D&D 5E Life Without "the Gods" or Playing D&D without the DDG.

[the Jester]

Wow, I think it's super easy to take the gods out of your religions in D&D. My campaign includes both theistic religions- those worshiping a god- and idealistic religions (those that follow a philosophical path or revere ideas, instead of entities). There has never been an issue with it, and I've used this approach since mid- to late 2e, at least.

 

[Yaarel]

I still don't understand your aversion to polytheism, particularly in something like a Viking setting...biiiig polytheists the Norsemen.

The Norse were animists. Not polytheists.

The Danish became more polytheistic, directly and indirectly under the influence of Roman polytheism. However the remote regions of Norway and Sweden remained strongly animistic. Likewise the Sami ‘Finnar’.

Animism and polytheism are profoundly different worldviews.

For example, you would be unlikely to ‘worship’ your nextdoor neighbor. Even if he lent you money, you wouldnt worship him. Likewise, if you were an animist, you wouldnt ‘worship’ a nature spirit who lived nearby. The animistic worldview is about relating to reality in the same way you relate to people, and being in rapport.

 

[Yaarel]

If one likes the flavor of gods, of course, one has no problem with it.

If one hates the flavor of gods, and wants it to go away, but sees it on every page, the pages become less enjoyable.

For me, the gods are dumb and boring.

In 1e, the Cleric description is devoid of flavor. Anything flavor is possible, and even then the Players Handbook encourages personal creativity. Even in 3e, the ‘philosophical’ Cleric is normal and there is a diversity of settings. The SRD is purposely stripped of the setting flavor that I dont want anyway. The SRD 3e is highly useful.

I have never had the problem of trying to get out of the quicksand of gods flavor until 4e. It is worse than ever in 5e.

The assumption of gods, of the great wheel, of the multiverse that forces gods into every setting, whether setting should have it or not. All of it makes 5e unworkable.

Imagine putting Far Realms on almost every page of the Players Handbook, in almost every spell. That inundation of unwanted flavor would cause many players to quit, and go back to a version whose flavor they enjoyed. It is the same problem I have with gods. I dont want them. I cannot enjoy a game that keeps on referring to them.

 

[SkidAce]

I have never had the problem of trying to get out of the quicksand of gods flavor until 4e. It is worse than ever in 5e.

The assumption of gods, of the great wheel, of the multiverse that forces gods into every setting, whether setting should have it or not. All of it makes 5e unworkable.

I like your settings, and am impressed with the effort and the detail. Sounds like great campaigns.

Will take your word for it, however I don't see removing the gods et al as being any more or less difficult than the previous editions.

 

[steeldragons]

The Norse were animists. Not polytheists.

The Danish became more polytheistic, directly and indirectly under the influence of Roman polytheism. However the remote regions of Norway and Sweden remained strongly animistic. Likewise the Sami ‘Finnar’.

Animism and polytheism are profoundly different worldviews.

True. They are different views. But the bolded [by me] statement above kind of goes against every book of mythology and ancient religions I've ever seen...and in/as interpreted by D&D.

They were not "polytheistic" in a Greco-Roman sense of worshiping in grand temples or overtly constructed religions. But they had deities...even to the point of "living" ones. The gods walked the earth if they so chose. Or "walked/rode" across the skies. They were understood to have influence over the natural world and people's lives or fates, even directly/personally if they so chose. They might "pray to"/seek aid from them [in whatever form that might take]. They certainly made sacrifice at different times of year/for different significant [arguably, "holy-"] days.

The Eddas don't mention Odin or Thor or Freya [Freja]? I've never read/researched them. I really can't say/really don't know. But I am curious, then, where the commonly accepted "Norse mythology" was gleaned from.

Such a concept, of anthropomorphized beings/forces of life and nature with power or influence over mortal lives, to my understanding of the definitions, make them "deities" versus [neighbor/nature] "spirits"...to my view, more polytheistic than animistic. They could and probably did believe in "nature spirits/a spirit world", as well. But that doesn't meant they didn't have or take as a given truth the existence of "gods."

But I suspect we are skirting frightfully close to a discussion of "real world religion" and I don't want to break any forum rules, nor get into a debate on the nuances/philosophies of theism v. animism v. what constitutes a "god" or a "religion", et al. (as interesting as I find such conversation/debate).

We can easily agree to disagree on this kind of thing. The fluff of the 5e PHB, seems to me and others anyway, is easily ignored (as most things in 5e are) with a minimum of effort. Your settings are cool and I trust fun for your group. So, sorry 5e fluff is too distracting/disappointing/isn't for you.

I wish you happy gaming with your system of choice.

 

[Minigiant]

My setting has been working with its single hands-off overdeity and his everchanging pantheons of mortals-turned-immortals since 3rd edition.

No problems in 5th.

The Avatar of Trickery is an alcoholic who creates clerics for the lulz.

The Avatar of Life was an elf duchess who was killed and replaced by an evil paladin who hates undead.

The Avatar of Magic is currently a Minotaur wizard

The Avatar of Nature is a human female who never cured her lycantrophy and does unspeakable things when she voluntarily lets the predatory madness madness take hold.

The Avatar of Knowledge is an envious gnome who created psionics because"it isn't fair that the Avatar of Magic has dominion over arcane magic".

The Avatar of the Storms hates the sea as he has feline mentalities sometimes

Warforged Samurai Lincoln is the Avatar of Freedom.

No visable gods. Just regular jerks who became immortal and can create clerics.

 

[Yaarel]

True. [Animism and polytheism] are different views. But the bolded [by me] statement above kind of goes against every book of mythology and ancient religions I've ever seen...and in/as interpreted by D&D.

LOL, the way D&D presents Norse belief is so ignorant, it hurts to read.

At least, the 5e PH has the decency to say: ‘The .. Norse pantheons are fantasy interpretations of historical religions from our world’s ancient times .. for use in a D&D game, divorced from their historical context .. that serve the needs of the game.’

D&D has never tried to represent Norse belief accurately. Gygax intentionally misrepresented the beliefs of other cultures, blending them with other cultures plus silly creative whims.

I am from Norway. I read the Eddas in Norse, and am reasonably familiar with the current academic research concerning it. My dad is a historian of the Viking Era. The academics in Norway are in consensus, the Norse are animists. No priests, not temples, no worship. The Vikings related to the nature spirits in approximately the same way that later Scandinavians related to trolls. This is animism.

There were some polytheists in Denmark, under the influence of the Germans who were polytheists because of the Roman influence. A royal dynasty from Denmark brought their polytheism to Uppsala in Sweden. Altho this royal family was polytheistic, its influence was limited.

In the previous two centuries, much of the research into Scandinavians was done by German academics. The old Germans were polytheists. When these academics read Norse texts, they were less interested in understanding Norse culture, and more interested in trying to reconstruct German polytheism. But German culture is nonidentical with Norse culture. Norse are animists.

Take for example, Thorr, the ‘thunderer’. He is a nature spirit. He is literally a summer rain storm. That is it. When you see a warm storm cloud, that psychic presence is Thorr. He can send his lightning (his hammer), and can make the water choppy when you are trying to fish. But that is pretty much it. The Norse felt its summer lightning scared away the dangerous winter frost spirits, so the psychic presence of summer rain seems protective and honorable.

Thorr is only an actual storm. There is no abstraction of storms, like there is with Zeus in Greek polytheism, where there is a ‘god’ who controls storms. Thor is the storm cloud itself. Similarly, a waterfall spirit is the actual waterfall itself. When someone throws food into a waterfall, the waterfall itself can taste the food.

Compare the Norse thunder spirit to the thunder spirit that certain Native American tribes remember. The ‘thunderbird’ is an animistic nature spirit. It isnt a ‘god’ in any way.

‘Across many North American indigenous cultures, the thunderbird carries many of the same characteristics. It is described as a large bird, capable of creating storms and thundering while it flies. Clouds are pulled together by its wingbeats, the sound of thunder made by its wings clapping, sheet lightning the light flashing from its eyes when it blinks, and individual lightning bolts made by the glowing snakes that it carries around with it.’ (Wikipedia)

This American animistic culture perceives the nature spirit as a kind of bird, but in ways weirdly similar to how the Norse animistic culture perceives the nature spirit as a kind of warrior. But note, the Norse animistic culture describes the nature spirit of the arctic winter storm as a kind of bird, whose wings fan deadly blizzards.

I read how upset a certain tribe became when a roleplaying game made the mistake of representing the nature spirit as if a ‘thunder god’. I had to smirk because such misrepresentation is annoying. I can get equally annoyed when people misrepresent Norse traditions. Heh, I especially get annoyed when certain German academics seem to think *our* Norse texts should be forced to fit *their* German culture.

A telling feature of this Norse animism is, humans are also one of the nature spirits. Menn (humans), Alfar, Aesir, Vanir, Dvergar, and Jotnar are all equally nature spirits coexisting in this world. Just like humans have psychic presences, so do sunlight (Alfar), rocks (Dvergar), skies (Aesir), coastlands (Vanir), mountains (Risar) and glaciers (Thursar). Humans are one of these aspects of nature, and all of these aspects of nature interrelate like persons like humans do.

When Vikings hold a celebration in honor of the Alfar, this dinner party is like inviting a human friend to a birthday party. They arent ‘worshiping’ their friend, they are showing hospitality, by hosting a party for their friend.

Polytheism is a vertical relationship.

Animism is horizontal.

 

[Viking Bastard]

We don't actually know how the Norse related to the Æsir. We have the myths, and some vague ideas of blóts and sacrifices/appeasements (mainly that they happened, devoid of details), but all modern attempts at emulating it are guesswork.

We can't even trust the Eddas, pretty much our sole source as they are written centuries later and heavily influenced by christianity.

There are two main views though, one more "traditionally polytheistic" and another one more akin to what [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] describes, although I've never seen it interpreted as quite so animistic. Among the various neo-pagans sects around the world, the Scandinavian ones tend to take a more polytheistic approach, while I know the "animist" approach is more common among the neo-pagans of America (of which there are more of than there are in Scandinavia).

 

[Yaarel]

We don't actually know how the Norse related to the Æsir.

Today, Norse archeology (including anthropologists, textual studies, etcetera) has a better sense of what the cultures were like during the Viking Era, and in this context, a better understanding of how the Norse texts fit in.

Perhaps most important is the realization, all Norse beliefs are local. Norse belief never unified, centralized, nor systematized. One town might know of a custom in an neighboring town, and perhaps even participate in it. Thus Norse belief(s) are part of a larger network of overlapping local customs, that stretches across different cultures from the remotest regions of Norway (Old West Norse) to the heart of Germany (Old High German). The cultural worldview of any particular place in this network can differ drastically from one of a more distant place. The locales often shared cognates, but their meanings evolved differently in each locale. The Norwegians were strongly animistic, the Germans were strongly polytheistic, while the Danes were some mix in between.

The Norse Eddas and related texts are the traditions of Iceland, and mainly preserve the Old West Norse animistic traditions, where they immigrated from, but also some other locales in a kind of Pan-Norse sensibility.

The Norse texts dont explain how the Norse animists ‘related’ to (ie, ‘worshiped’) the nature spirits, because the ancient Norse never did. These nature spirits are not gods, were never ‘worshiped’, and there are no formal rules for how to worship them. All animistic traditions were personal and spontaneous. Of course, some places have local customs, such as the Alfablót and the Disablót, but these are more like Mothers Day or Thanksgiving Day in the US, traditions that feature some persistent customs, but mostly informal and spontaneous. Occasionally there is a story about a human who marries a nature spirit, and this normal way of how the Norse relate to other persons, is precisely how they relate to nature spirits as well.

In Norway, Thorr was a popular nature spirit. (Similarly, the Thunderbird is a popular nature spirit among certain Native American tribes.) But one of the archeological surprises was, Odhinn the nature spirit of the skydome, seems mostly irrelevant in Norway. The distorted emphasis on Odhinn in the Norse texts derives mainly from the skald who viewed him as a kind of muse. The name Odhinn literally means ‘the fury’, and like the skydome includes night and day simultaneously, he associated with different trance-like states from the inspiration of songs to the frenzy of the berserkr. Thus skald who preserved the Norse traditions in song were the same ones who promoted their favorite nature spirit.

Archeologists continue to debate the extent of influence of Christianity in the Norse Eddas. Personally, I lean toward the camp that sees the texts as moreorless accurate samples of Norse beliefs. Some of the skald adopted Christianity, such as Snorri, thus perhaps emphasize Norse traditions that resemble Christian traditions. Even here, the Eddas are not especially missionizing in tone, and even for the apocalyptic traditions it is often more illuminating to compare Zoroastrian texts, concerning an ancient apocalyptic tradition that both Norse and Christians shared in common. The Jul is an ancient Norse custom that honors Baldr the nature spirit of daylight, who ‘dies’ and ‘resurrects’ during the winter solstice. In the Eddas, the descriptions of daylight as good, allseeing, pure, and beautiful are likely accurate portraits of a Norse belief.

An other archeological surprise is how animistic the Norwegians were. They simply have no gods. There are no priests. These dont exist. The only formal spiritual leader is the Volva, a custom of a female shaman-like seer, who in Norse texts is clearly animistic.

Certain local customs seem more polytheistic in sensibility (such as in Uppsala, Sweden). But these appear to be innovations, inspired by Non-Norse international influences, and the texts mention the persons who invented the custom.

So when the scholars of the Romantic Era combed thru the Norse texts trying to figure out how Norse ‘religion’ worked - there never was any religion in the first place. There were only animist humans surrounded by other nature spirits. Sometimes they became friends, and sometimes they didnt. The Norse were mainly a remote aboriginal people, preserving even prehistoric ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I recognize that it is entirely possible to represent such characters completely without deities, I am often left wondering...why?

It seems to me that dropping deities is a huge missed roleplaying opportunity. The tension between the demands of the temporal world and the dictates of an actually responsive being (rather than a simple "force," a la Azeroth's "The Light," or simply "I'm so awesome I can just do this") can, IF the players are on board, be a really interesting thing. My Dungeon World Paladin is way more interesting because of the gods--and not only his own. He is special--perhaps even unique as a conduit of godly power into the mortal world--and as a result the gods compete for his attention. My DM has offered--and occasionally I've accepted--momentary boons from gods other than the character's patron (Bahamut) when it was a desperate situation. But in the end my character has always come back, but with newer and fuller understanding each time. It's been super cool to see him progress from simple, distilled piety to being on "speaking terms" (sort of...) with entire pantheons and Death himself.

Now, I can completely understand wanting to avoid the complications that this brings, but for me those complications are an important draw of the Paladin class. Edit: Which is to say, I have no problem against discussing ways to remove deities or lessen their importance, and I have no problem with people asking for help in achieving this end. What bothers me is people seeking flat-out total removal as the baseline assumption, or claiming that it's simply superior to having deities. This is quite clearly one of the appropriate places for "modular" kind of stuff.