D&D General Is there an increase in "godless" campaign settings?

[Steampunkette]

That's a gross misunderstanding of DL. In DL the gods were forgotten or even reviled for abandoning/punishing mortals, but that was a failure of those mortals, not the gods. DL is the exact opposite of an "atheistic" setting.

Everyone in the setting was either Atheist or Agnostic (Except Dragons, of course, and Goldmoon). And held no faith in the Gods that "Abandoned" them.

Which is why I put "No" in quotation marks.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, I do think agnostic settings are growing more common and more popular. I say “agnostic” rather than “godless” because, as many have observed, many of of these settings aren’t truly without gods, but it is often unknown if the gods are real, or if they’re really gods. I would guess that this is a related phenomenon to the push for more nuanced, playable monster races. A lot of folks these days prefer their fantasy to have lots of moral and philosophical nuance, rather than the simpler, more archetypal good vs. evil stories.

I think the driving force is simpler than that: Active interventionist gods tend to hog the spotlight. The entire world shapes itself around their power plays and conflicts, and mere mortals get reduced to pawns in a divine chess game. There are ways to prevent this from happening, of course, but you have to go out of your way to do it, wasting page count and creative energy to tie these giant beings up so mortal deeds have room to make a difference. It's much easier to just not have the giant beings in the first place.

However, the traditions of D&D require the existence of a cleric class powered by religion. Solution: Make the gods distant and unknowable, to the point that it's unclear if they actually exist or if the cleric's power is just a different form of wizardry.

I've seen this same evolution in my own worldbuilding. I used to have worlds with big flashy gods, but it always made the PCs seem smaller, and over the years I've drifted more toward the "agnostic setting" side.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't know how appropriate it would be to include conversions of "D&D but not exactly" products such as Beowulf: Age of Heroes. Such RPGs use 5th Edition D&D as the mechanical chassis, but have worlds that majorly depart from the standard.

I commented on the RPG.net version of your thread, but 1) Beowulf is D&D, under the OGL -- it just has a new class with six subclasses -- and 2) more importantly, it's replaced alignment with religious affiliation, with the primary choices being Christian or the Old Faith, neither of whom would qualify as "godless."

 

[Faolyn]

I think the driving force is simpler than that: Active interventionist gods tend to hog the spotlight.

Almost by definition, active interventionist gods are practically unkillable DMPCs. Some people really like those things, but I think most people don't or find them actively obnoxious.

 

[Libertad]

I commented on the RPG.net version of your thread, but 1) Beowulf is D&D, under the OGL -- it just has a new class with six subclasses -- and 2) more importantly, it's replaced alignment with religious affiliation, with the primary choices being Christian or the Old Faith, neither of whom would qualify as "godless."

I mean, I suppose I could've referenced the Spy Game which is set in the modern-day, but that'd be less fair than Beowulf.

Beowulf may not be the best example given the importance of religious beliefs as a game mechanic, although the exact nature of divinities is left rather murky.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Almost by definition, active interventionist gods are practically unkillable DMPCs. Some people really like those things, but I think most people don't or find them actively obnoxious.

OTOH, Theros.

Also, I'm not sure we can equate any powerful NPC with a DMPC, unless you have the gods adventuring with your party, which is something I've never heard of.

 

[Flamestrike]

Id still be atheist if I found myself on Greyhawk, Mystara or Faerun.

The 'Gods' there arent really Gods, just powerful outsiders. Heck a few of them have been killed by Mortals (or were once mortal).

They dont know anymore behind whats going on than we do.

 

[Yaarel]

OTOH, Theros.

But Theros is remarkably nuanced. There the "iconoclasts" are legitimate too.

In reallife, Socrates and Buddha were openly skeptical about gods. Both denied the ... sanctity ... of the gods. Socrates argued that being pious toward one god, inevitably angered a rival god, making polytheism itself useless. Buddha argued that if gods exist, it meant they havent reached Enlightenment yet, thus were as ignorant as humans.

Especially D&D "gods" deserve this kind of deep skepticism.

Theros is aware of these points of view, and nods.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Id still be atheist if I found myself on Greyhawk, Mystara or Faerun.

The 'Gods' there arent really Gods, just powerful outsiders. Heck a few of them have been killed by Mortals (or were once mortal).

They dont know anymore behind whats going on than we do.

At the risk of hijacking the thread and going off topic... What is a god if not a powerful being/outsider? And how is being formerly mortal or killable disqualifying? By that metric most gods from a multitude of different mythologies wouldn't qualify as gods.

 

[Yaarel]

At the risk of hijacking the thread and going of topic... What is a god if not a powerful being/outsider? And how is being formerly mortal or killable disqualifying? By that metric most gods from a multitude of different mythologies wouldn't qualify as gods.

A "god" is a personification of some important feature of the cosmos, who demands hierarchical servitude.

Two things are going on. Both the symbol of what is important. And the social enslavement.