D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[pemerton]

I've been reviewing some 3E material.

The module Speaker in Dreams has infernal clerics. They are expressly said to worship Hextor, but are also described as a diabolical cult (p 18). When they take over the temple of Pelor, it "now smolders with hellfire" (p 22). Nothing about the module would need to change if instead they were worshippers of Asmodeus. I don't think infernal pact warlocks would fit as well.

The module Bastion of Broken Souls has a 12th level cleric of Tiamat, "a human cleric of the evil dragon deity Tiamat" (p 28). This character has a full suite of spells for her level. Tiamat is not mentioned in the list of default gods in the 3E PHB. She is statted up in a sidebar on p 118 of the 3E MotP, but there is no reference to her being a god. Then, in the later-published 3E DDG, she is presented as a god in the default pantheon, with a stat block that is the same as the MotP one in some parts (eg hit points, damage) but different in others (eg AC, to hit bonuses, skill bonuses).

This variability across the space of three years of material (publication dates 2000 to 2002) is a microcosm of the different approaches across the lifetime of the game.

 

[Helldritch]

Exceptions? To what? A relatively obscure part of the DMG, about the granting of cleric spells, which no other published source ever seems to have conformed to?

And why is it "unfortunate"? How would the published corpus of D&D material be better without all those drow clerics in D3? Or without Lareth the Beautiful? Or without the Hierarch antagonist in that mini-scenario in the City of Greyhawk boxed set?

Those later products don't have any bearing on an investigation into the textual realities of AD&D.

Unless they go your way...

The fun part is that I do own all of these and some more. But I always restrain myself to core books as much as possible. Why? Because the person in front of me might not have them. Yes I do cite other books that are not core. Usually to counter point a point made with another book that said "X" just to show that an official book can also say "Y" on the same subject.

GGygax, and the next is by no mean meant as an insult, was not a very consistent publisher or world builder. He was adding lots of stuff for the "cool" factor even if it contradicted the core. 1ed was and still is a mess when it comes to unity and consistency. One book says one thing, another says the contrary and a third will do something that is in between.

Later RPGs were much more consistent in their rules and in their editions. The Role Master line comes to mind. Or even GURPS. But D&D? We better stick to core rules as even within the same edition, books tends to contradict themselves.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The foreword for FF is dated Aug 1979, and that for DDG is dated May 1980. My copies are copyrighted 1981 for FF and 1980 for DDG. I don't know how they overlapped in terms of preparation for publishing, especially as FF was being led from the UK.

Summon @Doug McCrae!

The Fiend Folio was completed in 1979 but not published until 1981. Shannon Appelcline, Designers & Dragons: '70-'79 (2014):

Interest in D&D was growing in the British Isles thanks primarily to Games Workshop’s White Dwarf magazine. Within its pages, one Don Turnbull was editing a regular monster column, called “The Fiend Factory,” which collected together reader contributions. It was successful enough that Games Workshop decided to produce a book of these monsters, which was to be called the Fiend Folio. GW arranged with TSR for their Fiend Folio to be an “official” AD&D release, as their earlier gaming accessories had been. Turnbull finished the book for GW around September 1979 … after which time it sat around for two years! The problem was that agreements over the AD&D license fell apart, and it would be two years before a deal was finally made. In the end, it wasn’t Games Workshop who published Fiend Folio (1981), but instead TSR, as their fifth AD&D hardcover.​

Every source I can find -- Appelcline, Peterson, The Acaeum -- gives the publication date for Deities & Demigods as 1980. Wikipedia gives the same dates for both -- DDG (1980), FF (1981) -- and has similar information to Appelcline about the Fiend Folio being delayed for two years.

 

[Minigiant]

If the goal of play is for the players, via their PCs, to engage and perhaps transform the cosmology, then I think coherence matters. 4e does a good job in this respect (in my view, at least).

But if the purpose of the cosmology is to be a source of colour for antagonism, as - eg - in REH's Conan, then I don't think coherence matters much at all. I've twice run games (one AD&D, one Burning Wheel) in which the Keep of B2 is found in GH - in the 1980s in the Shield Lands, in the 2010s west of the Abor-Alz. Both times I had the evil priest in the keep be a Chemosh worshipper. Neither time did I worry what Chemosh's nature is in relation to Orcus, Nerrul etc. It's just a label I like for an undead-creating, demon-worshipping evil cult leader.

Also, if fiends are supposed to be in opposition to the gods, then there are beings who historically have been labelled gods but shouldn't be - in DDG the obvious ones are Sekolah (should be a devil based on alignment but a demon based on actual nature), Druaga (should be a devil), Vaprak (should be a demon), Laogzed (should be a demon), and Lu Yueh (should be a demon). Perhaps also some of the Nehwon deities like Hate, the Rat God and the Spider God (all candidate demons). Some entities presented as "monsters" should also be demons (eg Ma Yuan, Apep).

Trying to retrospectively rationalise all this seems to me both pointless and hopeless. You either clean it all up, 4e style, or pick and choose, or just go full REH.

It all goes to what you want the Evil Powers for.

If you just want different evil groups to fight, it doesn't matter. GH and FR work great.

If you want to debate the cosmos with NPCs and PCs, then you need a consistent and coherent cosmology. Then you need a real world one of 4es or Mercers

 

[pemerton]

Those later products don't have any bearing on an investigation into the textual realities of AD&D.

Unless they go your way...

Huh? I'm not asserting that 3E makes a difference to AD&D. I am asserting that, even in 3E, I can find material that undermines the (alleged) boundary between "fiends" and evil gods.

The fun part is that I do own all of these and some more. But I always restrain myself to core books as much as possible. Why? Because the person in front of me might not have them. Yes I do cite other books that are not core. Usually to counter point a point made with another book that said "X" just to show that an official book can also say "Y" on the same subject.

Later RPGs were much more consistent in their rules and in their editions. The Role Master line comes to mind.

This makes me doubt with your familiarity with RoleMaster. It is extremely variable. Even the core rules for RM2 have multiple options for PC building and combat resolution.

 

[pemerton]

If you want to debate the cosmos with NPCs and PCs, then you need a consistent and coherent cosmology. Then you need a real world one of 4es or Mercers

Bracketing the question of whether real world cosmologies are coherent - there is a lot of variability across classical sources, reflecting the fact that they were created over time for various purposes rather than in a systematic, rationalist way - I don't think debate requires coherence. That depends on how action resolution of knowledge checks is handled.

 

[Lanefan]

If the goal of play is for the players, via their PCs, to engage and perhaps transform the cosmology, then I think coherence matters. 4e does a good job in this respect (in my view, at least).

To a point. What matters more IMO is consistency with itself; if that's present then any incoherence is merely inconvenient, rather than setting-wrecking.

What seems to be confusing people is each edition seems to have handled this differently (with, as noted, additional variance even within some editions), thus using the sum total to try and build a consistent picture is doomed to failure.

Trying to retrospectively rationalise all this seems to me both pointless and hopeless. You either clean it all up, 4e style, or pick and choose, or just go full REH.

If one has the time, IMO the best answer is to just homebrew the lot of it.

 

[Voadam]

Does anyone know whether T1-4 has clerics of Zuggtmoy? I don't have a copy; but I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

I own it and ran it. I will pull it out for quoting later but I seem to recall a discussion about the clerical power actually coming from Lolth and Iuz for the elemental clerics.

(and @pemerton when quoting this I accidentally hit the sad emoji reaction, it was not a commentary on your post).

 

[pemerton]

I own it and ran it. I will pull it out for quoting later but I seem to recall a discussion about the clerical power actually coming from Lolth and Iuz for the elemental clerics.

There's another point of overlap between demons and gods: Iuz, the son of a mortal and a demon prince, is a demi-god!

(I'll check my Carl Sargent era material later today to see if the clerics of Iuz have spells above 5th level.)

 

[Krachek]

For what I see, there is some various level of evil god impact on a DnD world.

level 0. banish or cast away. the god have no impact, but multiple cultist work on his return, that may have usually apocalyptic result!

level 1. Distant god. fuel cleric and followers with spell and abilties. Feed on sacrifices made by its followers.

level 2. active god. not only gives spell and abilities, but send direct request to his clerics and followers. May alter Spell capacities of his clerics or followers. Will send minions, weapons, or other help, But ask much more in return. Typical example Lolth.

Level 3. God present on material plane. Act as a god, but also a warlord. Create monsters race and powerful monster. corrupt land and living creatures. Seek the total control of material plane. Whether or not Morgoth is considered a god for some, his behavior fit this kind of impact.