D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

The FR and Nerath versions of the 2 are different and have different portfolios.

FR Bane: God of Tyranny and Conquest
DW Bane: God of War and Conquest
FR Asmodeus: God of Sin Indulgence and Hell
DW Asmodeus: God of Tyranny and Hell

Not familiar with Nerath, War and Conquest make some sense for Bane, but I've always seen him from the FR version.

The FR version of Asmodeus also seems to skirt around being Tyranny. A lot of indications of associations with evil law as far back as 3e. 2e doesn't list anything specific I could find.

But the association with sin is... weird. We have god's of murder and envy and all sorts of "sins" so having a "God of Sin" is just bizarre. Which again, is the thing I think we are seeing. DnD has tried to stretch to match a variety of competing ideas, leaving it in a strange and confusing place.

 

[Minigiant]

I think everyone agrees that is the case, we are mostly wondering why that is the case. There are explanations, but the best explanations all cause weird things to happen with the current paradigm. Like, if Nerull is the concept of undeath, and beyond Orcus... Orcus would make sense as a lieutenant of Nerull, even if he was a disloyal and traitorous one. Instead, they have no connection except both of them being a source of undead, and unique undead at that.

I think the reason why has been developing over years and editions. And I believe the idea that has been growing in a god has supreme dominion over their specific portfolio and shares dominion over unclaimed adjacent ones. From 2e on, gods have become more embodiments of domains and gain/lose power as that aspect waxes/wanes.

A non-diety cannot overcome a deity within their domain. So as long as there is a god of death, undead, or life and Orcus isn't a god, he would not have supremacy and anything he does undead related could be undone by them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And the Jotun of Asgaard? Or the Indian mythos? Or South American mythology in which you placate the gods to make them not do evil? Or the Assyrian mythos? Babylonian? Or even the Judeo Christian? Nahhhhhhhh! It is not in the minority. In fact, if you go by the amount of worshipers, it migth even be one of the most common trope in the religious history.

I'm not super familiar with all of these, but let me take a quick stab at them

Jotun vs the Aesir: Many of the Jotuns WERE more powerful than some of the gods. They weren't more powerful than Thor in a direct fight, but Idun was a goddess and certainly not more powerful than the Jotuns that fought Thor. Also, the most famous story I know of Thor and Loki's adventures together involve them going to a Jotun's castle, where they are bamboozled with illusions repeatedly. The Aesir are physically powerful, but the Jotuns are their match mystically, is the general sense I have gotten. But, again, I'm not super familiar with all the details of Norse mythology, but there seems to be plenty of wiggle room.

Indian Mythos I'm not super familiar with. Do you mean Hinduism? Hinduism has many legends of the Deva's being opposed by the Asura. There are of course greater powers above them, but it is certainly an equal struggle up until the highest points of Nirvana, and the Deva's FAR outnumber the Asura. And, additionally, it gets odd sometimes. For example, the Goddess Durga was created by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva along with a host of "lesser gods" to defeat a single Demon, the Bull Demon Mahisasura. Which indicates that that demon was at least as powerful as a single god, because it took a bunch of them pooling their power to create a new deity to defeat him. I'm certainly not a scholar of Hinduism though, so my understanding could be coming from a compilation of stories from different regions and time periods.

South American mythology I'm not familiar with... but you straight up refute your own point. "you placate the gods to make them not do evil" In that case... the gods are not more powerful but less numerous than the evils, the gods ARE the evils. And, depending on the culture such as the Aztecs, there are evils stronger than a single god. The being that makes up the Earth for example took the five strongest gods to defeat.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Assyrian or Babylonian myths, but I do want to follow a thread from South America by looking towards Egypt. In Egypt you have the serpent that is planning on destroying the world, and sometimes the Serpent is held at bay by only Ra and other times they are held at bay by a team up of the Gods.

And I think this ties into the larger metatextuality of the situation. Many of the stories have the Gods as the heroes and protagonists. So, sometimes they face "an uncountable horde" that their amazing powers get them through, other times they are faced with a single foe of equal power, and sometimes they get defeated and are forced to team up with other gods. There are many tropes involved in mythology.

And, for another point, The Monkey King from Journey to the West is technically a Demon (along with a dozen other things, ah, Monkey.) And there are gods he just punks without effort (The Jade Emperor). Other Demons he can defeat easily, some he can't. Other divine beings like the Buddha are far beyond him. It isn't clear cut that Gods = more powerful.

It is not the trope. It is a trope. A big difference here.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. That was part of the game and it was a great thing that made cleric a relevant class. It also explained quite a lot about demons and devils trying to emulate the gods in the hopes of stealing some of their powers for themselves. Without that, you are left with yourself questionning the role of evil gods and if their existence should be a thing. You have to retcon things so that your solution works out but your solution leaves out the why and how cleric should still be a thing. And who knows, maybe it is only one evil god that is working through out your devils and demons. Tharzidun is known for doing this on a wide scale...

Hmm, question the role of evil gods... like this thread and the previous thread did?

D&D 5E - Are "evil gods" necessary?

With all of this talk happening about the various peoples of D&D and whether they are inherently evil and is it due to their gods they worship and so on... it made me take a look at the gods themselves. And I realized that having a pantheon that includes "evil" gods seems to intrude and trod...

www.enworld.org

Again, I'm not going to disagree with the history of DnD, we both know what the history is. I'm disagreeing that it was the best solution.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I'm not quite sure it's so simple as that. Athena had a whole city named after her but what did Ares have? I don't even think Ares was the focus of anyone's worship save for mythical beings like the Amazonians. In the Iliad, this "mighty" god of war comes crying to his father after Diomedes, a mortal, speared him in his nethermost region with the assistance of Athena.

"Father Zeus, hast thou no indignation to behold these violent deeds? Ever do we gods continually suffer most cruelly by one another's devices, whenas we show favour to men. With thee are we all at strife, for thou art father to that mad and baneful maid, whose mind is ever set on deeds of lawlessness. For all the other gods that are in Olympus are obedient unto thee, and subject to thee, each one of us; but to her thou payest no heed whether in word or in deed, but rather settest her on, for that this pestilent maiden [Athena] is thine own child. Now hath she set on the son of Tydeus, Diomedes high of heart, to vent his rage upon immortal gods.

What a crybaby! Ares is perfectly willing to go to the field of battle and challenge mortals directly, but when Athena helps out Diomedes and puts the smackdown on Ares he runs to daddy and cries about it. Let's see how Big Papa Zeus responds.

Sit thou not in any wise by me and whine, thou renegade. Most hateful to me art thou of all gods that hold Olympus, for ever is strife dear to thee and wars and fightings. Thou hast the unbearable, unyielding spirit of thy mother, even of Hera; her can I scarce control by my words. Wherefore it is by her promptings, meseems, that thou sufferest thus. Howbeit I will no longer endure that thou shouldest be in pain, for thou art mine offspring, and it was to me that thy mother bare thee; but wert thou born of any other god, thus pestilent as thou art, then long ere this hadst thou been lower than the sons of heaven.

Damn, having your father refer to you as the most hateful of all the Olympus gods has got to sting. Unlike Athena, Ares is not a god who is respected or liked in most of the Greek myths. And it's quite interesting that the only "legitimate" child of Hera and Zeus would produce Ares.

 

[Chaosmancer]

One time I toyed with in 4e is upgrading multiple demon princes and archdevils to godhood by assigning them a sin then cutting down the nmber of total archfiends.

Asmodeus (Devil God of Pride)
Tiamat (Dragon Goddess of Greed)
Baalzebul (Devil God of Sloth)
Yeenoghu (Demon God of Wrath)
Malcanthet (Demon Goddess of Lust)
Dispater (Devil God of Vainglory)
Mephistopheles (Devil God of Envy)
Lolth (Elf Goddess of Deceit)
Juiblex (Demon God of Gluttony)

but I couldn't assign one for Demogorgon and that wouldn't be right.

I kept the Archdevils as parts of the Hells, giving them roles. So, Zariel is the General at the Gates, Dispater is information and deals, Mammon is the purse, Mephitopheles is the Arcane R&D department, ect ect.

For the Demon Lords, I took a page from 4e's idea of living entropy and made them based off what they eat.

Orcus ate and devoured in the Shadowfell, where undead came from and where the world is recycled.
Yeenoghu ate from the Prime (and also I combined with Baphomet, because two lords of beasts and slaughter is eh to me)
Vaprak snuck into the Celestial realms and devoured there, explaining his unstoppable regeneration.
Graz'zt I think was the Hells.

But for Demogorgon, his favorite feeding ground was the Far Realms, where beings that threaten the gods and caused the creation of the devils (they are harder to warp and corrupt, that is the purpose devils were made for). Which not only makes him insane and explains his appearance, but also is a great "bigger fish" moment to realize that the place where gods fear to tread is where he goes for a light snack

 

[Chaosmancer]

The changing nature of both the concept of the multiverse and the gods makes things more complicated. In 3E and 4E, different settings existed in different cosmologies and had their own sets of planes and gods. 5E went back to the idea of their being a shared multiverse where all campaign settings take place in the same multiverse, but the gods of the Outer Planes are for whatever reason more strongly linked to certain worlds than others. In 4E's take, for example, killing a god was a bigger deal because it was the only god of that concept in a given setting's multiverse, whereas in 5E there are many gods of the same kind sharing the same Great Wheel but generally being limited to actually being worshiped and having power over certain worlds.

Taking Nerull in particular, he is most strongly linked to the Greyhawk setting. In both the default Points of Light setting of 4E and Critical Role's Exandria Nerull was killed by the mortal mage who would become the Raven Queen after stealing his divine power over death. In 5E the official stance as of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was that the Raven Queen had a different origin and nature, was only worshipped as a god in some settings, and that she did not kill Nerull. Then Explorer's Guide to Wildemount was released and pretty much reverted her back to her 4E lore.

Taking all this into account, it seems that Orcus would benefit the most from becoming a god in a 3E or 4E cosmological model where he would be the one, undisputed God of Undeath of the setting. In cosmological models like 5E's, becoming a god seemingly has more cons in that gods are strongly linked to a small number of worlds, perhaps even only one. With that in mind, would Orcus rather be the Demon Lord of Undeath that can operate in multiple campaign settings, or would he rather become a God of Undeath in only one world of many? Further, why would he serve Nerull, who is only a god in Greyhawk? These and other details personally lead me to continue to use the 3E/4E take of settings being isolated rather than part of a broad multiverse of settings.

I agree, making the multiverse interconnected makes all of this so much harder and more confusing. I don't use the interconnected multiverse. If there is a multiverse, traveling between those different realities is impossible, or that's what the Far Realms is and it's purpose, but the things out there are the biggest and scariest things.

While I'm writing a wall of text, I would also like to point out that the identity of a being can impact its flavor and what else is associated with it. A god of undeath presumably has a realm among the Outer Planes and relations with other deities. Orcus has both undead and demonic underlings as well as rival demon lords, such as Demogorgon, who all want to be the most free being in the multiverse with no one to answer to. Atropus, the World Born Dead, is a moon-sized undead Elder Evil of mysterious origins that seemingly has little motivation on its own and only appears to create undead when drawn to worlds that have experienced death on a massive scale. Rather than have them all linked, these different entities could oppose each other, or Orcus could try to seize control of Atropus or something.

I agree, but I think it is a bit simpler in regards to beings like Atropus. I'd say Atropus is a Far Realms being, from outside of the reality of the world. He may create undead with his presence, but he isn't in control of them or the source of them in reality. The concept of Undeath likely existed before he showed up.

So, yes, Orcus trying to take control of Atropus, this massive Undead power that came out of nowhere and that no one understands is perfect.

And I find your point about the gods interesting. Because, to my understanding, the Hells and the Abyss are part of the Outer Planes. And the Demon Lords and Archdevils do have relations with various gods. Generally antagonistic relations, but... That's true of Nerull too. He hates everything, and he doesn't have any gods he works with or otherwise associates with (to my knowledge). And if he does, that would be the other evil gods... just like Orcus has very complicated relations and planar-political schemes with Graz'zt, Demogorgon, and other Demon Lords.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If embodiment of concepts is singular.

In some theology, there are smaller gods, and many more of them.

So many fire gods in my worlds.

This is also true, and leads to another issue I have with the DnD cosmology as it officially stands... everyone claims to be "the god" of a concept, and ignores the other gods of that same concept. Which, yes, is what mythology did because there were competing paradigms. But in DnD we actually have those beings in relation to each other, and in some settings like FR, we want to tie a singular god to a concept that ceases to exist without that god.

Kelemvor came up before, and how when Cyric stopped being the god of the dead and before Kelemvor took over, no one could die... but there are a half a dozen gods of death in the various racial pantheons. So, it makes no sense that "death was dead" when other beings in reality were still in charge of death.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the reason why has been developing over years and editions. And I believe the idea that has been growing in a god has supreme dominion over their specific portfolio and shares dominion over unclaimed adjacent ones. From 2e on, gods have become more embodiments of domains and gain/lose power as that aspect waxes/wanes.

A non-diety cannot overcome a deity within their domain. So as long as there is a god of death, undead, or life and Orcus isn't a god, he would not have supremacy and anything he does undead related could be undone by them.

Okay, let us say this is true. So, why do we want it to be true?

What value do we get over saying that Orcus doesn't have supremacy over undead Diety X does? Because Orcus's power base would then be built on the back of Diety X, who could just rip away all of Orcus's undead minions to use for his own purpose, correct?

And, instead of being "a bigger fish" we could just make Orcus the biggest fish, which seems to lose very little, except for the idea that gods are the most powerful, and therefore we'd make things more complicated by giving Orcus more power over his currently equally powerful rivals.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not quite sure it's so simple as that. Athena had a whole city named after her but what did Ares have? I don't even think Ares was the focus of anyone's worship save for mythical beings like the Amazonians. In the Iliad, this "mighty" god of war comes crying to his father after Diomedes, a mortal, speared him in his nethermost region with the assistance of Athena.



What a crybaby! Ares is perfectly willing to go to the field of battle and challenge mortals directly, but when Athena helps out Diomedes and puts the smackdown on Ares he runs to daddy and cries about it. Let's see how Big Papa Zeus responds.



Damn, having your father refer to you as the most hateful of all the Olympus gods has got to sting. Unlike Athena, Ares is not a god who is respected or liked in most of the Greek myths. And it's quite interesting that the only "legitimate" child of Hera and Zeus would produce Ares.

oh, it is definitely not that simple. I am oversimplifying a lot and making some guesses that would not hold up to rigorous scholarly debate as more than a potential theory. But, there is a good chance that Athens was named because of the minoan goddess, not the greek version. Nothing is confirmed, but here is a video that let's you maybe squint and see the connection between the snake-man child of Gaia who was credited with founding Athens for the longest time, and the snake-man child of Gaia Python who we know was Minoan from the founding of Delphi

 

[MGibster]

Zeus is considered a god of justice among other aspects, but he is also infamous for being outright terrible in many ways. Generally the Greek gods were powerful, vain, capricious beings who felt they were better than others and would punish those who would tick them off but also strike out randomly (disease from Apollo's arrows comes to mind). This is in part because part of their function was as an explanation or personification for random bad things in the world, and part of the folklore characterization of them.

I think most of us look at religion in games through a very modern lens. Which is okay, because we're modern people, playing a modern game, and just trying to have a good time. But when we apply that lens to examine beliefs from the past we start running into a lot of problems. The Greeks lived in a world where they were often at the mercy of outside forces including mighty empires, other Greek city-states, and the vicissitudes of nature itself. Modern people often expect a benevolent god but the Greeks? Hell, how about the Babylonians? Many of their gods were outright terrifying.