D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

How is someone with effectively infinite resources and the power to directly affect near infinite places simultaneously weaker than someone limited to a single world? Or, more accurately, a single continent. Because Bane has no influence in places like Kara-Tur, Ossa, Zakhara ect ect

Bane is a more powerful god that Asmodeus is. And Asmodeus can't bring his "infinite resources" to bear on a prime plane or it would have been overrun by him thousands of years ago.

And if Asmodeus is a god, then the entire point is moot. He is a god and an Archdevil and everything still works, in fact, you've been putting forth an argument as though he wasn't a god.

No I haven't. I never once said or implies that he wasn't a god.

And, sure, he might lose influence in a thousand, but he is conquering worlds. That is his goal. He wants to rule all of existence. And no one as brilliant as Asmodeus thinks you can conquer effectively if you are trying to conquer everything all at the same time.

There are thousands of gods who are all as smart as he is and don't want him to win. One god has no chance to conquer everything and he's smart enough to know that. Instead influence is the way to go. A small slice of infinite planes is better than no slice of anything while your body rots on the Astral Plane, because a ton of gods have offed you for being an idiot.

And if Bane is so powerful that Asmodeus can't stand against him, why is Asmodeus allowed to continue operating in Toril? Doesn't he represent a threat to Bane's conquering of all of Toril? Something he is incredibly far from since he isn't even capable of conquering a single continent of the planet.

How is indulgence a threat to Bane's tyrannical rule?

None of this is making a lot of sense

Probably because you are arguing against things I haven't said again.

 

[Maxperson]

Honestly, in what way does Asmodeus represent indulgence instead of tyranny? It has nothing to do with his goals, his methods, his history. It seems more like they needed to give him a different title than the one he would actually have, so they shoe-horned in this.

He very likely understood that being a god of indulgence on Toril gave him more power than being an archdevil of tyranny with no chance of godhood due to Bane having an iron fist around that portfolio.

 

[Faolyn]

How is someone with effectively infinite resources and the power to directly affect near infinite places simultaneously weaker than someone limited to a single world? Or, more accurately, a single continent. Because Bane has no influence in places like Kara-Tur, Ossa, Zakhara ect ect

Well, two and a half worlds, that is, because Bane is a god on Exandria and he was/is a god in Ravenloft (eventually changing his name to The Lawgiver when Ravenloft was put out was S&S). Of course, that could be just the Dark Powers messing around and Bane may never have gotten any benefits from his worshipers there.

But anyway. I think it's been said elsewhere ITT that in earlier editions at least, gods count grant higher-level spells than demon lords and other such demi-powers. While that's no longer the case, it's definitely possible that gods have powers that demon lords don't have. I have no idea if this is supported anywhere, but I'd say that a full-fledged god should have semi-omniscience. Like, if there's a consecrated temple to the god in the area, then the god can, if it chooses, see anything it wants to in that area. And "area" could be continent, world, or even entire solar system (using the Spelljammer notion that gods could only give spells to clerics if they were worshiped in that particular sphere). But an arch-fiend can maybe only see things through the eyes of its worshipers or the "eyes" of any idols, magic mirrors, or whatever that are consecrated to it.

So in this way, Bane may only have two and a half worlds officially under his belt, but he can see anything on those worlds. Bane would have nearly complete awareness of at least all of Faerun, if not the entirety of Toril or Realmspace. Whereas Asmodeus has a presence on countless worlds but is only aware of what happens in tiny slivers of them.

And if Bane is so powerful that Asmodeus can't stand against him, why is Asmodeus allowed to continue operating in Toril? Doesn't he represent a threat to Bane's conquering of all of Toril? Something he is incredibly far from since he isn't even capable of conquering a single continent of the planet.

Whether or not you want to use my idea, there's still pride. Would a god, especially one with Bane's portfolio, be willing to admit that Asmodeus is tougher than he is? If Bane strikes at Asmodeus on one world and wins, then As can pull resources from countless other worlds (which could possibly include most or all tieflings). If he loses, then he'd have to admit that some upstart little archdevil is stronger than him. (Plus, you know that As has tons of contingencies in play for just such a threat.)

Going against Asmodeus would also turn other Archdevils and Demon Lords against him, and possibly other gods as well. Bane could probably easily kill As, but can he kill all the other archfiends that will unite against him?

 

[Maxperson]

But anyway. I think it's been said elsewhere ITT that in earlier editions at least, gods count grant higher-level spells than demon lords and other such demi-powers. While that's no longer the case, it's definitely possible that gods have powers that demon lords don't have. I have no idea if this is supported anywhere, but I'd say that a full-fledged god should have semi-omniscience. Like, if there's a consecrated temple to the god in the area, then the god can, if it chooses, see anything it wants to in that area. And "area" could be continent, world, or even entire solar system (using the Spelljammer notion that gods could only give spells to clerics if they were worshiped in that particular sphere). But an arch-fiend can maybe only see things through the eyes of its worshipers or the "eyes" of any idols, magic mirrors, or whatever that are consecrated to it.

Demon Lords and Archdevils are unable to grant spells in 5e. Page 11 of the DMG lists divine ranks and not even a demigod is capable of granting spells. Asmodeus can grant spells as a god of indulgence, but not as an Archdevil of tyranny.

Going against Asmodeus would also turn other Archdevils and Demon Lords against him, and possibly other gods as well. Bane could probably easily kill As, but can he kill all the other archfiends that will unite against him?

Bane would lose that fight unless he was able to kill Asmodeus quickly and then appease the others somehow. He wouldn't bother, though. There's no benefit in going after the god of indulgence.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Succubi are tricky because - in 4e, at least - devils and hence fallen angels.

But anyway, just as killing Tiamat should reduce the amount of greed and envy in the world, so killing the Queen of the Succubi should reduce the amount of lust and sexual wrongdoing, shouldn't it?

These are, of course, very personal-taste questions. However, for my part, the difference is in the nature of the reduction. Killing a succubus, even the Queen of the Succubi, instrumentally reduces the amount of lust and sexual wrongdoing. Whatever plans she might have had are now gone, her active efforts to keep the world lusty are now absent, her servants will at the very least be distracted by the hierarchy disruption and more likely fall into infighting and competition. But her death doesn't cosmologically lessen the essence of lustiness, because, not being a deity, she doesn't have any direct connection to it.

Now, in fairness, killing Tiamat (or Bane, Bahamut, Erathis, or whomever else) absolutely does imply most or all of those instrumental effects. But, because they're deities, killing also them has an intrinsic effect on the things they, in some sense, "are." It's not just that beings that create lust or hope or whatever are no longer creating it, it's that, by killing them, "lust itself" or "hope itself" is actually diminished. Ordinary people, even those who don't have any association with these beings, will exhibit less lust or less hope or whatever. It's basically impossible to kill these underlying concepts entirely, of course. Still, killing these beings, that in some sense "are" those concepts(/parts thereof) endowed with sapience.

In somewhat crude terms, in killing the Queen of the Succubi or the Lord of All Angels or the Ur-Slaad, you kill a champion of the concept they represent; in killing Aphrodite Pandemos or Bahamut or Tiamat, you kill part(s) of the metaphysical concept(s) they "are." I hope that better communicates what I mean--the difference between "there are fewer reasons/temptations to do X" and "X itself now has less influence on the world, even where it already existed in full swing." Angel-lord or Succubus-queen killing is only instrumental; deity-killing is instrumental and intrinsic both.

 

[Minigiant]

Because while they may say that Asmodeus is the "God of Indulgence" that is in no way how he operates, it has nothing to do with his plans, and it seems completely mismatched from running Nine different infinite planes in an tyrannical rule.

Honestly, in what way does Asmodeus represent indulgence instead of tyranny? It has nothing to do with his goals, his methods, his history. It seems more like they needed to give him a different title than the one he would actually have, so they shoe-horned in this.

One of the lore bits of Asmodeus on Toril is that he was the warden of hell but was actively temping mortals to commit sin in order for them to be sent to Baator for soul harvest.

 

[Scribe]

One of the lore bits of Asmodeus on Toril is that he was the warden of hell but was actively temping mortals to commit sin in order for them to be sent to Baator for soul harvest.

One of my favorite bits is the Contract story. Always makes me smile.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

If I had to take a stab at it? I'd say it is because of threats. The idea of Mythos stuff from Lovecraft is that they are the biggest fish, that they threaten reality just by waking up. For that to stay true, for them to be threats beyond threats, then they also must be terrifying to the gods. Because we can understand and know the gods, and Lovecraft is "things we can't comprehend"

For me personally, they didn't get "locked away" they are coming to threaten reality from outside of it. To my mind, they are "endlings" they conquered, consumed or otherwise were the last thing in their home reality, and then went between realities looking for more. This makes them scary for a few reasons, and the main reason the gods in my worlds are worried about them is because the one god who fought them directly was corrupted and twisted. It isn't that they can't fight them, it is just that they haven't figured out how to do so safely, and the big sacrifice play isn't needed yet.

But I can totally see a setting where GOO's are like the infection in a wound in reality, and the gods can drive them off with some regularity. Because defeating Primordial Chaos is their bread and Butter. It is a different style of GOO though.

My question is actually about gamer culture, mostly DnD games but I can think of at least one other where DFC (For an acronym I'm gonna go with DFC over GOO) are a thing. Not just a thing, but the thing. The big bad of all the big bads.

Why the hell are DFC necessary? What do they do that's different to a demon prince?

Hmmm. Now I say it like that I realise I'm echoing the OP.

But I really am thinking about gamer culture rather than any in-game reasons. Why do so many gamers (and I guess game designers) feel the need for DFC at all? Why do we need another layer of "supreme evil?" How many superlatives is enough? Is this in some way an expression of nerdy one upmanship? "You think your supreme evil thing is evil? Wait til you see how supremely evil my supreme evil is!" Cos this is what it feels like.

 

[Maxperson]

My question is actually about gamer culture, mostly DnD games but I can think of at least one other where DFC (For an acronym I'm gonna go with DFC over GOO) are a thing. Not just a thing, but the thing. The big bad of all the big bads.

Why the hell are DFC necessary? What do they do that's different to a demon prince?

Hmmm. Now I say it like that I realise I'm echoing the OP.

But I really am thinking about gamer culture rather than any in-game reasons. Why do so many gamers (and I guess game designers) feel the need for DFC at all? Why do we need another layer of "supreme evil?" How many superlatives is enough? Is this in some way an expression of nerdy one upmanship? "You think your supreme evil thing is evil? Wait til you see how supremely evil my supreme evil is!" Cos this is what it feels like.

What is DFC?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Sorry, I was quoting myself from the post to which Chaosmancer responded

DFC = Deep Fried Calamari. My new acronym for Cthulu and buddies.

I know this was used recently in another thread but: