D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Helldritch]

Just because something is in the Core Books doesn't mean it isn't setting specific. After all, that section includes a discussion of Sigil, the City of Doors, and the Outlands, along with Gate Towns. And aren't those all details specific to the Planescape setting? And the Great Wheel certainly seems like a setting detail that references specific settings. So does the Elemental Chaos.


Sure, they don't come out and say "in the land of Greyhawk" but that doesn't mean these aren't setting details that are being told to us in the Core Book

Something that is in the core books makes it that it can be referenced by EVERYBODY! Not everyone has the FR campaign books, Eberron, Dragonlance and so one of all editions or current. BUT what everyone have are the Core Books. This mean that while the Great Wheel is explained or more adequately, summerize. It might mean that every table can discuss what THEY DID with it. You might not have Sigil in a campaign in which the DM did not buy that book. Or you might. But one thing is for sure, the great wheel can be discussed by everyone because it is in the core books.

Really? Isn't the Egyptian Pantheon specifically in the Forgotten Realms? I know Tyr from the Norse Pantheon is, and that part of the existence of Oerth in Greyhawk was predicated on the existence of Earth in the DnD world, explaining how these Deities from our history show up in DnD

The Egyptian Pantheon existed wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before the realm. In fact, it was (is) in my own world of Center since 1983... The FR was printed in what? 1987-8? (I don't even care about the date, I know for sure that it was not printed when I started to DM.) The fact that the Egyptian pantheon was incorporated into the Realm does not make it Realm specific. I own a KIA Sorento. It does not mean that only I can own a KIA Sorento. There are better arguments than this...

Plus they all showed up in Planescape, another setting.

Ok. You assume that I have Planescape. Do I? Does the next poster have it? Does my daughter has it? You do not know so you can only assume. If I do not own it, I can't verify it. And not all books are available on the net and I strongly recommend people to buy stuff, not download on shady sites...

But If I own it so what? We are discussing core mechanics here. The Planescape box set is not core. What we have in the DMG and the PHB is. That they appear in Planescape does not make them less generic. It makes them part of Planescape. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, "you can reference the real world or make up your own" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for non-setting specific things. Yeah, I know I can homebrew, but the book doesn't provide my homebrewed gods. And I know I can pull things from the real world, so the book providing them doesn't exactly give me anything "non-setting specific" as much as it translates things from the real-world into the DnD world. I could do the same thing with other religions too.

The book gives you examples of what you can do. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, I think between explicitly referencing other settings or referencing the real world, calling one homebrew and the other "core" is a bit of a stretch. Loki isn't "core" to DnD. Loki is a Norse god that gets called up in dozen of fantasy works, because people like to reference Norse Mythology.

Loki is as core as you want it to be. These were examples. And an example does not make it mandatory. In fact, nothing is mandatory in any core books as you can always homebrew something to better suit your needs. What is evident though, is the fact that Evil gods exists at the core of the books. Doing something else is purely homebrew.

 

[Helldritch]

As a matter of ordinary English usage, what you say here is not correct. Should is not a "conditional" - as per the OED, it is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.

The actual wording used is "The following beings from the MONSTER MANUAL and FIEND FOLIO should be treated as lesser gods". These should be treated as is not a synonym for these may be treated as. There is no suggestion that it is an "option". The words used would be synonymous with One ought to treat these as. The reason for saying these should be treated as rather than these are is to signal that this is a change or correction to how these have hitherto been understood.

Subsequently to this being published in DDG, there was a slightly different approach in the MotP.

Should express : used to show when something is likely or expected:
and: used to suggest that a situation possibly exists or might come into existence
As in the following sentences: You should do X. You must do X. Which one is more compelling? Yep, the second one.

This is from the Dictionnary...
So should is less strong that must.

But this forum isn't for semantics.

The main point is:
As stated earlier, someone might not own said book. Deity and Demi Gods. This means that for all intent and purpose, using only the DMG, PHB and MM, these are not gods. Individual DM might do it. Most do it, even I. But using core books only? Nope.

I knew quite a few DM that only had the core books. They did not owned any other books save maybe a "module" or two, and even then, it was OD&D (B1 and B2). So discussing something that is not in the core books with them was pointless. It might be why I always try to stick with the core books. Not out of spite, but as a habit. Not everyone can afford 3 PHB, buy two copies of each book as I do. Or can rebuy old books that were burned in a fire for that matter... God did I lost a lot in that fire...

 

[Voadam]

As a matter of ordinary English usage, what you say here is not correct. Should is not a "conditional" - as per the OED, it is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.

The actual wording used is "The following beings from the MONSTER MANUAL and FIEND FOLIO should be treated as lesser gods". These should be treated as is not a synonym for these may be treated as. There is no suggestion that it is an "option". The words used would be synonymous with One ought to treat these as. The reason for saying these should be treated as rather than these are is to signal that this is a change or correction to how these have hitherto been understood.

I think a more natural reading would be these are not technically lesser gods, but they should be treated as such (with an implication of that is their rough power level and they should be granting clerics spells and such).

Subsequently to this being published in DDG, there was a slightly different approach in the MotP.

Yes, there Archdevils and such are only considered lesser gods when on their own home plane. This seems an explicit change to the 1e DDG.

 

[Faolyn]

So wait. The Core is setting agnostic, but the default is the Realms, because you can't play the core without a setting... and all settings are homebrew, except the core, which defaults to a homebrew setting...

The Core is setting agnostic.

So far, nearly all of the published adventures have taken plane in the Realms. Thus making it the default setting for adventures.

I'm sorry, isn't one of the big things the gods do is fight each other over getting more portfolios? Why would there be easily accessed new portfolios? Wouldn't those have been snapped up?

Depends on the setting. In the Realms (judging by what I've read on the wiki), gods seem to fight each other for portfolios or at least kill each other and take the dead god's portfolio.

Have you ever read or played the In Nomine RPG? If not, the basic concept is that demons and angels are fighting for the hearts and minds of humanity, and the primary way they do that is by taking Words, each of which represent a theme in the cosmic Sympathy. By taking these Words, they can give them a more good or evil "feel" among humanity, and thus influence humanity to one side or another. The Words held by the archangels and demon princes are extremely broad and powerful. But under them, the lower-ranked celestials (a term used for both angels and demons) may have Words that represent minor aspects of of the greater Word. The game likes to use the following as an example: there's Saminga, Demon Prince of Death. Somewhere under him, there's the demon with the Word of Choking to Death. And under that demon, there's one with the Word of Choking to Death on Chicken Bones. All three exist, even though Saminga's Word contains the other two.

Extrapolate that to what Maxperson said. In the Realms, you have Istishia, greater god of elemental water. It won't actually increase his power or give him any other benefits if he kills Umberlee, intermediate goddess of the oceans, or Eldath, lesser goddess of pools and waterfalls, and takes their portfolio.

And, what was Vecna's Portfolio? "Evil and Destructive Secrets" which... is part of the knowledge portfolio, right? Maybe magic as well? He does get Domains of Magic and Knowledge, so these would have logically been part of the Portfolio's of Boccob (Magic, Arcane Knowledge, Balance, Foresight ), Wee Jas (Death, Magic, Vanity (Love), Law) and others.

The Realms seems to have a rule where each portfolio can only be held by one god. Greyhawk doesn't have that rule.

Also, Wee Jas is the god of death and magic (extrapolation: necromancy spells), Boccob is the god of magical knowledge and foresight (extrapolation: divination spells), and Vecna is the god of evil secrets (and probably only grants Magic and Knowledge because he is/was a lich). There's no actual overlap here.

What about St. Cuthbert? What minor portfolio's did he get? Common Sense, Wisdom, Zeal, Honesty, Truth, Discipline. Huh, don't those last three sound like things Heironous (Chivalry, Justice, Honor, War, Daring, Valor ) would cover? Or Rao (Peace, Reason, Serenity )?

If you only look at the last three parts of Cuthbert's portfolio, it does look like Heironeous'. Which is why you have to look at Cuthbert's entire portfolio, which very clearly makes the two gods very different. Cuthbert is not a knight in shining armor. If anything, he's the old guy who tells you important info and then smacks you over the head with his cudgel when you don't listen to him.

 

[Faolyn]

Pause. My entire argument is about whether or not they are redundant in the official game. I personally have done other things, but my argument is not about what I have done. My argument is solely to demonstrate the redundancy.

Then fine, you win: they're redundant.

Now what?

How do you plan on taking that bit of info and using it to change or improve the game?

 

[Faolyn]

Not just one, but a whole pantheon. At least two were named (Gorellik and Refnara Moon-Biter).

Well, Refnara was from a Dungeon magazine, but she seems cool. Or, well, as cool as any other evil goddess, considering her portfolio is fear. Non-human pantheons in D&D need more goddesses.

 

[Aldarc]

Note that Yeenoghu creating the gnoll race started as a gnoll myth in 4e and was made fact in 5e. Until then it was always stated that Yeenoghu did not create gnolls. He merely discovered them, like how they looked similiar to him and wiggled his way into their original pantheon and managed to slowly but steadily replace all their other deities. During this he actually ascended to become a full fledged deity in his own right (he was a demi- or lesser power)

It should be noted that there was another gnoll god, Gorellik, who has since vanished into the ether (or, well, the Astral). From what I can tell, he also didn't create gnolls but thought they looked like him. Maybe Yeenoghu ate Gorellik and took his backstory.

Yep. In 4e lore Gorellik was the god of gnolls and their divine progenitor. Yeenoghu killed Gorellik, possibly using his bones to create his flail, during the Dawn War and took control over gnolls. So 5e was the one changing things in this regard rather than 4e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Probably not, since you appear to have gone out of your way not to understand.

Ah yes, the classic way of approaching any miscommunication, accuse the other side of bad faith arguing. Clearly this will help me understand it better, maybe go ahead and insult my intelligence and declare I obviously can't read to. The more time you spend making it my personal fault that I think you are making no sense, the more clear your position becomes.

Apparently not, and no, they really don't go around fighting each other for portfolios. It's rare for gods to go against one another. It upsets the balance. An attempt at upsetting the balance is what caused the Time of Troubles.

Huh, I don't remember the Time of Troubles in Greyhawk. Are we still talking about "core" DnD? Or do you only want to talk about Forgotten Realms?

Domains are not portfolios.

Which is why I made sure to list the portfolios, not the domains.

No. If you want to see what it's like to actually create a race, read the Silmarillion. Aule created the dwarves, even though he was incapable of giving them true life since he was only as powerful as an Archfiend and not a god. Eru had to give them true life.

Huh? What does Middle Earth have to do with the Story of Corellon and Gruumsh? You do know the origin myth of elves in DnD wasn't written by Tolkien, right?

Man, we've gone from "core DnD" to "forgotten Realms specific" to "entirely different franchise" in a single post.

Please. Any old 17th+ level wizard can do that with a Wish spell. Wish can change a human into anything the wizard can imagine and have it breed true. Heck, my granny can do it with a Ring of 3 Wishes.

And? Wish is literally the power to alter reality. "Well, a 17th level wizard can alter reality to make all the oceans made of jello, so obviously any being capable of doing that at will isn't special". Your position gets more and more confusing as we go.

Since you pointed out the fatal flaw, I'm not sure why you included an example that wasn't an example.

So, the fatal flaw of saying "mortal races is an example of what I am talking about but not the entirety of what I'm talking about" has made it so that mortal races are the only thing I'm talking about?

This is like telling someone they want "fluids, you know, like water", specifying water was just an example of a fluid, and then turning around and saying 'well, all you want is water and everything else doesn't count". No, I literally clarified this. If you are just going to make up strawmen to shove down, then have fun playing in the hay.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They're just deities by another name

What makes you say that?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Something that is in the core books makes it that it can be referenced by EVERYBODY! Not everyone has the FR campaign books, Eberron, Dragonlance and so one of all editions or current. BUT what everyone have are the Core Books. This mean that while the Great Wheel is explained or more adequately, summerize. It might mean that every table can discuss what THEY DID with it. You might not have Sigil in a campaign in which the DM did not buy that book. Or you might. But one thing is for sure, the great wheel can be discussed by everyone because it is in the core books.

And? Just because it can be discussed by everyone doesn't mean it isn't a setting detail. Heck, everyone can discuss Draconians from the 5e PHB too, does that make them setting agnostic?

And, Sigil was specfically mentioned and described in the PHB section you were talking about, but it is also very specifically the key set-piece for Planescape, a DnD setting. It didn't exist before then.

The Egyptian Pantheon existed wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before the realm. In fact, it was (is) in my own world of Center since 1983... The FR was printed in what? 1987-8? (I don't even care about the date, I know for sure that it was not printed when I started to DM.) The fact that the Egyptian pantheon was incorporated into the Realm does not make it Realm specific. I own a KIA Sorento. It does not mean that only I can own a KIA Sorento. There are better arguments than this...

Just pointing out that the only place they were used officially was in the realms. But, additionally, co-opting a real world religion doesn't make it "core dnd"

Ok. You assume that I have Planescape. Do I? Does the next poster have it? Does my daughter has it? You do not know so you can only assume. If I do not own it, I can't verify it. And not all books are available on the net and I strongly recommend people to buy stuff, not download on shady sites...

But If I own it so what? We are discussing core mechanics here. The Planescape box set is not core. What we have in the DMG and the PHB is. That they appear in Planescape does not make them less generic. It makes them part of Planescape. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not assuming you have anything. I'm telling you that your assertion that "all settings are homebrew and thus we should only talk about the core" falls apart when you realize that pretty much everything in the core is settings. In fact, the things that are supposedly universal are either real world things you take (which would be equivalent to saying that London is Core DnD because you can use it) and things they were fairly similiar between Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.

I mean the only core Deities you can point to that aren't IRL are the racial deities created for Greyhawk and co-opted into the Forgotten Realms. Still all homebrew, according to you.

The book gives you examples of what you can do. Nothing more, nothing less.

It still doesn't provide the things you said it provided.

Loki is as core as you want it to be. These were examples. And an example does not make it mandatory. In fact, nothing is mandatory in any core books as you can always homebrew something to better suit your needs. What is evident though, is the fact that Evil gods exists at the core of the books. Doing something else is purely homebrew.

What? No, Loki is not "core DnD" he is a Norse Trickster god we can trace back to at least 1000 CE. Just because DnD uses him, much like dozens of other brands, doesn't mean he is "core". Additionally, "as core as you want" makes no sense. You put forth that the core is the core, but now the core is whatever I decide it is? That is nonsensical.

Sure, he is an example, but that doesn't make him core any more than Artemis Entreri who is also used as an example in the PHB.