Okay, maybe this is a bit of grognardism showing through, but here is what I'd like to see...or house rule or whatever: Core gods are the core gods, and all of the relatively minor monster gods are various sorts of epic/uber monsters (or maybe even myths and legends). Speaking in 3e terms, the creatures could still get spells as clerics if the DM wanted to use the rules for clerics worshiping and getting divine spells from generic sources such as concepts or alignments. Or, a particular monster "god" might, in turn, revere or serve one of the iconics. Who knows how it would work with the new cosmology in 4e. In any case, I hope to still see things like a bit of a blurb in the kobold entry that mentions Kurtulmak, for example.
Monster Pantheon vs Racial Pantheon
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
I prefer a single pantheon, in which the individual races and cultures have their own interpretations of a god - which might go so far that they have competing Churches or Cults.
If you want to make it easy to become a god (every epic level hero gets a shot at it), a lot of gods might make sense, but if gods are supposed to feel more special, this doesn't sound like such a good idea.
If you want to make it easy to become a god (every epic level hero gets a shot at it), a lot of gods might make sense, but if gods are supposed to feel more special, this doesn't sound like such a good idea.
JoelF
First Post
I think multiple belief systems make sense - just look at our history - you had the Greeks believing in Zeus and the Olympian gods, the Egyptians had their gods, the Norse had theirs, etc. Why shouldn't different races/geographic areas have their own gods in D&D as well? Sure you CAN have a single pantheon for a game world, but this is a change that seems to have been made to "simplify" and for no other reason - not only does it not seem as realistic, but it's cutting out a lot of D&D history which for many players worked.
It's a lot easier to include a rich background and let individual DMs cut what they want than to provide a simple background and force DMs to add to it. Since most DMs who will wind up making major changes will likely create something new from scratch, it just doesn't make sense to me.
It's a lot easier to include a rich background and let individual DMs cut what they want than to provide a simple background and force DMs to add to it. Since most DMs who will wind up making major changes will likely create something new from scratch, it just doesn't make sense to me.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
MerricB said:
Isn't that a bit of a misunderstanding?
I mean, no one says that all orcs have to worship Gruumsh (or any other "orc pantheon" god). If they are going to get more power, riches, or whatever, from worshiping Iuz and serving in his army, that's what they'll do. It's been pretty clear in 3e that characters are not constrained to worship deities from their own racial pantheon, though there are likely to be special circumstances when they don't. Iuz's minions are certainly in special circumstances.That would certainly make sense when overlayed against our own history. Different regions coming up with their own deities that fit a selection of portfolios that best fit their culture. But what about in a world where gods are real? They are in regular, varifiable, contact with their followers. Would that still be the case? I guess it would really depend on what it takes to become a god (is it easy for a small pantheon to rise up, or has only one or two primary deities risen while more regional ones are revered as saints or lesser immortals) as well as the politics between gods (do the existing gods accept new deities with open arms, or do they guard the secrets of godhood jealously)...
I don't think any one background makes more sense than another for a generic default setting. The only thing that makes sense is to keep it pretty simple, and allow setting books for individual settings to expand upon or replace the default setting material as needed.
I kind of hope to see the more iconic gods, like Tiamat or Gruumsh, make it to the default pantheon... if they don't I can still have monsters in my games that worship them as either false gods or demigods bidding for a bigger piece of the astral sea.
grimslade
Krampus ate my d20s
Simplifying the gods in the PHB1 is a good idea. It is a good way to show the mechanics through various archetypes. It is not a pantheon though. The 3E PHB had a real stripped down group of Geyhawk deities to show off the domain structure. It was a condensed version of a pantheon.
Hopefully, there will be guides to creating a pantheon in the DMG and a better fleshing out in the 4E Deities and Demigods. The current information we have about 4E gods is not encouraging. It is a divine buffet of different settings deities and real world mythological figures plus an archdevil. The default D&D releases will be eclectic in the extreme with churches and faiths.
With regards to racial and monster pantheons, I think having one major deity of the race to start and then adding to it is the best way to handle deity escalation. Different cultures would have different pantheons with intermingling along border cultures. Large empires would homogenize the pantheon alot more. Monsters might not have a pantheon or even a deity. They might worship a demon lord (gnolls) or ask ancestors for intercession (dragons).
There needs to be flexibility in the rules for all of these and limited examples will help.
Hopefully, there will be guides to creating a pantheon in the DMG and a better fleshing out in the 4E Deities and Demigods. The current information we have about 4E gods is not encouraging. It is a divine buffet of different settings deities and real world mythological figures plus an archdevil. The default D&D releases will be eclectic in the extreme with churches and faiths.
With regards to racial and monster pantheons, I think having one major deity of the race to start and then adding to it is the best way to handle deity escalation. Different cultures would have different pantheons with intermingling along border cultures. Large empires would homogenize the pantheon alot more. Monsters might not have a pantheon or even a deity. They might worship a demon lord (gnolls) or ask ancestors for intercession (dragons).
There needs to be flexibility in the rules for all of these and limited examples will help.
coyote6
Adventurer
Anthtriel said:
I think a single "racial" deity, like Blipadoowopawhatever, actually is okay; she's not actually the god of kuo-toas, she's just some ancient primeval deity that kuo-toas worship. IMO, the game needs to have dark/forbidden/lost gods, and those traditionally have hidden, twisted worshippers. Perfect for a race like the kuo-toa.
OTOH, the kuo-toas don't need a whole pod of gods, and the orcs don't need 8 gods, the goblinoids 6, dragons to have 12, etc.
(Of course, you can have that, if that's the set up you want. I do think that if that's what you're going to have, it would be a great idea to explain how the cosmology works -- why are there all those overlapping gods, where did they all come from, and how do they all coexist? That's something the Greyhawk pantheon never explains, AFAIK; the FR has an explanation, but I dislike it a lot.)
Last edited:
Lab_Monkey
First Post
QFTAristotle said:
If the gods are real and in regular contact with mortals, then it makes sense for there to be only one pantheon. Individual cultures and races may have their own take on that pantheon (i.e., different names for these gods and somewhat different traditions associated with these gods) but the spectrum of gods and their portfolios should remain basically be the same. This is exactly the way that Dragonlance deals with religion (and LotR I believe as well) and I definitely prefer it.
The examples of Greek vs. Egyptian vs. Norse gods doesn't really work for the D&D universe because these gods don't truly exist in our world the way that D&D deities do in the D&D universe. (i.e., Speaking regularly with their followers, granting spells and miracles, etc.)
For instance, to me it makes little sense for humans to have a god of the sky and for elves to have a god of the sky. If there is a god of the sky that is interested in interacting regularly with mortals, then both humans and elves would have people that worshiped him/her/it. Humans and elves may disagree about how best to worship said god, but they'd likely be paying homage to the same being. Having multiple gods with the same domain doesn't make much sense to me- it would almost certainly lead to wars between deities for control of that religious turf (which could be an interesting campaign element I suppose).
As others have mentioned this does hinge on how easy it is to become a god. If mortals can ascend to godhood relatively easily or if this is a universe where 100s of gods can coexist, then what I've written above makes less sense. I guess that I prefer a system where gods are in some way special, there are relatively few of them (~20 or so max), and where mortals can't attain the status of a true deity.
All just my 2 cents, of course.
Even in a world where the gods can be proven to exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that the gods will be worshiped. It is still possible to simply treat the various gods as little more than ultra-powerful spirit beings. None of the gods, as traditionally portrayed in D&D, are omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent. In such circumstances, both atheism (by believing that the so-called "gods" are just another intelligent species) and monotheism (by believing in a spiritual principle that transcends to so-called "gods") are both possible.
In many ancient beliefs, the gods aren't treated as personified natural forces, but rather individual beings that happen to have particular interests in different natural forces. Many different goddesses, for example, could be interested in Love, but none of them is actually the force of Love itself. One prayed to a god to get them to use their magic powers on your behalf, but the fact that you could pray to the god meant they were a personal being, not an abstract force. If anything, the traditional conception of gods in D&D has been exactly in line with the attitude I've just outlined. In such circumstances, it is entirely probable that different races and cultures will prefer dealing with different gods, and certain gods will prefer to deal with certain races above others.
In my own campaign I include atheistic Philosophers who can do everything Clerics can do, but explain it as being done by hypnotism, reasonable deduction, and knowledge of the vibrations that underlie reality. They can even turn and destroy undead in their presence, because "ghosts don't really exist". My campaign worlds have always tended to towards the idea that the gods either didn't really exist at all (and clerical miracles were really just a variant form of magic), or were actually Chtuluesque monstrosities that pretended to be gods to play games with lesser intelligent species.
In many ancient beliefs, the gods aren't treated as personified natural forces, but rather individual beings that happen to have particular interests in different natural forces. Many different goddesses, for example, could be interested in Love, but none of them is actually the force of Love itself. One prayed to a god to get them to use their magic powers on your behalf, but the fact that you could pray to the god meant they were a personal being, not an abstract force. If anything, the traditional conception of gods in D&D has been exactly in line with the attitude I've just outlined. In such circumstances, it is entirely probable that different races and cultures will prefer dealing with different gods, and certain gods will prefer to deal with certain races above others.
In my own campaign I include atheistic Philosophers who can do everything Clerics can do, but explain it as being done by hypnotism, reasonable deduction, and knowledge of the vibrations that underlie reality. They can even turn and destroy undead in their presence, because "ghosts don't really exist". My campaign worlds have always tended to towards the idea that the gods either didn't really exist at all (and clerical miracles were really just a variant form of magic), or were actually Chtuluesque monstrosities that pretended to be gods to play games with lesser intelligent species.
I like what Green Ronin did with The Book of the Righteous. Instead of having different racial gods, they have one pantheon of gods, but different races might interpret those gods in different ways. For example, Canarak is a chaotic evil god of destruction, violence, etc. To humans, elves, and dwarves, he is probably just Canarak, and they probably represent him looking like an indistinct being of unspeakable evil. But to orcs, he is represented as the strongest, fiercest orc imaginable, and they call him Gruumsh.
Similar Threads
