said Dorfl calmly, from somewhere in the clouds of smoke.
"It's tended to carry the audience," said Vimes. "Up until now."

Really, IMO, in a D&D world, Darwinian evolution would weed out those who run around shouting "All the gods is bastards" from hill tops while wearing tinfoil hats. I don't need to know the exact chances of a demon lord showing up to eat me to know that saying his name is a very, very bad idea. Pretty much in the same way I don't need to know my exact chances of dying in a car crash to wear my seatbelt.