Yes. My point is that this distinction has not been clearly drawn across the body of texts considered as a whole.
I completely agree with that point. That is different though than saying D&D texts have never made a clear distinction. As I said before "This has varied across time and source and edition."
One of the earliest and most famous modules, T1, has a cleric of the "Demoness Lolth".
You have noted that T1-T4 has clerics of the demon queen (? lady?) Zuggtmoy.
I've pointed to Ed Greenwood's near-canonical article in Dragon 91, which refers to clerics of the archdevils.
The early AD&D 2nd ed product City of GH boxed set has a scenario with clerics of Asmodeus, and one of them has a 7th level spell memorised.
And 2e D&D also has the
Guide to Hell which says the archdevils do not grant cleric spells.
Page 37: "The Lords of the Nine are devils of incredible power. While many gods have a domain to rule, each lord has an entire layer of Hell under his or her command.
Despite this power and prestige, the lords are not gods-at least, the lords of the first eight layers are not. Asmodeus is a special case; he is dealt with at the end of this chapter. For the purpose of the following discussion, ”the lords” refers to the lords of the first eight layers.
The nature of the lords is a topic of continued discussion throughout the planes. While they are obviously not powers in the traditional sense (after all, they have no mortal followers), they seem to have near total control over entire layers of Hell. Some scholars think it’s only a matter of time before the lords become true powers, while others think they belong to a separate category of higher power altogether. The truth is, the lords themselves don’t even know the answers to these questions. Some of them think they know, but only Asmodeus understands the true state of affairs."
The lords of the nine are the archdevils.
Page 48: "In truth,
Asmodeus is a greater power, just like Jazirian. However, the Twin Serpents predate the rule of belief in the planes. They neither gain power from the adoration of mortals, nor lose it from lack of worship.
They have no priests and can grant no spells."
But as I've just noted that was not always adhered to in published material. Even within a given edition: contrast Carl Sargent's treatment of Iuz's abiity to grant spells (as I cited upthread from Iuz the Evil) to the Hierarch in the City of GH boxed set.
And as I've noted, in 3E Tiamat appears both as a god (DDG) and as a powerful dragon more like her AD&D MM entry (MotP). I don't know which of those is supposed to be "core". And I'm not sure how BoVD counts as "core", rather than as just another suggestion to add to the mix!
Maybe I should have said official 3.0 baseline instead of "core" so as to distinguish from the other core discussion going on.
That last sentence strikes me as a distinction without a difference. What is at stake in the distinction being drawn?
For the most part. It is very similar to "should be treated as." I can think of one advantage in the 3.5 PH rules for clerics though if you are not worshipping a god and your power instead actually comes from a force like Chaos and Evil. You do not risk violating the code of conduct of your god and becoming an ex-cleric:
3.5 PH page 33:
"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god (generally by acting in ways opposed to the god’s alignment or purposes) loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description, page 201)."
In older editions (1e comes to mind) gods can be more directly involved with their clerics and even redirect what spells a cleric memorizes, either out of divine wisdom of what they will need or withholding spells as punishments for transgressions.
1e DMG page 38: "If they have not been faithful to their teachings, followed the aims of their deity, contributed freely to the cause, and otherwise acted according to the tenets of their faith, it becomes unlikely that they will receive intermediary aid unless they make proper atonement and sacrifice. There can be no question that such clerics must be absolutely exemplary in their activities, expressions, and attitudes if they dare to contact their deity directly! In the former case, where the unfaithful cleric desires third through fifth level spells, the minions (angels, demi-gods, or whatever) will be likely to require the cleric to spend 2-8 days in prayer, fasting, and contemplation of his or her transgressions, making whatever sacrifices and atonement are necessary thereafter, before freely granting those powers once again. Sacrifice and atonement will probably be left to the discretion of the cleric, and it is possible that the minions of the deity will empower him or her with spells to complete these steps, but the cleric had better do the correct thing, or face the consequences."
But they have cult worshippers who are, from the point of view of both mechanical and story function, indistinguishable from the anti-clerics and evil high priests of Book 1 Men & Magic: the Deathpriest of Orcus, for example.
So this last bit with the deathpriest is 4e.
4e requires clerics to be devoted to a specific faith which is usually, but not always a god
4e PH page 61: "All clerics choose a specific faith to which they devote themselves. Usually this faith is the worship of a specific patron deity—for example, Moradin, Pelor, or Erathis. Sometimes clerics are devoted to churches that venerate groups of deities or even philosophies."
So I am not sure RAW in the PH it matters whether their faith is in a non-god being. My understanding of the 4e lore is that cleric power comes from the astral sea, but I don't see that as inconsistent RAW with a clerical faith in something not tied to the Astral Sea.
But then we come to the Deathpriest Hierophant from the
4e Monster Manual page 209:
"CULTISTS OF ORCUS ARE DEMENTED INDIVIDUALS, and this deathpriest has risen to their highest ranks.
He is not a cleric, since Orcus lives in the Abyss and cannot grant divine magic to his priests." He gets three powers, an Aura of Decay, a Vision of Death, and a Word of Orcus. He does wield a mace like a cleric (or a warlock). Not sure I'd say his powers are clearly evoking 4e cleric themes over warlock ones or whether it is just monster power because monsters and NPCs are explicitly built on different rules than PCs.
The Deathpriest of Orcus on page 210 has powers of a Death's Embrace aura, an at will Ray of Black Fire, and a Dark Blessing. Also armed with a mace. The Deathpriest looks more like a 4e warlock than a cleric to me with the at will ray.
4e of course has its own lore distinctions of gods being tied to the Astral Sea and ideas and belief which are different from other editions of D&D.
I'm not disputing any of your sources (except I'm not sure how BoVD counts as "core"). I'm arguing that over the whole range of published material there is no general pattern of distinguishing Asmodeus, Orcus etc from evil gods in terms of cosmology, whether or not they have clerics, etc.
Of course there has been some hesitation about flat-out asserting that devils and demons are gods (in core material I think 4e is the first time that is said for Asmodeus). At least one of the original authors was an observant Christian; and the game is published in one of the most religious countries in the world (ie the US). But beneath the use of phrases like "should be treated as", "like beings", etc no concrete distinctions in terms of mechanics or fiction have been consistently drawn.
Consistently is definitely the key word there.