D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

I read it, it seems to tend to agree with my interpretation being one of the two possibilities. I've also been quoting my own research, to support my points, some of which came from the same sources.

Unless you are referring to this idea that, for example, in 5e Yeenoghu for example is serving Erthynul, a god who has barely been mentioned in 5e, and a position which directly conflicts with the information provided for 5e. I won't dispute that in 3e Dieties and Demigods they defaulted to that position, but in 5e it seems they went with the alternative cosmology proposed in the next paragraph

What Doug's research said was definitively that no, they cannot grant spells by default. The DM has to actively change the rules to allow it, but it did let him know that it was okay. It's like the 5e alignment rule for monsters. It says that the DM should feel free to change up creature alignments. That passage does not change the default alignment of a creature, though.

 

[Maxperson]

What else did you want? I have told you everything, shown you that evil gods were useful and nothing was required to remove them and yet, you keep saying that removing the gods is not homebrew but a necessity since they are redundant with archdevils...

Yep. Nothing he has shown has proven any sort of redundancy with fiends. There's some small overlap, but not enough to warrant removal.

 

[generic]

Yep. Nothing he has shown has proven any sort of redundancy with fiends. There's some small overlap, but not enough to warrant removal.

I have a feeling he enjoys the argument itself, not its conclusion.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that @Chaosmancer is hoping that you will engage more forthrightly with the fact that, in classic D&D (ie OD&D somewhere up at least to the mid-80s with AD&D) it was not uncommon for the published material to contemplate, or expressly put forward, clerics of devils and demons.

And also with the fact that the 2nd ed AD&D/3E approach was not universal even within those editions. The 3E texts put forward their approach as a default but expressly contemplated alternatives, as per the quotes from Book of Vile Darkness (p 123)and the 3E MotP (sidebar on p 8).

And here is an example from 2nd ed AD&D: The City of Greyhawk boxed set includes a number of adventure cards, including the scenario To Slay a Hierarch. The Hierarch in this adventure is a 14th level priest, with a full spell load out including the 7th level Symbol (he has the beneift of the 2nd ed AD&D spell table for clerics, which gives 7th level spells at 14th rather than 16th level), and is described as "busying himself with some last-minute proofreading of a new Unholy Text of Asmodeus." The hierarch has a secretary who is a 9th level priest, also LE and presumably also a priest of Asmodeus.

So in fact it has never been the rule, in D&D, from 1974 at least until the end of the 4e era, that archdevils and demon lords do not and cannot have clerics.

The OD&D examples are just supposition of what might have been possible. The anti-clerics MIGHT have been a satanist, rather than a cleric of an evil god.

Then there were modules like The Keep on the Borderlands with mention of demons and evil clerics, and even an evil demon rite that the clerics perform, but nothing I saw that says outright that they worship demons. They could just as easily be evil clerics that deal with demons, because they are evil.

Then there's the dragon magazine from 1995 that explicitly says they cannot grant spells.

The 3e manual of the planes that's iffy on the status of Asmodeus, so it's a DM's call on whether he's a god or not.

The 3e Deities & Demigods says that they cannot grant spells.

The Fiendish Codex says that they don't grant spells.

In 4e Asmodeus is a god, so his ability to grant spells doesn't imply that the non-deity archdevils can grant spells. I don't know if anything further is said in that edition.

5e is the same.

So only the 1e Deities & Demigods makes them all gods. The vast majority of the time they cannot grant spells.

 

[Helldritch]

I think that @Chaosmancer is hoping that you will engage more forthrightly with the fact that, in classic D&D (ie OD&D somewhere up at least to the mid-80s with AD&D) it was not uncommon for the published material to contemplate, or expressly put forward, clerics of devils and demons.

And also with the fact that the 2nd ed AD&D/3E approach was not universal even within those editions. The 3E texts put forward their approach as a default but expressly contemplated alternatives, as per the quotes from Book of Vile Darkness (p 123)and the 3E MotP (sidebar on p 8).

And here is an example from 2nd ed AD&D: The City of Greyhawk boxed set includes a number of adventure cards, including the scenario To Slay a Hierarch. The Hierarch in this adventure is a 14th level priest, with a full spell load out including the 7th level Symbol (he has the beneift of the 2nd ed AD&D spell table for clerics, which gives 7th level spells at 14th rather than 16th level), and is described as "busying himself with some last-minute proofreading of a new Unholy Text of Asmodeus." The hierarch has a secretary who is a 9th level priest, also LE and presumably also a priest of Asmodeus.

So in fact it has never been the rule, in D&D, from 1974 at least until the end of the 4e era, that archdevils and demon lords do not and cannot have clerics.

D&D has always been good with Do as I say, not as I do. I always assumed that these were exceptions and not the rule.

And as I said, being considered does not mean you are as one thing is said in one book and is contradicted in an other. I never said there was no priest. But that these priests were not the norm. The vast majority would be stuck with 1st and 2nd level spells but such rare individuals such as Banak in Bloodstones could have better spells could and did happen.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What else did you want? I have told you everything, shown you that evil gods were useful and nothing was required to remove them and yet, you keep saying that removing the gods is not homebrew but a necessity since they are redundant with archdevils...

sigh

No, I never said it "was not homebrew" OBVIOUSLY it is homebrew to remove evil gods, because they exist. Removing an existing thing is homebrewing.

The part I've been discussing is the idea that they are "useful" as a category. And I want to make this clear, just because I've been using specific gods as an example, doesn't mean I am thinking about this in terms of specific gods. Obviously, there have been stories written using the existing structure, and removing gods from that structure affects that story. I've been looking at them as a category.

And since we have shown quite a lot of evidence that they aren't the only source of clerics, that even the rules that state Demon Lords and Archdevils can't grant spells are caveated with "unless you want them to", and that they aren't necessarily more powerful... the conclusion seems to be that they are fairly redundant with Archfiends. And therefore their role can be handled just as easily by Archfiends.

Keep Evil Gods if you want, make archfiends evil gods, make evil gods Archfiends, I don't particularly care, but the point has been to drill down for the difference, and it seems that the difference really hasn't been found.

You do not want them, don't use them. I prefer my way but for some reasons, you seem to try to convince us that your way is the way. It is one way, but certainly not the only way.

I am not trying to convince you to do anything. I am trying to show that the category of "Evil Gods" lacks something defining compared to "Archfiends" across editions. What you do with that information is your business.

I gave you the example of the immortal set to show you a bit of one possible way to interpret the interactions between gods and how it might influence your gaming world (or any other for that matter).

Re read what McCrae quoted and in many editions, devils and demons might have the power to stand against some gods but they are not. They are "considered". Some of my friends that are members of the first nation consider me one of them, but I am not. I do have ancestors but I am not a first nation person.

The same can be argued for the archdevils. They can be considered, but they are not.

But that "considered" isn't for in-universe people, it is for the DM. DnD seems to want to create the illusion that "god" is a term that matters, that these beings aren't "gods" but that they are still capable of all the things "gods" are. The problem is, they have never made it clear what makes them special. Orcus was a mortal man once, so was Kelemvor. Both are now far more powerful than that. But the difference between what they became doesn't seem to exist unless you homebrew it to exist.

And that's the point I've been trying to make.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet;

Wild Beyond the Witchlight has an example cleric...

Spoiler

View attachment 144289

I did not know about that. So, we now have a cleric of orcus in 5e too. That makes every edition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It does not say yes and no. It says no(cannot grant spells), but you the DM can change that rule if you want to. That's homebrew territory.

It also says that divine domains have already been given for those beings. That isn't homebrew, that is an optional rule. Bit of a difference.

Yep. Nothing he has shown has proven any sort of redundancy with fiends. There's some small overlap, but not enough to warrant removal.

Except for the express alternatives, set as optional rules, that allow them to make clerics, one of the only two things we have been discussing.

Leaving only the idea of "gods are stronger" which has been a fairly fraught discussion considering that everyone suddenly wants to change what they were saying to say something different

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have a feeling he enjoys the argument itself, not its conclusion.

I do enjoy debate. However, what is irritating me is that people are taking a debate over "what is the role of evil gods" and beginning to demand why I am trying to force my homebrew as the OneTrueWay. I've not done that. I have actually extensively tried to engage people on their own terms with regards to the scales and systems at play, and yet still I get accused of bad faith arguing and get snide comments from people not even engaged in the discussion.

It is frankly infuriating, because I can do nothing on this forum without people accusing me of everything under the sun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At the end of the day it is a pointless argument to have, because the game will always attribute alignments to the gods they list in the various pantheons. No matter how much some of us might say that making some gods evil either steps on the toes of archdevils/demons or that it renders the question of why some things in the world (like the sea in FR) are considered "evil" because their god is (for no attributable reason)... I don't see WotC ever not continuing what they've been doing (unfortunately).