D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

2.5) Part of her being reduced to the daughter of Zeus, and the creation of Ares likely (or maybe, again, not a scholar of this stuff) is because the Greeks were very very misogynistic. They couldn't stand having her be who she was (same with aphrodite, who also had war goddess connotations, which survived in Sparta) but she was also too important to fully get rid of. So, since they couldn't erase her, or make her terrible, they made Ares, the REAL war god.

This was actually kind of furthered by the Romans, too. Athena became Minerva, who was just a goddess of knowledge and didn't have any connection to war. However, the Romans had a different goddess for war, Bellona, who was related to Mars (the Roman Ares), who was more disciplined and less evil than the Greek version of the same god.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think the bolded part is more of the problem. Almost no religion or mythology I know of has both Evil Gods and powerful evil spirits that oppose the gods. Generally either both sides are divine or one side is divine and the other fiendish. You don't have a good divine, an evil divine, and a fiendish.

Exactly! Additionally, the gods that people have historically worshipped have overwhelmingly been good. Even the ones that were evil had redeeming characteristics. No one would want to worship a pantheon of primarily evil gods, so almost all of the main gods in the mythologies (whether it's Greco-Roman, Norse, Egyptian, or some other mythology) were benevolent or at least just. A pantheon like the D&D Orcish or Dark Seldarine Pantheons wouldn't exist, because no culture would worship a pantheon consisting of almost entirely evil deities, even if their mythology stated that they created you.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

For my own part, "god"/"deity" connotes something more...fundamental to existence than these other things. A powerful devil is, to be sure, a dangerous supernatural force with a particular agenda, and an evil god is likewise a dangerous supernatural force with a particular agenda. But "godhood" connotes something more deeply-tied to the nature of reality.

This is part of why I prefer the 4e conception of what godhood means, as compared to earlier editions. In a very real sense, 4e gods are living concepts. Something about what hope IS, exists in Bahamut and in Pelor. Something about what storms are exists in Kord. Etc. When you kill Tiamat in the end of Scales of War, you aren't JUST defeating a powerful supernatural force of evil. You're literally making greed, envy, and malice less impactful in the world. That doesn't mean greed will cease to exist, but it does mean that her death should herald an age where the things she embodied are weakened:. Charity, kindness, and benevolence will flower in the wake of her destruction.

In addition to this, even some of the Evil 4E Points of Light setting gods had qualities beneficial to the stability of the world in some of the lore:

• Bane helped organize the gods to wage a successful war against the primordials.
• Torog, the god of imprisonment, was sometimes invoked to try and keep dangerous entities bound.
• IIRC, even Lolth unintentionally plays a part in curtailing the influence of other Abyssal entities due to her Demonweb.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

As for the differences between evil gods and fiends:

• By default, fiends apply to the whole D&D multiverse, whereas gods are usually more specific to campaign settings.
• Fiends in general fight against one another (the Blood War, the myriad conflicts of the Abyss, etc) in the Outer Planes more often than they turn their attention to the world (IIRC, at least one source claimed that most demon lords were too busy fighting one another to ever get a chance to affect the mortal world). Evil gods are more secure in their station, in contrast, and can spend more time trying to influence the worlds of mortals.
• There was more variety in regards to demon lords in particular prior to 5E. Lots of unique demon lords were mentioned in 2E and 3E especially, and to a lesser extent in 4E (Here's a good source on a larger array of demon lords, complete with citations). In contrast, 5E has largely stuck to the most popular demon lords to the point that one of the adventures in Ghosts of Saltmarsh was altered to have the villain, who worshiped an obscure demon lord, instead worship Lolth.

Demon Lords Featured in 5E

• Baphomet
• Demogorgon
• Fraz-Urb'luu
• Graz'zt
• Juiblex
• Kostchtchie
• Orcus
• Juiblex
• Yeenoghu
• Zuggtmoy

A Sampling of Other Demon Lords I Personally Find Interesting

• Ahazu, Keeper of the Wells of Darkness (a prison in the Abyss)
• Alrunes, Demon Lord of Protection and Sisterhood (very curious what her deal is)
• Azuvidexus, the Ravenous Maw (a t-rex possessed by a demon lord)
• Bechard, Demon Lord of Storms (demon whale beached in Yeenoghu's realm)
• Codricuhn, the Blood Storm (it's own layer of the Abyss orbit arounds it)
• Eldanoth, Demon Lord of Crime
• Felex'ja, the Tiger King
• Haagenti, Demon Lord of Alchemy and Artifice (according to 4E's Demonomicon, Zuggtmoy lets him take samples from her fungal gardens for his experiments)
• Malcanthet, Queen of the Succubi (4E established that Lilith was her rival in the Nine Hells for Queen of the Succubi)
• Obox-Ob, the First Prince of Demons
• The Queen of Chaos (featured in the classic Rod of Seven Parts adventure)
• Shaktari, Queen of the Mariliths (her realm was featured in the 2E adventure Nemesis, and she got a statblock in the final print issue of Dragon Magazine)
• Ugudenk, The Squirming King (colossal worm that, in 4E, was said to be the offspring of the god Torog and Zuggtmoy)
• Zuregurex, Lord of the Drowned Dead

 

[Faolyn]

A pantheon like the D&D Orcish or Dark Seldarine Pantheons wouldn't exist, because no culture would worship a pantheon consisting of almost entirely evil deities, even if their mythology stated that they created you.

What's actually funny is that if you really look at the Orcish pantheon, it's not a hugely evil one. Gruumsh is the creator god, whose goal is for his people to be fruitful and multiply--and so he gave them the ability to survive in inhospitable places. Baghtru is a god of loyalty and strength. Ilneval is a god of tactics. Luthic is a goddess of fertility, medicine, and hearth and home. Shargaas and Yurtus are evil, but they're a plausible evil because they represent things that orcs fear--darkness and disease (I think Shargaas should mean that orcs shouldn't have darkvision, or else they wouldn't need to fear the dark enough to have a god that embodies it). It's not a realistic pantheon--it could use gods of the hunt (I assume orcs are carnivores) and either the sun or more likely the moon, to chase away Shargaas' darkness, and maybe a crafts or smith god--but the first four gods are only evil because orcs are "always evil."

The drow pantheon, however, is cartoonishly evil in places.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The foes of good are weaker but more numerous, at least that is the trope in many legends around the world. One theme is recuring though. Evil always turn upon itself. And this is the reason that good can stand against evil. Even in the real world this happens. Be it a megalomaniac killing his best general out of the fear that the general will try a putsch or the general killing the megalomaniac to indeed doing a putsch... or all the variation in between. In french we have a nice comic called Iznogood (read each syllable slowly outould) in which the advisor (Iznogood) wants to be the calif instead of the calif. The calif is never the wiser as he is so trusting of his vizir... Satyre to its best, but so true of all evil persons.

It is a common trope, but it isn't the only one. In fact.. I think it is probably more in the minority, in terms of religions.

Looking back at the Greeks, the enemies of the gods are far fewer than the eventual number of Olympians, and potentially close to even with the 12 original Olympians who overthrew the titans.

In Shinto there are probably more malevolent spirits than good spirits, but they aren't weaker. In fact, many of them are stronger than the good spirits, because their evil comes from the corruption of violence, and the good spirits flee instead of fight. So they are more numerous and more powerful. Of course, the Kami are more powerful than most Yokai, but the most powerful Yokai are in the same weight-class as the Kami.


Also, the "evil turns on itself" isn't the point, in fact, it makes the usual problem of Evil worse. Not only are the gods of good far stronger than the forces of evil, but evil is also fighting amongst itself. Good should wipe the floor with them.

Yep, this one I must agree. I prefer 1ed where clerics of demons and devil could not get access to 3rd level spell and higher. 1st and 2nd level spells were simply acquired through faith. 3rd and 4th were given by a Solar, 5th were given by a demi-god (that is why a greater god would look to have a demi-god...) 6th level spells were given by a lesser deity and 7th (the maximum at that time) were given by the greater god themselve.

2nd edition more or less removed that with the need for Banak, the high cleric of Orcus in the Mines of Bloodstones. They needed a high level opponents for high level characters. They should have stated that Banak was an exception. In Bloodstone Lands. In page 45, Banak link to Orcus is put into question as the 20th level cleric of Orcus part has a question mark. (p. 45). So either Banak was pretending to serve Orcus to confuse players as to his real god and was receiving spells through another deity or he was so unique that Orcus, despite "Deific Laws/Dictate" was able through some strange mean to give Banak his full spell allotment...

3.Xed dropped the categories of deities (Greater, lesser and demi) and in this, the game lost a bit of the reasons why deities needs followers. They need followers to maintain their power level and eventually, extend their own powers. It would also give a reason for religious classes to expand their religion. As your god gets more power, you get access to better spells. 5ed would have been perfect to reintroduce this little rule as the spell slots can be used now with lower level spells. You might have access to 9th level spells, but you can still use your 9th level spell slots as you need with spells of lesser level. But I believe that such restriction would be distasteful to some.

And it also made good the reasons why Demons and Devils shifts from not caring about mortals to curiosity and desire. If gods get powers from mortal souls, they should be able to do the same. Souls contain "energy" so Devils and Demons seek to acquire this energy for themselves or at the very least, deprive their enemies from acquiring this energy. If the "faith" energy do not go to gods but goes to us; even if we can't use it. We are winners. If mortals could only access 1-2nd level spells from demons and devils it would make sense for them to become "Warlocks" instead of clerics thus the Warlock class. Am I world building here?

I agree it was a reason, but I don't like it. Personally, I removed the distinction of "evil gods". The Archdevils and the Demon Princes fill those roles perfectly, and I don't need Evil gods. Antagonistic gods? Sure, that's awesome. But even the worst gods have enough redeeming features in my world to be neutral. I don't need "the god of poison" when I have a Demon Lord of Poison and an Archdevil who specializes in alchemical work and poisons, and Primal Spirits of various poisonous aspects of the natural world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

5e angels are tied to good gods and 4e angels are tied to gods regardless of alignment, in other editions the ties to gods have varied dramatically.

In 5e though in the MM there are the Modrons of Law and the Slaadi of Chaos who are big planar alignment factions not tied to gods which leaves the Angels as the big good faction being tied to gods of benevolence as are many of the other Celestials.

This is the point though. Demons and Devils don't serve the gods, or if they do that is bizzare. Again, why are Devils that serve Asmodeus, a being of tyrannical law, working for Bane? Do they have an alliance? Why?

So, if the Demons and Devils are evil cosmic beings, and the modrons are law and the Slaadi are chaos... well, the Gods are Good. The angels are just the god's servants, just like how the Devils serve Asmodeus and the Demons follow the Demon Princes. So, having an Evil God is just confusing to me. It's like saying you have a Lawful Slaadi. It seems wrong almost definitionally.

Again, not that "evil gods" don't exist in mythology. They do. But from how DnD is set up, we expect the Gods to be the force for good in the universe.

This is also coming into play that "god" is a terrible term that is often misused and misunderstood. We apply it to many beings that are different than what we think they should be. And this causes even more confusion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are also the Archons, Guardinals and Eladrin in older editions which were the good eqivilents. Angels were separate from all that.

Weren't they just specifical alignment angels? I remember someone saying that the Eladrin were the angels for the Elven gods back in the day.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For my own part, "god"/"deity" connotes something more...fundamental to existence than these other things. A powerful devil is, to be sure, a dangerous supernatural force with a particular agenda, and an evil god is likewise a dangerous supernatural force with a particular agenda. But "godhood" connotes something more deeply-tied to the nature of reality.

This is part of why I prefer the 4e conception of what godhood means, as compared to earlier editions. In a very real sense, 4e gods are living concepts. Something about what hope IS, exists in Bahamut and in Pelor. Something about what storms are exists in Kord. Etc. When you kill Tiamat in the end of Scales of War, you aren't JUST defeating a powerful supernatural force of evil. You're literally making greed, envy, and malice less impactful in the world. That doesn't mean greed will cease to exist, but it does mean that her death should herald an age where the things she embodied are weakened:. Charity, kindness, and benevolence will flower in the wake of her destruction. These could, of course, eventually become problems in their own right (e.g. these good things being warped into extreme and oppressive things), but at least for the time being, vice will be diminished and virtue will thrive.

You wouldn't get that kind of result from killing a "mere" fiend or celestial. Kill a powerful angel and sure, the forces of good have lost a powerful member, but you haven't damaged the cause, you haven't hurt Good-ness itself. Take out a succubus, even the queen of the succubi, and you'll certainly cause a stir and probably weaken Abyssal ambitions due to the resulting infighting, but you won't make Evil-ness less prevalent. Killing a deity-level figure, on the other hand, has serious implications that go beyond the direct personal schemes and servants of the dead god.

I like this as a concept, but if I was doing this, I'd remove the archdevils and the demon princes. It shouldn't be that we have cosmic beings aligned with say, Lust, that aren't aligned with the cosmic being that encapsulates Lust.

After all, demons and devils are living embodiments of ideas and concepts too.

Edit: So it would make sense for the demons and devils to be directly tied to the source of their ideas and concepts, which would be the god of that concept.

Which could lead to some odd overlaps, like a Demon of Order. Which is kind of awesome to think about

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think for D&D purposes we can just consider "evil divine" to just be the divine-grade high-powered end of "fiendish" and have done with it.

You can do that, but it means either putting Bane in charge of Asmodeus, or making Asmodeus a god. They can't both exist as the Lord of Tyranny on the same spectrum.

But, part of the problem with making that change is many people don't want to see classic characters redefined or gotten rid of. And I fully understand and support that, even if it makes me itch and make those changes myself.