Okay, this thread has become an absurd display about negative stereotypes of atheists.
Being an atheist does not mean you think you're a god.
Being an atheist does not mean you think that you're infallible.
Being an atheist does not mean that you're a sociopath or a psychopath.
It just means that you don't believe that anything that says it's a god is telling the truth.
Rangers and Druids have been regularly portrayed as atheists who don't worship any gods for decades in the game, so why is there any reason to have hangups about paladins?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Okay, this thread has become an absurd display about negative stereotypes of atheists.
Being an atheist does not mean you think you're a god.
Being an atheist does not mean you think that you're infallible.
Being an atheist does not mean that you're a sociopath or a psychopath.
It just means that you don't believe that anything that says it's a god is telling the truth.
Rangers and Druids have been regularly portrayed as atheists who don't worship any gods for decades in the game, so why is there any reason to have hangups about paladins?
Is that true about rangers and druids? It seems most of the lore in 5e points to them just not getting their powers directly from the gods or serving them, not actively questioning or doubting their existence.
Okay, this thread has become an absurd display about negative stereotypes of atheists.
Being an atheist does not mean you think you're a god.
Being an atheist does not mean you think that you're infallible.
Being an atheist does not mean that you're a sociopath or a psychopath.
It just means that you don't believe that anything that says it's a god is telling the truth.
Rangers and Druids have been regularly portrayed as atheists who don't worship any gods for decades in the game, so why is there any reason to have hangups about paladins?
Is that true about rangers and druids? It seems most of the lore in 5e points to them just not getting their powers directly from the gods or serving them, not actively questioning or doubting their existence.
Yeah, neither of these classes are specifically known for being strictly atheist as far as I’ve seen and are shown to somewhat commonly revere nature spirits and sometimes even nature deities. They just don’t have to worship them to gain their powers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
It can go either way. If you're not getting your power from the gods, you have a rather powerful argument regarding the idea that they don't exist.
I drive a Nissan, that doesn't mean I doubt that Fords exist, especially when I see them every day.
Also, druids and rangers are still tied up in lore that admits a place for nature gods, even if they are not directly tied to them. The gods aren't their focus, but they are still relevant and difficult simply question outright.
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Because an oath is all the atheist has. They don't believe in those ideals because a god told them to. They believe in the ideals because they think they are right. I'm trying to interpret your post correctly, but if I make mistakes, please tell me. You think that since a deity has "greater power and virtue" than a paladin, they are more qualified to dictate what to believe in. But in D&D, gods are fallible. They die and make mistakes. So if you only believe in something because someone else told you to, are you really believing in it? I think you should have to justify why you think something is right and wrong. And if you are atheistic and all of your conviction lies in your oath, than that is powerful.
Joel, the emphasized text gets to the heart of the matter. It seems to me this is the definition of a psychopath. If their belief in themselves provides justification for anything they choose to do, then I believe that is a psychopath. But, do not mistake my observation as a declaration that a paladin that does choose to follow a deity isn't also fallible. If they justify anything they do, and it is an evil act, then we call that Over Zealous.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
And why would a paladin not think that a deity with more power and wisdom than themselves is worthy of devotion. Don't you look up to some people IRL because they are better than yourself in some facet; a better athlete, a better musician, better educated and set in their career path, ...?
You just misunderstood what JoeltheWalrus was saying. From what I read, you thought that, "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think they (the paladin) are right" when the true interpretation is "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think that they (the tenets/ideals) are right." You misunderstood them, and I'm merely showing you where you were mistaken.
They can believe in their ideals and think that the ideals are correct and something to strive for without being a pyschopath. I agree with Joel. A paladin who doesn't have a god to serve that instead only serves and upholds their oath would be more likely to be more devoted to their oath, because they don't also have to serve a god. In short, they have more devotion to go around than one that has to serve their oath and deity.
An atheist (in D&D terms, an atheist most likely knows the god exists, but chooses not to worship them, like the Iconoclasts from MOoT) that is a paladin would not be anymore sure in themselves than a typical god-following paladin. Both would strive to follow what they believe is the correct way of living, but it's not a pride or psychopath driven goal. You are completely mistaken. They can be prideful and all "holier than thou" but that is not a given or prerequisite to either way of playing a paladin.
In short, a paladin that has no god that they worship or follow is no more inclined to prejudices, pride, psychopathy, or any other negative connotations. If clerics don't have to worship deities, paladins are even more inclined to not worship a deity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It can go either way. If you're not getting your power from the gods, you have a rather powerful argument regarding the idea that they don't exist.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree with this. In D&D worlds that have deities that are meddlers (Forgotten Realms, Wildemount, Greyhawk) it is very difficult for anyone (divine spellcaster or not) to deny their existence. In other worlds that the presence of gods are less clear or nonexistent (Eberron, Ravnica, Dark Sun) this claim is mostly true.
In the Forgotten Realms, an Arcana Cleric that worships the Weave (not Mystra, but the Weave of Magic) is no more inclined to deny the existence of Mystra than any other person on Toril. Not getting your power from a specific source does not make you more inclined to deny the existence of a deity in a world where deities are very clearly and historically present.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think that you can become a paladin as an atheist, but not as a faithless person You have to believe in something so strongly that the ideals come from your religion. I actually think a atheist paladin would be more devoted to their oath than a religious one, because they are truly serving the tenets of the oath and not working through a proxy of a god.
Why do you think this; that an atheist would have greater devotion to their oath? Since their oath is only to themselves, and an atheist doesn't believe there is something greater in the universe than themselves, why would this constitute a greater bond than a paladin that swore an oath as an agreement with their deity who they believe holds greater power and virtue than themselves?
Because an oath is all the atheist has. They don't believe in those ideals because a god told them to. They believe in the ideals because they think they are right. I'm trying to interpret your post correctly, but if I make mistakes, please tell me. You think that since a deity has "greater power and virtue" than a paladin, they are more qualified to dictate what to believe in. But in D&D, gods are fallible. They die and make mistakes. So if you only believe in something because someone else told you to, are you really believing in it? I think you should have to justify why you think something is right and wrong. And if you are atheistic and all of your conviction lies in your oath, than that is powerful.
Joel, the emphasized text gets to the heart of the matter. It seems to me this is the definition of a psychopath. If their belief in themselves provides justification for anything they choose to do, then I believe that is a psychopath. But, do not mistake my observation as a declaration that a paladin that does choose to follow a deity isn't also fallible. If they justify anything they do, and it is an evil act, then we call that Over Zealous.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
And why would a paladin not think that a deity with more power and wisdom than themselves is worthy of devotion. Don't you look up to some people IRL because they are better than yourself in some facet; a better athlete, a better musician, better educated and set in their career path, ...?
I don't think that believing in something makes you a psychopath. I also don't think that you understand exactly what I mean, or maybe I just phrased what I meant to say wrong. If you are using an oath or your belief in your self to justify everything you do, than you are not a paladin. You are a narcissist who thinks that the world revolves around you. A true paladin follows ideals, not belief that they are a god. Instead of having a god tell them "x is right and x is wrong," they use their own experiences to develop a code of morals. For example, most humans don't need to be told to not torture and murder. They develop their own reasons why they don't. I believe that this is how you truly understand something, from learning about it from your own experiences and making conclusions about it.
For the second example, I don't think an atheistic paladin would be boring at all. In fact, their story would be much more unique than a ordinary paladin that follows a divine entity. If you follow a deity, all you have to do is make sure your behavior follows the deities laws. I actually think you summed up what a paladin that follows a deity pretty well in your post: "'Hey, my god tells me that I'm right. I'm virtuous." In my mind, there is less room for character development than if the character creates their own code of morals. For example, one of the tenets of a paladins oath might be: "Protect the innocent who would be wronged." This seems like a fairly simple tenet, or so it seems. For example, lets say a group of people attack another group. Group A, the attacked, might feel that group B, the attackers are evil. They might call a paladin to defend themselves form Group B. But Group B argues that in the distant past, Group A had burned them to the ground and they spent the time recovering for justice. Who is in the right here? If your paladin follows a god, they just pray for guidance from the god and let that dictate their actions. One that creates their own code would have to arbitrate this themselves, and try to understand the true meaning of justice and innocence.
And finally, yes I do look up to people. I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the discussion, unless you attempt to make an argument about my faith and belief system. Please don't do that, I think it would be against forum rules.
Also consider: As alluded to much earlier in this thread, the existence of Oathbreaker Paladins is very questionable if the only force that produces a Paladin's powers is their own devotion. How and why would a lack of devotion turn a regular Paladin into what is effectively a Death Knight? (WoW reference.) There is no justification for that in the lore unless (most) Paladins get their powers from a divine source; or at the very least, from some font of weave-shaping energy tied directly to one of the non-Material Planes. So then the lore becomes inconsistent with itself.
If faith and devotion in an ideal can cause someone to gain so much power, I see no reason why perversion of those ideals can't make someone can a different brand of power.
But what would cause that? Who determines what is the "perversion"? If there is no being with Intelligence or values determining what is the correct way to be devout, then what would cause those powers to morph into another set of powers?
An ideal is abstraction, a concept. If all it took was belief in an abstraction to get super powers, then why can't a strong enough devotion allow some Paladins to cast the Wish spell? Or True Resurrection? By basing powers on something that is purely abstract, there is no reason for hard limits on those powers.
A paladin that believes a god with greater wisdom and power is worthy of devotion will reflect on whether his actions are truly in keeping with the path of his deity. That seems to be a much more compelling story than "Hey, I know I'm right. I'm virtuous." No struggle. No room for reflection or character development. Heck, I'm already a god, I just wish I had more power so I wouldn't die.
This part is an excellent point. A Paladin whose powers come solely from adherence to an ideal without an outside source of those powers would easily degenerate into a Judge Dread-style enforcer. This is the Egotist who does not believe that he/she is an Egotist, a force of Righteousness that has no checks or balances on their power who slips gradually into a one-note Avatar of "I am Right and my Power proves it!"
I think you exactly described what a perversion is. When a Paladin changes from believing in ideals, to "I am Right and My Power proves it!"
It can go either way. If you're not getting your power from the gods, you have a rather powerful argument regarding the idea that they don't exist.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree with this. In D&D worlds that have deities that are meddlers (Forgotten Realms, Wildemount, Greyhawk) it is very difficult for anyone (divine spellcaster or not) to deny their existence. In other worlds that the presence of gods are less clear or nonexistent (Eberron, Ravnica, Dark Sun) this claim is mostly true.
In the Forgotten Realms, an Arcana Cleric that worships the Weave (not Mystra, but the Weave of Magic) is no more inclined to deny the existence of Mystra than any other person on Toril. Not getting your power from a specific source does not make you more inclined to deny the existence of a deity in a world where deities are very clearly and historically present.
You can believe that Mystra or Helm exists without believing that they're gods. There are other beings in the D&D settings that are considered to be as powerful as gods but are not gods- demon princes (which often like to pretend to be gods), the lords and ladies of the Archfey, Primus, the Slaad Lords, particularly powerful Celestials, and the Lady of Pain, just to name a few. This was, in fact, the entire principle of the Athar faction from Planescape, which was a setting that gave much more direct access to the gods than the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk did.
Remember, this is just a character's personal belief, they don't have to prove that it's true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I am afraid I can not participate in this discussion further. I would like to explore it with you, but I have been warned that I have crossed a line under the rules here. I wish you all the best.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
You can believe that Mystra or Helm exists without believing that they're gods. There are other beings in the D&D settings that are considered to be as powerful as gods but are not gods- demon princes (which often like to pretend to be gods), the lords and ladies of the Archfey, Primus, the Slaad Lords, particularly powerful Celestials, and the Lady of Pain, just to name a few. This was, in fact, the entire principle of the Athar faction from Planescape, which was a setting that gave much more direct access to the gods than the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk did.
Remember, this is just a character's personal belief, they don't have to prove that it's true.
(Most of the Archfey are actually deities. Primus is a deity, too.)
Sure. An atheist paladin could not believe that certain deities are not actually deities, but they would most likely believe that there are deities in their world/cosmology.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think that an atheist in D&D would be aware of and recognize the existence of deities, but they wouldn't worship them or believe that they are absolute powers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I am afraid I can not participate in this discussion further. I would like to explore it with you, but I have been warned that I have crossed a line under the rules here. I wish you all the best.
That's a cop-out.
You can participate further and can discuss/debate the topic at hand without making assumptions about individuals in the thread. I'm not attacking you or making this personal. I doubt anyone here was actually offended of what you said, just making you aware that you may be crossing a line.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think that an atheist in D&D would be aware of and recognize the existence of deities, but they wouldn't worship them or believe that they are absolute powers.
I agree with that completely. Some may believe that certain deities are not truly deities, and a very rare type of atheist paladin might deny their existence entirely, but the most common type would be what you described above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think that an atheist in D&D would be aware of and recognize the existence of deities, but they wouldn't worship them or believe that they are absolute powers.
Agreed, being a true atheist in most D&D settings would be about as rational as believing in most conspiracy theories in the modern world.
Given the fact that barbarians no longer hate magic by default (can even cast spells with certain subclasses and races), paladins aren't limited to lawful good, clerics don't have to worship a deity, and so on, I would say players in general prefer playing rational characters than conspiracy theory-level deluded characters. You certainly can have fun playing such a character if you do it correctly and roleplay in a fun way, but overall, mostly rational characters are more popular than non-rational.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yes, most people probably do. But they have the option to not do so if they choose to. Like how someone has the option to play a magic-hating barbarian, a lawful good paladin, and so on. They're just not punished mechanically if they want to do something different and have a character who's a weirdo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I never said they had to be, just that if you're denying the existence of the gods in a world where people often have direct interaction with them, you're probably not entirely sane. Then again, if you decide to make your living by going out into caves and risking your life to kill random things in hopes that they have something valuable, you're already probably not exactly sane.
I never said they had to be, just that if you're denying the existence of the gods in a world where people often have direct interaction with them, you're probably not entirely sane. Then again, if you decide to make your living by going out into caves and risking your life to kill random things in hopes that they have something valuable, you're already probably not exactly sane.
Indeed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, this thread has become an absurd display about negative stereotypes of atheists.
Being an atheist does not mean you think you're a god.
Being an atheist does not mean you think that you're infallible.
Being an atheist does not mean that you're a sociopath or a psychopath.
It just means that you don't believe that anything that says it's a god is telling the truth.
Rangers and Druids have been regularly portrayed as atheists who don't worship any gods for decades in the game, so why is there any reason to have hangups about paladins?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Is that true about rangers and druids? It seems most of the lore in 5e points to them just not getting their powers directly from the gods or serving them, not actively questioning or doubting their existence.
It can go either way. If you're not getting your power from the gods, you have a rather powerful argument regarding the idea that they don't exist.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, neither of these classes are specifically known for being strictly atheist as far as I’ve seen and are shown to somewhat commonly revere nature spirits and sometimes even nature deities. They just don’t have to worship them to gain their powers.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
My Greater Will Google Doc
Proud member of the DragonClub! cult.
I drive a Nissan, that doesn't mean I doubt that Fords exist, especially when I see them every day.
Also, druids and rangers are still tied up in lore that admits a place for nature gods, even if they are not directly tied to them. The gods aren't their focus, but they are still relevant and difficult simply question outright.
You just misunderstood what JoeltheWalrus was saying. From what I read, you thought that, "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think they (the paladin) are right" when the true interpretation is "They (the paladins) believe in the ideals (tenets) because they think that they (the tenets/ideals) are right." You misunderstood them, and I'm merely showing you where you were mistaken.
They can believe in their ideals and think that the ideals are correct and something to strive for without being a pyschopath. I agree with Joel. A paladin who doesn't have a god to serve that instead only serves and upholds their oath would be more likely to be more devoted to their oath, because they don't also have to serve a god. In short, they have more devotion to go around than one that has to serve their oath and deity.
An atheist (in D&D terms, an atheist most likely knows the god exists, but chooses not to worship them, like the Iconoclasts from MOoT) that is a paladin would not be anymore sure in themselves than a typical god-following paladin. Both would strive to follow what they believe is the correct way of living, but it's not a pride or psychopath driven goal. You are completely mistaken. They can be prideful and all "holier than thou" but that is not a given or prerequisite to either way of playing a paladin.
In short, a paladin that has no god that they worship or follow is no more inclined to prejudices, pride, psychopathy, or any other negative connotations. If clerics don't have to worship deities, paladins are even more inclined to not worship a deity.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I disagree with this. In D&D worlds that have deities that are meddlers (Forgotten Realms, Wildemount, Greyhawk) it is very difficult for anyone (divine spellcaster or not) to deny their existence. In other worlds that the presence of gods are less clear or nonexistent (Eberron, Ravnica, Dark Sun) this claim is mostly true.
In the Forgotten Realms, an Arcana Cleric that worships the Weave (not Mystra, but the Weave of Magic) is no more inclined to deny the existence of Mystra than any other person on Toril. Not getting your power from a specific source does not make you more inclined to deny the existence of a deity in a world where deities are very clearly and historically present.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think that believing in something makes you a psychopath. I also don't think that you understand exactly what I mean, or maybe I just phrased what I meant to say wrong. If you are using an oath or your belief in your self to justify everything you do, than you are not a paladin. You are a narcissist who thinks that the world revolves around you. A true paladin follows ideals, not belief that they are a god. Instead of having a god tell them "x is right and x is wrong," they use their own experiences to develop a code of morals. For example, most humans don't need to be told to not torture and murder. They develop their own reasons why they don't. I believe that this is how you truly understand something, from learning about it from your own experiences and making conclusions about it.
For the second example, I don't think an atheistic paladin would be boring at all. In fact, their story would be much more unique than a ordinary paladin that follows a divine entity. If you follow a deity, all you have to do is make sure your behavior follows the deities laws. I actually think you summed up what a paladin that follows a deity pretty well in your post: "'Hey, my god tells me that I'm right. I'm virtuous." In my mind, there is less room for character development than if the character creates their own code of morals. For example, one of the tenets of a paladins oath might be: "Protect the innocent who would be wronged." This seems like a fairly simple tenet, or so it seems. For example, lets say a group of people attack another group. Group A, the attacked, might feel that group B, the attackers are evil. They might call a paladin to defend themselves form Group B. But Group B argues that in the distant past, Group A had burned them to the ground and they spent the time recovering for justice. Who is in the right here? If your paladin follows a god, they just pray for guidance from the god and let that dictate their actions. One that creates their own code would have to arbitrate this themselves, and try to understand the true meaning of justice and innocence.
And finally, yes I do look up to people. I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the discussion, unless you attempt to make an argument about my faith and belief system. Please don't do that, I think it would be against forum rules.
I think you exactly described what a perversion is. When a Paladin changes from believing in ideals, to "I am Right and My Power proves it!"
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You can believe that Mystra or Helm exists without believing that they're gods. There are other beings in the D&D settings that are considered to be as powerful as gods but are not gods- demon princes (which often like to pretend to be gods), the lords and ladies of the Archfey, Primus, the Slaad Lords, particularly powerful Celestials, and the Lady of Pain, just to name a few. This was, in fact, the entire principle of the Athar faction from Planescape, which was a setting that gave much more direct access to the gods than the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk did.
Remember, this is just a character's personal belief, they don't have to prove that it's true.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I am afraid I can not participate in this discussion further. I would like to explore it with you, but I have been warned that I have crossed a line under the rules here. I wish you all the best.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
(Most of the Archfey are actually deities. Primus is a deity, too.)
Sure. An atheist paladin could not believe that certain deities are not actually deities, but they would most likely believe that there are deities in their world/cosmology.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think that an atheist in D&D would be aware of and recognize the existence of deities, but they wouldn't worship them or believe that they are absolute powers.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That's a cop-out.
You can participate further and can discuss/debate the topic at hand without making assumptions about individuals in the thread. I'm not attacking you or making this personal. I doubt anyone here was actually offended of what you said, just making you aware that you may be crossing a line.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree with that completely. Some may believe that certain deities are not truly deities, and a very rare type of atheist paladin might deny their existence entirely, but the most common type would be what you described above.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Agreed, being a true atheist in most D&D settings would be about as rational as believing in most conspiracy theories in the modern world.
Who said that a character has to be rational?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Given the fact that barbarians no longer hate magic by default (can even cast spells with certain subclasses and races), paladins aren't limited to lawful good, clerics don't have to worship a deity, and so on, I would say players in general prefer playing rational characters than conspiracy theory-level deluded characters. You certainly can have fun playing such a character if you do it correctly and roleplay in a fun way, but overall, mostly rational characters are more popular than non-rational.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes, most people probably do. But they have the option to not do so if they choose to. Like how someone has the option to play a magic-hating barbarian, a lawful good paladin, and so on. They're just not punished mechanically if they want to do something different and have a character who's a weirdo.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I never said they had to be, just that if you're denying the existence of the gods in a world where people often have direct interaction with them, you're probably not entirely sane. Then again, if you decide to make your living by going out into caves and risking your life to kill random things in hopes that they have something valuable, you're already probably not exactly sane.
Indeed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.