D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

From what I have seen Ao is specifically the Overdeity and Supreme being of the Forgotten Realms, having control over the goings on within Realm Space and only Realmspace and answers to an even more powerful being.

Yep. Cosmic stability seems to be what they are after, which means that if Asmodeus stepped over that line, he'd be stripped of godhood at the very least and maybe killed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Heck, the Obyriths further complicate the difference between an Elder Evil/Great Old One and Demons.

Yep, I almost mentioned them

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's actually a False Equivalence and therefore a logic failure. Magical power =/= miners and mines. The vast majority of his influence is through intermediaries. There's no other plausible explanation for how a non-god could have influence in so many settings. It's impossible for him to track that many different things by himself.

You really should stop trying to extrapolate from incomplete knowledge. You will get it wrong(as you have here) nearly every time you do it(which is historically what has happened to you).

So, you were wrong earlier and retract your statement that Asmodues is the CEO while Bane is the Middle Management? Because you have now stated it is impossible for Asmodeus to be dealing in the big picture.

Also, go back and read Helldritch's example. Setting up intermediaries like an adventuring party to combat a great evil is still costing PP, just less than direct influence. So, no, my analogy is still accurate. If it costs PP to set up intermediaries and to extend influence, then by having intermediaries and influence in a near-infinite number of places, you must have a near-infinite amount of PP

No. The immortals are "gods" of varying power. They gain power like experience points if I recall correctly, and can spend the power to do temporary things(and then get it back), or on permanent things and lose it either forever or until the permanent thing ends.

So, since it is like XP, if Asmodeus is a Greater God in one place (he is) then he is a Greater God everywhere. And the same would apply to every Archdevil and Demon Lord.

Ao is an overgod. He could squash Asmodeus with his pinky nail. He's also to my knowledge the only overgod we've seen. Nothing says that he is limited to the Forgotten Realms.

Except the explicit lore of AO being limited to the Forgotten Realms. After all, he never acts anywhere else and he is explicitly only in charge in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Helldritch]

I specifically asked you if I was understanding it correctly, and have consistently said I was working from your example. You never bothered to correct me or say I was misunderstanding it. If I did, then please explain it in more detail.

And where did I ignore you saying how it worked? I never disputed your example, which was that the cheapest option was to work through heroes instead of a direct conflict. That has nothing to do with anything else. All I did was take the information you provided and worked from it. If controlling territory and expanding influence cost PP, and Asmodeus has influence in a near infinite number of places, then he has a near infinite amount of PP. If mines need miners, and I have an near infinite number of mines, I must have a near infinite number of miners, it is basic logic.



So, godship is only acquired if you have sufficient PP invested in a single prime? Because otherwise I don't get this distinction of Asmodeus being a god in one place, but "only an archdevil" in another.

Does this mean that AO is lesser than Asmodeus in terms of power outside of Realmspace? Because he has zero influence in other worlds, but Asmodeus has influence in a near infinite number of worlds.

The stuff about relying on mortals is neither here nor there, that is all about using the power you have intelligently, and that has nothing to do with how much power you actually have.

Ok. I did say it was over simplified you know? If you do not invest in a sphere (prime material for 1ed) you do keep your powers but you can be rapidly contested by the powers of that prime and winner takes all. Investing in a prime when your not strong enough is a dangerous undertaking as PP lost are regained slowly through exp. And if you get too weak, some power below you in your prime might be tempted to have a bite at you. Nothing prevented an immortal to make an avatar and use its "mortal" powers to get renown and fame and get worshipers bit nothing would stop hostile powers to do the same. It was a matter of carefully playing the game and evaluating the risks.

And, I do not visit the forum all the time and sometimes, answers can be missed, or even over due at times and ni longer relevant. I am sorry if it has caused you troubles.

 

[Helldritch]

Also, go back and read Helldritch's example. Setting up intermediaries like an adventuring party to combat a great evil is still costing PP, just less than direct influence. So, no, my analogy is still accurate. If it costs PP to set up intermediaries and to extend influence, then by having intermediaries and influence in a near-infinite number of places, you must have a near-infinite amount of PP

Nope. PP To go back in time. PP To make sure that the adventurers will meet and PP to make sure they will make the necessary adventures to complete the task ahead. All these are temporary expenditures with no bearing on the strength and power of the immortal.

What is permanent is a permanent expenditures are PP bet with the opposing deity. PP directly spend after to act directly. Which would be added to the bet.

The immortal set was a game of influences and careful calculations. At least, that is how we played it and it was a blast to play.

 

[pemerton]

If by every edition before 4th you meant no editions, you would be correct. Archdevils have never been able to make clerics.

This is incorrect. In DDG, in the section on Non-Human Deities, it is stated that the various archdevils, demon princes, slaad lords etc are lesser gods. They can have clerics.

In the World of Greyhawk, one of the evil lands is The Honed Society. Quoting from p 26 of the boxed set Guide:

Deviltry is the religion of the Society, and its leading Hierarch is purported to be an evil high priest of the 18th level.​

That is not any sort of departure from the norm. It was taken for granted, in the early days of D&D, that anti-clerics/evil high priests worshipped (among other beings) archdevils and demon princes.

Here is Ed Greenwood, writing in Dragon 91 (1984, p 30 - this is one of his well-known quasi-canonical discussions of the Nine Hells); the heading to this discussion is "The devils' dark agents":

The most important diabolic agents on the Prime Material Plane are the dominant race of the plane - humans. Both individual humans (particularly lawful evil magic-users who can summon devils from the Lower Planes to the Prime Material) and devil-worshipping groups (such as lawful evil priesthoods of the diabolic) exist . . .

The truly loyal diabolic servants are few in number, but rely in most situations up the allies the can call upon . . .

Such allies include . . . LE non-diabolic priesthoods, and their worshippers . . .​

In the Monster Manual (p 84) were are told that Sahuagin

are devil worshippers . . . there is a 10% chance per 10 male sahuagin that there will be a cleric (evil) and 1-4 assistant priestesses, for the religious life of these creatures is dominated by the females. If a cleric is with the group in the lair, she will be of 5th to 8th level ability, and her lesser clerics will be 3rd or 4th level.​

In DDG were are given a new god for the Sahuagin - Sekolah - but there is no mention of that god in the MM, which - as I have quoted - gives their religion as devil worship.

For good measure, we could mention the Ixitxachitl. In the MM (p 55) we are told that they are "clerical in nature". In DDG (p 95 of the revised version, ie no Cthulhu or Elric) we are told that

These creatures worship Demogorgon, a Demon Lord from the Abyss. . . . They have been known to progress as high as the 8th level in clerical ability.​

 

[pemerton]

Further on the cleric issue: in OD&D v1 Men & Magic, we are told that

Clerics of 7th level and greater are either "Law" or "Chaos", and there is a sharp distinction between them.​

The list of Chaotic beings a couple of pages later includes Evil High Priests, but nothing is said about where their power comes from. I don't think there are any demons or devils presented in those original three books. @Doug McCrae probably knows more about this?

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, I'm not against any of this.

Though, I would say, that if we are considering Archfiends to be in a near infinite number of planes, even if they only have one or two clerics per plane, they still can create far more than a god can.

What is bizarre about how this discussion is starting to turn is that people started from the premise that the gods are stronger, but it seems that is continually being proven not true. The Fiends are simply stretched thinner, making the gods appear stronger, which then removes the impetus to have evil gods, because it seems they aren't actually doing anything that unique.

Being stretched thin does make Asmodeus weaker. Even if there are literally ten million Asmodean clerics stretched across a million Material Planes, most can't communicate with each other across planar divides. They have no ability to work together to perform any great deeds, and may even end up working at cross-purposes at times. Whereas there may be only a few hundred Banite clerics in Faerun, but since they were a very organized group in Ravenloft, I imagine that's also the case in the Realms as well (the faith hasn't taken over Ravenloft because it's under a curse where it will never be able to gain a foothold in any domain other than Hazlan and Nova Vaasa).

Now, is Asmodeus actually gathered a large chunk of spellcasting clerics and warlocks in one area, they'd definitely beat Bane's clerics--but he hasn't done that so far.

But anyway, all of this is besides the point. There's no particular reason to have evil gods, but then again, there's no particular reason to not have them either. And no reason why you can't have both evil gods and arch-fiends. Arch-fiends could be the generals of the evil gods. Or they could have their own little Blood War and are keeping each other so busy fighting amongst themselves that they aren't constantly attacking the Material world.

However, I think there's one thing you're forgetting when you said "that if we are considering Archfiends to be in a near infinite number of planes" which is: none of those planes exist unless the DM wants them to. I, personally, don't have that sort of multiverse in any of my homebrew settings, and it plays only the most minor of parts in my Ravenloft games (and only then in the sense of, if you're playing an Outlander, you came from "another world."). Asmodeus has no presence on millions or billions of worlds because there aren't millions or billions of worlds. If I were to run a Planescape or Spelljammer game, that might change, but I haven't run one of those yet, and I probably won't. And if I did run something Planescape like, it would probably be one world and it's associated planes.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that a majority of DMs are like that. I'd guess that actually relatively few DMs really care about the multiverse, especially in the sense of how it powers the various gods.

Which, rolls us right back around to "what is the practical difference?"

Well, what would you like it to be?

In a much earlier post ITT, I posited that gods can actually create a permanent thing out of nothing. How much a god can create on its own probably depends on its power level and portfolio, but it's something. Arch-things, no matter how powerful they are, can't create ex nihilo. They can transform something that exists into something else (again, probably depending on its power level and portfolio), but they have to have an existing thing first.

So that's my practical difference.

Possibly, so then the question is, does Godhood become just a title, while the essence and power of the title holder does not change? Or is this something else?

Or you could go with this. That being a god means you finally got accepted into the god club, and arch-things are just too déclassé to be allowed in. Not being in the god club means any mortal who worships you is going to be seen as slumming it. There's probably some arch-things who have wheedled their way in by being PAs or arm-candy for some of the gods.

Yeah, OK, this is also silly, but it's still plausible. I mean, they probably wouldn't use that sort of terminology, but who knows?

See, I don't disagree with this. I do agree that Jazirian likely loses a head on fight, with how DnD handles things. But does that make him less powerful? And, Asmodeus is also very very good in a fight. Just for an example, Zargon the Returner is a GOO that the gods couldn't defeat, so Asmodeus came to the Prime and beat him and sealed him.

Physically, yes, Jazirian would be weaker than Bane. The two gods may have equal powers, but they're expressed differently. Now, if Jazirian was given the opportunity to, I dunno, create a field of peace and love around it, then Bane would at have at least a chance to succumb to it and end up being too mellow to fight.

So in reading up on Zargon of the FR Wiki. One, Zargon is a GOO, and it's safe to say that they work differently than gods or arch-fiends. Two, it appears that Zargon had "god-disrupting powers" and Asmodeus was immune to them because it's implied that he wasn't a god at the time. Three, Zargon had just been in a multi-day battle with a barbarian named Zenkar until Asmodeus took over the battle, which probably tired him out a bit. Four, Asmodeus killed off large amounts of Zargon's followers ahead of time, and offed most the rest while sealing it into stone, so if gods do need prayer badly, Zargon is SOL.

So basically, Asmodeus is a kill-stealer who managed to fit in the "no gods" loophole. It's kind of a "no man born of woman" thing. It's not really about power here.

As I mentioned, the idea of "sin" in DnD is a bit nonsensical to me. And sure, they could be allied, with both planning on betraying the other, but I think the other idea highlights the issue.

If one of the logical reasons Asmodeus hasn't killed Bane is because he is too busy with other threats and other conquests, how can we say that Bane is obviously the stronger? Remember, then question we have been trying to tackle is "what is the role of evil gods"? And the most common answers have been "evil gods are stronger" and "evil gods make clerics". If Asmodeus can make clerics, and can be logically considered powerful enough that he just hasn't bothered to kill a god... then neither of those points actually support the existence of Evil Gods.

Well again, you would have to figure out what godhood actually means. So far, the 5e books don't say, so you have to make stuff up. It could be the creation thing I came up with; it could be that a god can make ten clerics for every one an arch-thing can make; it could be there's no practical difference.

It could even be that "god" is a species: you are born a god, or a god passes its divine DNA onto a mortal being via spiritual horizontal transfer when it dies, or maybe you're actually the descendant of a god and a mortal and your god-genes activated--but unless you have those god-genes, you're not a god. It's then just a question if arch-things can engage in god-diablerie.

The problem with saying that if Asmodeus is powerful enough to kill Bane, that it doesn't support having evil gods in a setting--well, then why have good or neutral gods either? Why not send Asmodeus after Tymora, or, I dunno, Psilofyr?

See, this gets into another question: where do gods come from? Did they come before mortals or did mortals dream them up? (If they came before mortals, then they probably can't need prayer to survive, because they would have died out before they invented mortals. Unless there used to be ambrosia a-plenty but it's all gone now.) Did they always have the same portfolios, or any portfolios at all, or did mortals decide that Bane was going to be the god of war and conquest? Was he always evil, or did he start out OK until mortals decided that war and conquest were generally evil things? Which came first, the god or the alignment?

I ask this because, as I also said earlier ITT, four of the six the orc gods don't have evil portfolios, but they're listed as evil because, well, orcs are Always Evil, so of course they would have Always Evil gods. They have an Evil god of Evil strength and loyalty, and an Evil god of Evil hearth and home.

Which is silly--sillier than a the god club. It's The Sims silly, where an Evil character eats Evil breakfast and takes Evil showers.

So, if you're questioning as to why there needs to be evil gods in a setting, figure out whether those gods actually need to be evil in the first place. Bane is war and conquest, but maybe he isn't conquering poor innocents and bringing forth a tyranny of brutal misery. I'm no expert on Hinduism, but according to Wikipedia, the goddess Kali "destroys the evil in order to protect the innocent." What if you change Bane to be similar. His purpose could be to destroy corrupt and evil nations and groups. You get some leeway of "what counts as a corrupt," which I'm sure some followers will take to mean "anyone I don't like," but it doesn't have to be like that.

 

[Minigiant]

The point is that 5e doesn't have Shamans. 1e didn't have warlocks.

So, in 5e, Druids that commune with nature spirits are druids. And if in later editions we get shamans, we can't roll back and say that Druids always communed with nature gods and never with nature spirits. That is false, and you can't use future developments to disprove something from the past.

You can say "Some of the druids from 5e would be shamans in 6e."

That's what I am saying.

The AD&D cleric would encompass the 5e cleric and the 5e warlock.
The AD&D mage would encompass the 5e artificer, the 5e sorcerer, 5e warlock, and the 5e wizard.

In AD&D gods and archfiends could create clerics. From 3e on, archfends' clerics wouldbe warlocks because most archfiends lack a divine rank.

You seem to be the one missing the point. How does Bane know whether or not the people rebel? He'd have to pay attention to those people to do so. He is a god of war? War is fought on information, so he would have spies.

Asmodeus doesn't care about the lives of the people, in fact he likely doesn't care about the common and low ranked people at all, those are other people's problems and he isn't omniscient. If he could get someone else to spend resources on the Blood War, would he? Of course. That isn't not caring about war, that is being intelligent. Resources he isn't spending fighting that war can be spent to fight other wars. But if Bane started winning? Then Asmodeus is going to swoop in, because he wants to own the Abyss, he doesn't want someone else to get that power.


And finally, you seem to be under the impression that Asmodeus is just going to sit in Hell, on his Throne, doing nothing unless prompted. That is not his style. Sure, he allows his Archdevils to attempt coups and defy him, because that serves his larger goals, it keeps them sharp and at their peak.

My point is that even though they are LE diey heads of evil organizations, they are not the same.Especially not in Nerath. On the FR they are very similar.

Almost every LE god is a tyrant. Bane, Asmodeus, Tiamat. That's Lawful Evil's most common mo. That's how it works 90% of the time.

However each god has different foci, leaderships styles, and unforgivable actions by subordinates.

 

[Maxperson]

You made him infinitely aware and in infinite planes, by claiming he was the CEO too concerned with the "big picture" to worry about a little thing like an entire prime material plane. I've just been following your lead on that. Now you don't like that though, so now you are trying to shift it to me.

Nope. That's just more of your bad extrapolation. Stop with that. A CEO doesn't know every little thing the happens in his company. He broadly sets the course of the company and the lower down management execute his vision.

You claimed Asmodeus was a "CEO" and operating in near infinite plans. Helldritch said that operating in a single location requires PP. If you are both correct, then Asmodeus is operating in near infinite planes, which would require near infinite PP.

Nope. Again, bad extrapolation. You need to ask more questions instead of assuming things.

In the Realms, supposedly. So, is he more powerful in the Realms than anywhere else?

Possibly. He's more powerful in the Realms setting than in any other setting than possibly the points of light. We don't know if he's a god in any others, or how powerful he would be there.

And where do you have proof of this?

Demon Lord stats(same power level as Archdevils) stats are on par with the quasi-deities listed on page 11 of the DMG. An Archdevil isn't even as powerful as a lesser god, let alone a greater god or overgod.

Additionally, I quoted the Fiendish Codex's which talked about the domains of Baator and the Abyss being given to clerics of Devils and Demons respectively.

I don't know the Fiendish Codex. Never seen it.

And what does how you derive power have to do with the power you have?

Say what?

As amusing as that is, it doesn't match with his stated goals, intentions, or methods.

It 100% does match his stated goals on Toril.

So, is a god only a god on the plane where they are worshipped? Is their power only equal to the lowest number of worshippers they have in any plane?

Their power varies from plane to plane. It's a bit confusing, but there is only one Thor, but he is also simultaneously however many Thors are gods on however many planes he's a god. When he manifests as a god of X setting, he has X power. When he manifests as a god of Y setting, he has Y power. X and Y might be different.

I'm sure you can see the problems with this. If Asmodeus is only as powerful as his weakest area of worship in the multiverse, then the other gods are even weaker, because they have areas where they have zero worshippers.

Yes I can see the problem you've created, but it's not an actual game problem.

We could assume then that the divine realms of the gods are set-up only to be calibrated by the prime's they are the most powerful in... and then we could assume the same thing for Asmodeus, who quite possibly has a world he rules absolutely, making him a greater god.

You can assume many things.

So, if a god goes to Nessus, how does it work? They have left their place of power, and they are fighting in a location where they are powerless? If they kill Asmodeus, does Asmodeus die everywhere? If that is the case, why can't he draw power from everywhere, if he is singular?

The only place a god is powerless is at the base of the spire. Asmodeus would be powerless there as well.

So, your argument is that his power is too diffuse, but it is personal power, so isn't it all vested in him?

That's not my argument. His power is not diffused anywhere. It's simply not infused by the vast majority of settings.

I mean, sure, a guy who has a savings single account making 1 million dollars annually is very rich, but he isn't richer than the guy with a million seperate savings accounts that make 10 dollars annually.

This is true.

So, how come Asmodeus can't use the personal power being focused on him, but Bane can?

Because it doesn't work that way by RAW. It's impossible to bank 10 dollars worth of power in a million different planes and have it add up to anything other than 10 dollars worth of power in each separate plane. Only the guy with the million dollars matters and then only at that bank(setting).

Personally, as the embodiment of Lawful Evil and the ruler of the Infinite Plane of Lawful Evil... shouldn't he be Tyranny? I mean, I don't think that anyone disputes that Primus is a being of ultimate law, and Lawful Evil is Tyranny.

Only one aspect of LE is tyranny. You can in fact be LE and not be a tyrant in any way, shape or form. LE =/= Tyranny.