If you're an atheist, how can you have gods and religions in your setting?......


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an atheist with a long and painful way to where I am now (baptised and raised... uhm... how do you call it in English? Lutherian?) I have absolutely no problem with deities and religion in my roleplay games.

The reason: The deities in the worlds where I tend to play in are real. They can appear, they meddle with mortals and they grant powers. They're actually THERE.

I am an atheist because there is absolutely no reason for me in this (real) world to think there is a god, or something like that. That's not the case in my fantasy settings (where mortals actually can talk to the deities with a good chance that they actually answer). So no problems there.

But I can see where the OP's friend might come from. Religious people tend to have a problem with understanding how atheists see the world.


Jaelithe wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I have run into Christians who have literally claimed that their God is the same God in all fictional worlds—regardless of world lore or the intentions of the author. Any deities who do not match their understanding of God are false gods even within the fictional world.

Seems pretty crazy to me and I can't quite wrap my head around how it works. Luckily, it's a extreme minority opinion. I've only seen it come up once or twice on the Internet.

Make that thrice.

I agree wholeheartedly with sentence one, but utterly reject sentence two.

If one believes that God is literally, truly all-powerful, omniscient and ubiquitous, in some fashion beyond ken, then not even a fantasy world would be outside His influence, and would have not come into being without Him. That doesn't mean, however, that said cosmos are aware of that (or Him) ... that other beings not aware of Him either might not have assumed the role of caretakers in their beneficence and/or calculation ... or that said place might not be functionally Godless, for all intents and purposes. But, by definition, there is no place, not even one of imagination designed specifically to exclude Him, beyond His influence or outside His power, no matter the desire of an author to posit that. It's the worst form of tyranny, from some perspectives, to say, "Even in your imaginings, He's there," but ... ultimately, that's what Christians who believe in the Omniversal God-King believe, even if they've never really explored said belief because it's unimportant to them.

It's not remotely "crazy," thejeff. It's the logical extension of believing God to be, as Steve Martin would say, "The All Being, Master of Time, Space and Dimension"—which means no other being can be. If He set everything into motion, then even the worlds conceived of to be without His influence are influenced by Him, albeit obliquely and from an astronomical distance.

I do not at all agree, though, that those gods are "false...

I can see "influenced", in the sense that (assuming for the sake of argument the existence of such a God in the real world) the author is influenced and thus his creation is too. Beyond that to "The author is wrong about the cosmology of his own work" is a step too far for me.

Crazy. The logical extension of certain beliefs can certainly be crazy, even if the beliefs themselves, taken more modestly are not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Lol! I have a brother that only plays as Clerics or Paladins of God, which one I ask, his eyes glare, the only one he says.... at this point I can throw my arms in the air and say whatever or argue it out for 3 hours or so, no middle ground, its a bit trying sometimes :-)

Tell him he's meta-gaming and that's not allowed. ;)

Great story: I was, years ago when we were kids, playing in a game where one of the participants had decided he was, like your brother, going to play a paladin of God.

Well, said Self-Righteous Champion of Holiness comes into town, and heads for the general store to purchase supplies. He approaches the owner, who's standing behind a counter.

"I need a holy symbol."

The guy smiles: A customer's a customer, after all.

"Of course, Sir Knight. For which god?"

The paladin shoots him a glare.

"God."

"I understand that. Which god?"

"The All-powerful God!"

At that, the storekeeper sighed an, "Oh, here we go ...!" sigh, and said, "Which 'all-powerful God'?"

I think you can see where this went.

It was hilarious. The only guy who didn't get it was the paladin's player, which made it even funnier.

Finally, another player said, "Try saying 'Jesus' or 'Jehovah.'"

He did, but it had gone too far at that point.

"Oh! Of course! The trendiest 'All-powerful God'!"

Let's just say things degenerated from there.


thejeff wrote:

I can see "influenced", in the sense that (assuming for the sake of argument the existence of such a God in the real world) the author is influenced and thus his creation is too. Beyond that to "The author is wrong about the cosmology of his own work" is a step too far for me.

Crazy. The logical extension of certain beliefs can certainly be crazy, even if the beliefs themselves, taken more modestly are not.

Opinion noted and rejected, but ... it really boils down to, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." A DM has every right to run a game as he or she sees fit, providing the characters with what they know or are even allowed to know.

Players, though, are always beyond their power.


Dustin Ashe wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's fun to blame Tolkien for everything, but it's not really true.

Not blaming, just pointing out the precedent.

If anything, Tolkein's "angels" sound like a pantheon of at least lesser deities to me. Perhaps he saw them as his analog for Roman Catholic archangels though. Either way, there seems like a lot of sources of divine power in Tolkein's setting whether or not The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings makes much use of them.

I haven't read any Conan....

You should. R.E.H. is good. Much better than most of the imitators. Read the originals.

As for Tolkein, arguably all sources of power in his work are divine - everything is rooted in the One.

Tolkein wrote:
There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought..."

They do play the role of a pantheon, because he was trying to merge that kind of pre-Christian myth with his own faith. I believe there's is a passage somewhere suggesting that Men worshipped the Valar in error, but the Valar did not encourage it. Morgoth and Sauron did, at least of themselves.

Morgoth is essentially Satan - mightiest of created beings, in rebellion against the Creator.

Sovereign Court

John Woodford wrote:
Hama wrote:


He's an orthodox christian.
A newly minted one.

Just to clarify, do you mean THIS sort of Orthodox Christian?

Yeah, that one. Still hasn't tattooed a huge cross on his back but seems to be going that way.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've actually ran a setting that had only one god (the abrahamic one) and a lot of saints who had different aspects so that people could pick whatever domain he or she wanted. Spells came from god, but the saints were used as foci.


Hama wrote:

I was asked this question on my last game, by one of my new players (who was obviously outraged that I don't believe in the same deity as he does)

It left me wondering though. Do you, atheist GMs, have a problem with gods and religion in the games you run? Or do you simply accept them as fact and go from there?

I, for one, find that in most settings, deities are actual, existing beings who interact with their believers and actually grant some of the more devout the ability to perform minor miracles in their name. So, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of gods in fantasy settings.

It's a game, and it should be accepted just as easily as someone who is very religious and following a good aligned deity in real life can worship Asmodeus in a game. Basically it is suspension of belief.

Sovereign Court

He is actually pestering me over text messages. I answered but he seems not to get it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

I was asked this question on my last game, by one of my new players (who was obviously outraged that I don't believe in the same deity as he does)

It left me wondering though. Do you, atheist GMs, have a problem with gods and religion in the games you run?

Let me get this straight. Your player accepts elves and dragons, but not other deities?

Sovereign Court

For fanatically religious, it can be difficult to grasp the concept of other gods. Even in make believe.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Jeff, have you read Lord of Light by Zelazny?
One of my favorites. The concept is loosely inspired by that.

I thought you probably had. It's funny how many late 20th century books you can find where a pre-industrial POV interprets post-industrial experience/artifacts as divine. The only one I can think of that goes in the opposite direction is Picnic in Paradise by Joanna Russ.

If you haven't read it, the narrator is a bronze age, Lankhmar-style thief type who accidentally gets included in the Trans-Temporal-Agency's biosphere sample, and is very unimpressed by the barbarians who live in the future. It's one of those books that isn't even 200 pages, but you feel like a different person once you've finished it.

Good Heavens, never mind playing D&D, if I'm an atheist, am I allowed to read "Lean Times in Lankhmar" and laugh my ass off 'cause it's so hilarious? If not, I'm gonna have to read nothing but Ayn Rand, and that sounds like a bit of a bummer. :(


Hama wrote:
For fanatically religious, it can be difficult to grasp the concept of other gods. Even in make believe.

I've never found that to be the case. Even the religious fanatics I know are familiar with the basic stories from Greek myths and accept the idea that, just as there's an imaginary captain of the imaginary Enterprise, there's also an imaginary father of the imaginary hero Perseus.

An inability to distinguish the real from the imaginary is, in fact, a sign of schizophrenia. This isn't fanaticism, it's psychosis.


The entire question just confuses me.

Setting aside all theological questions, deities and the things that spawn from them just make GOOD STORIES.

If you can set aside the sometimes headache inducing language, the Bible is (in part) a very interesting and exciting collection of short stories.

So why would deities someone else made up not be?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


Setting aside all theological questions, deities and the things that spawn from them just make GOOD STORIES.

As every Christian scholar of Homer over the past two millennia could tell you.


Orf, don't go there, that's sacrilege and paganism in one sentence, they'll burn you at the stake.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, stories in the bible are pretty nifty.


Hitdice wrote:
Orf, don't go there, that's sacrilege and paganism in one sentence, they'll burn you at the stake.

I literally don't understand what you just wrote. If you're suggesting that religious fanaticism causes you to deny the existence of things like Ovid's Metamorphoses, when I can head into any college bookstore and pick up a copy in Greek and in English,.... then, again, you're confusing fervor with psychosis.


Because I get to decide their alignment when they do crazy stuff. Muahhaahahhaah


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hama wrote:
For fanatically religious, it can be difficult to grasp the concept of other gods. Even in make believe.

I've never found that to be the case. Even the religious fanatics I know are familiar with the basic stories from Greek myths and accept the idea that, just as there's an imaginary captain of the imaginary Enterprise, there's also an imaginary father of the imaginary hero Perseus.

An inability to distinguish the real from the imaginary is, in fact, a sign of schizophrenia. This isn't fanaticism, it's psychosis.

I wish to clarify: no. You're mis-assigning cognitive process.

It's not an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

It's a fanaticism the desires an "accurate" representation according to it's own idea, because the Other (in this case the representation of a different religious idea as "true" cosmologically) is too odious in the same way that certain topics are verboten among certain groups (like intercourse, or politcs, or Roleplay or Rollplay, or whatever).

This is the exact same reason that people argue over alignment, paladins, and the like on these very threads.

"NO, after WotR, Iomedae isn't good anymore!!!111!!!"

... uh, actually, yeah, she is. By definition, within the game, unless it noted that her alignment altered, her alignment is still Lawful Good.

... but "her" version of "Lawful Good" creates dissonance with other peoples' version (their innate understanding) of "Lawful Good". This dissonance creates discomfort and even revulsion because it becomes expressed as too far and too different to be countenanced. You actually have people having to rewrite the module because they (by your definition) have an equitable "inability to distinguish the real from the imaginary" - which isn't such an inability at all, but rather a strong moral certitude and pychological-emotional reaction to something Other than it as a rejection due to "bad" and "wrong".

So, everyone, please, it's enough. It's the same thing we all engage in, in some measure or another, just in a different, specific way.

Hama: the guy is new - he's still "on fire" and that, frankly, isn't a bad thing. You might have to pull him aside and talk to him and explain patiently but honestly that, if he wishes to press this issue, you simply can't play with him anymore - not because you don't like him, but because his heavy-handed insistence is dragging the game down for you. Explain that you have no ill-will, but just can't do it. And do gently. As an alternate idea, offer him the reigns as GM for a while, see how he does. Or maybe send him here, let me talk to him over PM and see what's up.

Regardless, I do hope things work out amicably rather than not. :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks. But don't worry. I've had worse than him. A lot worse. He'll mellow down.


Awesome! Glad to hear you're being cool about it. :D


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I'm a Christian, and I run a game setting with lots of deities... and none of them is Yahweh. There is no Christ figure either. In fact, I try my hardest to exclude all real-world religion from my game world.

I bet that would make your friend's head explode.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's just say this. He crosses himself every time he's in public transit and passes by a church (which is a blatant ignorance of his own religion).

@Tactislion, I used to be aggravated by the religious, then I grew up.


Tacticslion wrote:


It's not an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

It's a fanaticism the desires an "accurate" representation according to it's own idea, because the Other (in this case the representation of a different religious idea as "true" cosmologically) is too odious in the same way that certain topics are verboten among certain groups (like intercourse, or politcs, or Roleplay or Rollplay, or whatever).

I stand by what I wrote. The inability to distinguish between the explicit representation of a religious idea as fictional and the representation of a religious idea as "true" is a sign of psychosis.

If I said that Benedict Cumberbatch was a "true" detective or that Hugh Laurie was a "true" doctor, based on their respective TV shows, you'd have no problem characterizing that as an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. If I said that there was a "true" country in Europe named Latveria and ruled by Doctor Doom, you'd make a similar characterization.

I can understand how religious fanaticism can make you uncomfortable with literature that presents fictional gods. But that's not the same as (per Hama), difficulty with grasping the concept of fictional gods. I might not like superhero fiction, but I acknowledge the genre.

Sovereign Court

Maybe I used the wrong terminology.


Haladir wrote:

There is no Christ figure either.

I'm fairly sure that this is untrue, since "Christ figure" is a label applied by the reader, not the writer. I'm sure there are any number of postmodernists who would be happy to point out any number of Christ-figures in your work.


Hama wrote:
Maybe I used the wrong terminology.

Possibly. He may not be well-suited for the fantasy genre, then, and you might want to find something like D20 Modern and have him scamper around through ventilation shafts in the SPECTRE bases.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Orf, don't go there, that's sacrilege and paganism in one sentence, they'll burn you at the stake.
I literally don't understand what you just wrote. If you're suggesting that religious fanaticism causes you to deny the existence of things like Ovid's Metamorphoses, when I can head into any college bookstore and pick up a copy in Greek and in English,.... then, again, you're confusing fervor with psychosis.

I was thinking of Snorri Sturluson, who recorded a bunch of Norse epics including the Prose Edda, first put forward the hypothesis of Euhemerism, and was murdered in a cellar for all his accomplishments.

New ideas are usually branded as both paganism and heresy by the extant religious powers, and that's the kind of behavior that gets you burnt at the stake. Were you actually doing that when you mentioned Christianity and Homer in the same sentence? No, but I've been watching a lot of Wolf Hall lately, so people being burned at the stake for doing completely reasonable things is on my mind lately.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying more US citizens are psychotic than fervent; I don't necessarily disagree.

EDIT: Full disclosure, I'm a US citizen, born and bred.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


New ideas are usually branded as both paganism and heresy by the extant religious powers, and that's the kind of behavior that gets you burnt at the stake. Were you actually doing that when you mentioned Christianity and Homer in the same sentence?

<chuckle> Lord God of Hosts, no. I was merely pointing out that sensible Christians have no issue with reading (and understanding) the classical Greek canon such as the Illiad and the Odyssey; I can't think of any major Christian branch -- actually, any Christian branch -- that had an issue with it. And, of course, most of the theologians and church fathers and such were very familiar with Greek myth. If you want an accessible example, look at Dante. His Divine Comedy is practically a catalog of Greek mythological figures both good and bad. (Who better to illustrate "evil counsellors" than Ulysses, or "seducer" than Jason?)

Quote:


I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying more US citizens are psychotic than fervent; I don't necessarily disagree.

No, I'm trying to say that the degree of religious belief that does not allow you to understand the idea of a fictitious deity is not a form of fervor, but a form of psychosis. And, far from being common, I don't believe that there are very many such people at all, in the same way that there aren't many people who genuinely believe themselves to be mushrooms.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
deusvult wrote:

I have more problems with NPC atheists in the game world than real life atheists at the gaming table.

Well you can still have some disbelief when you have powerful (especially if you use Mythic/Epic rules) casters who can alter reality at a whim gods would have to show off truly phenomenal ability to prove they are a god.

That's more hyperbole than fact. Even mythic archmages have their limits and spells like Create Demiplane require a bit more than a "whim" to make permanent.


LazarX wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
deusvult wrote:

I have more problems with NPC atheists in the game world than real life atheists at the gaming table.

Well you can still have some disbelief when you have powerful (especially if you use Mythic/Epic rules) casters who can alter reality at a whim gods would have to show off truly phenomenal ability to prove they are a god.
That's more hyperbole than fact. Even mythic archmages have their limits and spells like Create Demiplane require a bit more than a "whim" to make permanent.

OTOH, it's not like world creation is necessary to be a god anyway.

I think the real argument is that it takes more than phenomenal power to qualify as a god. Even the most atheistic of characters in Golarion will concede that there are some incredibly powerful creatures in the universe and that those most people call gods seem to be near the top of the heap. Whether there's any distinction there beyond "more powerful" is a philosophical question.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, I'm trying to say that the degree of religious belief that does not allow you to understand the idea of a fictitious deity is not a form of fervor, but a form of psychosis.

I think that degree of religious belief is far more popular (and I use that word advisedly) here in the US than in the rest of the first world. Not to put you on the spot, but can I enquire as to your nation of origin?

The Exchange

Quote:
If one believes that God is literally, truly all-powerful, omniscient and ubiquitous, in some fashion beyond ken, then not even a fantasy world would be outside His influence, and would have not come into being without Him. That doesn't mean, however, that said cosmos are aware of that (or Him) ... that other beings not aware of Him either might not have assumed the role of caretakers in their beneficence and/or calculation ... or that said place might not be functionally Godless, for all intents and purposes. But, by definition, there is no place, not even one of imagination designed specifically to exclude Him, beyond His influence or outside His power, no matter the desire of an author to posit that. It's the worst form of tyranny, from some perspectives, to say, "Even in your imaginings, He's there," but ... ultimately, that's what Christians who believe in the Omniversal God-King believe, even if they've never really explored said belief because it's unimportant to them.

That's just taking this thought to a logical extreme, and the result is somewhat nonsensical. It also seems to be somewhat ad hoc, because on a philosophical level it is equivalent to saying that imagined worlds are real in some sense - and that is murky water that thinkers have been splashing in for years. And that is only one of the many, many weird and controversial consequences of assuming that Mr. J* has influence over made up worlds.

*

Spoiler:
Mr. J because just saying "god" doesn't feel right to me, because treating the existence of the chrsitian god is not in my nature... can't just go writing his name in vain though, I'm not here to offend anybody, so this felt like an acceptable middle ground :)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Haladir wrote:

There is no Christ figure either.

I'm fairly sure that this is untrue, since "Christ figure" is a label applied by the reader, not the writer.

I meant "Christ parallel" in my game world.

However, I believe you are mistaken about the term "Christ figure" in literature. Deliberate use of Christ figures by the author is a long-established literary technique.

Christ figures typically sacrifice themselves to save others, or are good people unjustly put to death, or seemingly die yet later return, or a combination of these.

(e.g. Sydney Carlton in A Tale of Two Cities,, Benjy in The Sound and the Fury, Jim Conklin in The Red Badge of Courage, Billy Budd in Billy Budd, or Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Snow wrote:

And that is only one of the many, many weird and controversial consequences of assuming that Mr. J* has influence over made up worlds.

*** spoiler omitted **

The only time I've heard anyone referred to as "Mr. J" in recent memory was Harley Quinn referring to the Joker.

Does this mean that the animation version of James Jacobs should be voiced by Mark Hamil?

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't that be an awesome thing? Imagine a tyrranosaurus being voiced by Mark Hamil.


Hitdice wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
No, I'm trying to say that the degree of religious belief that does not allow you to understand the idea of a fictitious deity is not a form of fervor, but a form of psychosis.
I think that degree of religious belief is far more popular (and I use that word advisedly) here in the US than in the rest of the first world.

Possibly -- in the sense that I have never met anyone who displayed that particular kink in their mental wiring, and so we're dealing with a percentage of the population that rounds down to zero percent, and so if there's a single person in the world who believes that and he happens to be American, then that "belief" is more common in the US than elsewhere.

Let me be more explicit. As I said, I have never met anyone with that degree of "belief." Nor do you, unless you work in a mental institution, and even then it's highly unlikely. Because what you describe is not "religious belief" but clinical psychosis -- the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:

And that is only one of the many, many weird and controversial consequences of assuming that Mr. J* has influence over made up worlds.

*** spoiler omitted **

The only time I've heard anyone referred to as "Mr. J" in recent memory was Harley Quinn referring to the Joker.

Does this mean that the animation version of James Jacobs should be voiced by Mark Hamil?

Well, consider it. If Mr. J influences all imaginary worlds, he influences the Batman universe, as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Semantic arguments: wasting the internet's time since 1992.


Haladir wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Haladir wrote:

There is no Christ figure either.

I'm fairly sure that this is untrue, since "Christ figure" is a label applied by the reader, not the writer.

I meant "Christ parallel" in my game world.

However, I believe you are mistaken about the term "Christ figure" in literature. Deliberate use of Christ figures by the author is a long-established literary technique.

Much less common and less well-established than you think. Don't confuse a Campbellian hero with a "Christ figure"; in fact, that's a common mistake that leads to the "Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory" trope I cited earlier.

Quote:


Christ figures typically sacrifice themselves to save others, or are good people unjustly put to death, or seemingly die yet later return, or a combination of these.

Yeah,..... no. That's Campbell, not Christ, specifically the steps of "atonement with the father" and "apotheosis." Of course, Christ is an example of a Campbellian hero, but as Campbell himself was at pains to point out, the monomyth is much more widespread in both space and time.

Quote:


(e.g. Sydney Carlton in A Tale of Two Cities,, Benjy in The Sound and the Fury, Jim Conklin in The Red Badge of Courage, Billy Budd in Billy Budd, or Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings)

Goodness, no. At least with the last example, Tolkien himself denied the allegorical interpretation. Of course, despite this, Tolkien scholars have spilled gallons of ink arguing over whether Gandalf, Frodo, or Aragorn was "the Christ-figure" in The Lord of the Rings. Because, as I said, that's a label applied by the reader, sometimes in the teeth of the author's explicit writings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually not being able to understand the idea of a fictitious deity may be psychosis, but finding even fictitious gods threatening and dangerous is much more common. There's a segment of Christianity that thinks that any toying with such, even in the guise of fiction, is dangerous. It's closely linked to the same groups that think D&D is Satanic or that want to ban Harry Potter.

Usually it's tied to anything magical or occult that isn't strictly Christian in nature. Or the wrong type of Christian.

Those who won't play D&D at all are more common, but I've run across some who will play, but pretending to worship a fictional deity or (more accurately) playing a character who does so is too far.


thejeff wrote:

Actually not being able to understand the idea of a fictitious deity may be psychosis, but finding even fictitious gods threatening and dangerous is much more common. There's a segment of Christianity that thinks that any toying with such, even in the guise of fiction, is dangerous. It's closely linked to the same groups that think D&D is Satanic or that want to ban Harry Potter.

Usually it's tied to anything magical or occult that isn't strictly Christian in nature. Or the wrong type of Christian.

Those who won't play D&D at all are more common, but I've run across some who will play, but pretending to worship a fictional deity or (more accurately) playing a character who does so is too far.

What do you mean by "wrong type of Christian"


xavier c wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Actually not being able to understand the idea of a fictitious deity may be psychosis, but finding even fictitious gods threatening and dangerous is much more common. There's a segment of Christianity that thinks that any toying with such, even in the guise of fiction, is dangerous. It's closely linked to the same groups that think D&D is Satanic or that want to ban Harry Potter.

Usually it's tied to anything magical or occult that isn't strictly Christian in nature. Or the wrong type of Christian.

Those who won't play D&D at all are more common, but I've run across some who will play, but pretending to worship a fictional deity or (more accurately) playing a character who does so is too far.

What do you mean by "wrong type of Christian"

From the point of view of the type of Christian who believes this sort of thing - anyone who claims to be Christian, but doesn't agree enough with them.

Sovereign Court

So a no true Scotsman then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a Christian I don't see what the problem is. i mean the pathfinder setting has a LOT of Christian elements in it.


Hama wrote:

I was asked this question on my last game, by one of my new players (who was obviously outraged that I don't believe in the same deity as he does)

It left me wondering though. Do you, atheist GMs, have a problem with gods and religion in the games you run? Or do you simply accept them as fact and go from there?

I, for one, find that in most settings, deities are actual, existing beings who interact with their believers and actually grant some of the more devout the ability to perform minor miracles in their name. So, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of gods in fantasy settings.

If I wanted my game to be a religious polemic, I'd run DragonRaid. Since I'm not running a religious polemic, my gaming table mixes combat simulation, high adventure, puzzle solving, and a crapton of puns and Monty Python references. If I'm lucky, I get to throw in a few themes about war, redemption, and so forth.

If I run a campaign where the gods are active beings that walk among mortals, my religious beliefs do not change.

If I run a campaign where the gods are remote beings who regularly answer their clerics' prayers, my religious beliefs do not change.

If I run a campaign where the gods may or may not exist, and there are no divine spellcasters, my religious beliefs do not change.

If I run a campaign with a thousand gods, fifteen gods, one god, no gods, gods that are really aliens, gods that are really extradimensional beings, true gods, good gods, bad gods, false gods, true gods, chicken gods, or Elvis gods, my religious beliefs do not change.

My players and I are working together to play a game, tell a story, and eat nachos (although we're cutting back on the nachos because we're in our 40s and worried about our cholestorol). Our personal religions do not enter the game at all.


My response to your friend's comment would have been "What? You mean... how can I have make believe gods in my make believe fantasy game?"

If anything, your friend is probably the one that should be in a moral/ethical quandry. If I profess to believe in no god, and play a game with all sorts of fantasy imagery (including other gods)... that's no big deal. If I profess to believe in God, and play a game with all sort of fantasy imagery (including other gods)... that could potentially be a lot more awkward.

Of course, if someone were fervant enough to be uncomfortable playing D&D because of magic and other gods being involved, then they're probably doing stuff like deliberately not reading the Harry Potter series as well. At which point... are they really a good fit for the group? Unless it's a church group, I suppose. But then the GM would modify multiple key elements of the game, and we've sort of circled around to the beginning again.


Now that my rant is out of the way ...

If a new player joins my gaming group and starts throwing his dice at the wall every time I mention Erastil and throws a tantrum over false gods, then I'm going to tell him he's no longer welcome in the group.

If a new player joins my gaming group and privately mentions to me that he's not quite comfortable with the talk of gods and such at the table, then I'm going to ask him about the hang-up. If it turns out he just feels he can't play a game with a lot of false gods and he doesn't want the party cleric to invoke Besmara during a sea battle, then I'll probably thank him for bringing it up in private and tell him my Pathfinder table is probably a bad match for him. On the other hand, if he wants to make sure he's not playing a character who goes against his real-world deity in some way, then I'll work with him and see if we can work something out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're an a-unicornist, how can you have unicorns and pixies in your setting?

51 to 100 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / If you're an atheist, how can you have gods and religions in your setting?...... All Messageboards