Deitys and Apologies

[Omegaxicor]

You always seem to take things further than me, arrogance is evil and relative is the best of evil. What I meant is that Good people have their laws (such as the things you can't do as a Paladin without losing your powers, For Example) and Gods reward those laws. A person can be Lawful Good and not be a follower of all of Heironeous's ideals being good can mean a variety of things to different societies, two very different people can be Lawful Good so good is obviously relative within D&D's alignment system

Now I didn't know about Over-deities who might be the ones that keep Deities in line and keep them from guiding mortals to their death but I doubt it because that's what being a god is, Good, Neutral or Evil you have a certain number of pieces and you craft fate by manipulating them to defeat your rivals...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

but it changes very little because Over-deities are the same as Deities in that they are above the affairs of mortals...

This phrase about deities above the affairs of mortals confuses me.

I grant you, each DM plays his or her world differently.

However, Aren't the gods actively involved in the affairs of mortals? Granting Divine spells, directing small cults, large churches, or entire nations (I'm thinking Lloth & her Drow) on a regular basis? Some of the deities are actively wandering the Material Plane (I'm thinking Fharlanghn and in some cases, Olidammara depending on how a DM plays him) and coming alongside mortals in one way or another.

D&D appears to me to be a game that assumes deity involvement on a variety of levels as the regular playing experience.

 

[Omegaxicor]

This phrase about deities above the affairs of mortals confuses me.

I grant you, each DM plays his or her world differently.

However, Aren't the gods actively involved in the affairs of mortals? Granting Divine spells, directing small cults, large churches, or entire nations (I'm thinking Lloth & her Drow) on a regular basis? Some of the deities are actively wandering the Material Plane (I'm thinking Fharlanghn and in some cases, Olidammara depending on how a DM plays him) and coming alongside mortals in one way or another.

D&D appears to me to be a game that assumes deity involvement on a variety of levels as the regular playing experience.

Where does it say that the gods wander the earth with mortals???

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Where does it say that the gods wander the earth with mortals???

Away from my books at the moment, but Fharlanghn is one popular example of a deity that makes the Material Plane, and the affairs of Mortals, his primary concern.

It's part of the reason he's one of my favorites.

Kord also, while residing on Ysgard, is all about encouraging combat and valor. In fact, all the deities that focus on combat (Hextor, Heironeous, St. Cuthbert, etc) are focused on encouraging the combat between mortals.

The racial Deties (Yondalla, Corellon Larethian, Garl Glittergold, Gruumsh, Moradin, etc) are intensely focused on the actions and the well being of their people group.

How are the deities above the affairs of mortals? Thier character and interests appears (to me) to be tied with them. Much of a Deity's portfolio consists of mortal related topics. Not any one particular mortal, per se, but "mortals" and thier affairs.

 

[Omegaxicor]

well that page specifically says "In the Greyhawk campaign setting he wanders that world in person" but if it says that in the books (I will look through them when I get to them) then I might be wrong about the gods being above mortals or maybe in Greyhawk they changed that...

 

[Dozen]

You always seem to take things further than me, arrogance is evil and relative is the best of evil. What I meant is that Good people have their laws (such as the things you can't do as a Paladin without losing your powers, For Example) and Gods reward those laws. A person can be Lawful Good and not be a follower of all of Heironeous's ideals being good can mean a variety of things to different societies, two very different people can be Lawful Good so good is obviously relative within D&D's alignment system.

Bullpies. There are different kinds of Good people, but they are still called Good for the same frakkin' reasons. Being Good is just a single aspect of one's personality, but the definition doesn't shift into different forms just because it doesn't tell you everything about someone.

However, Aren't the gods actively involved in the affairs of mortals? Granting Divine spells, directing small cults, large churches, or entire nations (I'm thinking Lloth & her Drow) on a regular basis? Some of the deities are actively wandering the Material Plane (I'm thinking Fharlanghn and in some cases, Olidammara depending on how a DM plays him) and coming alongside mortals in one way or another.

Actively, yes. But not directly.

Where does it say that the gods wander the earth with mortals???

Some of them do. That doesn't change anything tough, don't think about it much.

 

[Omegaxicor]

Bullpies. There are different kinds of Good people, but they are still called Good for the same frakkin' reasons. Good is just a single aspect of one's personality, but just because it doesn't tell you everything about someone it doesn't mean it's not constant.

Heironeous' Good is entirely different from Kord's Good and even different from Bahamut's Good they represent different sets of rules and breaking the rules of one God but not another makes you Evil? no, you are still Good just not his/her view of Good, hence what actions represent Good is relative...

Actively, yes. But not directly.

That I agree with

Some of them do. That doesn't change anything tough, don't think about it much.

Actually it does, if they interfere with mortals directly on a daily basis then they probably wouldn't sacrifice them as freely (They might still do that though because they understand the reasons for it)

 

[Dozen]

Heironeous' Good is entirely different from Kord's Good and even different from Bahamut's Good they represent different sets of rules and breaking the rules of one God but not another makes you Evil? no, you are still Good just not his/her view of Good, hence what actions represent Good is relative...

They are differently Good, but for the same reasons: They all embrace compassion, goodwill, and the care for others.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

That's the definition of Good under D&D, and it fits all three. It doesn't care if Kord is chaotic and Bahamut isn't as warlike as big H or whatever your reason for mentioning them was, they are all good because they do good things and refuse to do bad things.

Actually it does, if they interfere with mortals directly on a daily basis then they probably wouldn't sacrifice them as freely (They might still do that though because they understand the reasons for it)

Point, though I meant it doesn't matter when it comes to our talk. Let's focus on arguing for now.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Heironeous' Good is entirely different from Kord's Good and even different from Bahamut's Good they represent different sets of rules and breaking the rules of one God but not another makes you Evil? no, you are still Good just not his/her view of Good, hence what actions represent Good is relative...

Wait, aren't the concrete definitions on the interpretations of the alignment system ultimately left to the DM? My understanding is the Alignments, "Good" and "Evil" are generally given descriptions but are not tightly defined, for the purpose of flexable game play experience.

I'm away from my books, what does the PHB say in the section about alignments? That's where the official definitions of Good and Evil, what they include and do not include, would be located.

 

[Dozen]

Wait, aren't the concrete definitions on the interpretations of the alignment system ultimately left to the DM? My understanding is the Alignments, "Good" and "Evil" are generally given descriptions but are not tightly defined, for the purpose of flexable game play experience.

Yes, that's true, but our argument addresses the core definition, which is what we've been rambling about for a while.