They cared enough to argue it to exclude and example I made for nearly two days.
You are expecting people to stick to a canon that doesn't actually exist, and then "Ah-ha"-ing them when you believe that they deviate from it.
Which is why I was discussing it with that one person. Then another jumped in to tell me I was wrong. Then another. Then you. If you don't care, don't engage with the conversation. I didn't force you to hop into a discussion about this, I was only talking the Helldritch who made the point, before other people decided to get involved. And I'm not going to dismiss people tell them "sorry, I'm only discussing this with this individual, no one else" because that would be rude and dismissive.
Perhaps those other people, like me, are trying to offer other options and opinions that are potentially useful, since there is no canon answer. But you chose to argue with us because you're expecting there to be some sort of since answer that applies to everyone, and there isn't.
Each portfolio is power. The Gods in FR squabble over them constantly. They don't just go for the ones they like or that compliment their personalities.
So, serious question, since I don't know from the Realms: how many times has an FR god tried to grab a portfolio that had nothing to do with their current portfolio and that doesn't align with their personalities? I have read about Cyric trying to grab Magic from Mystra or Midnight or whoever it was at the time. But Cyric (a) is evil and is all about causing strife, pain, (b) kind of insane, (c) wanted a lot of raw power, and few things are more powerful in the Realms than magic, and (d) may have really hated Midnight before their apotheoses (I'm unsure of the time line).
It's called a setting bible, and if they didn't keep one that's on them. Vecna has been written as tied to magical secrets every single time I've run across him. If he wasn't supposed to be written that way, then someone should have corrected that.
Additionally, since he has been portrayed and written that way constantly... where do you have evidence that he is NOT supposed to be a god of dark magical secrets? Where do you think my interpretation of him goes wrong, since you seem convinced that that isn't part of his portfolio.
I didn't say that he was never the god of dark magical secrets.
First, you tried to claim that Vecna's portfolio overlaps with Wee Jas' and Boccob's and that this is... redundant, I guess. Even though Wee Jas is specifically a Suelian god and Boccob and Vecna aren't tied to any pantheons, and the Greyhawk world doesn't have any rules about redundant gods. I pointed out that despite what you think, there's very little redundancy in their portfolio. "Magic used to gain power" is different than "Magic needs to be always balanced" is different than "The secrets of magic must be kept secret."
You have that backwards. It is their role and purpose, and then depending on that role and purpose whether or not they are necessary.
That is
one way to do it. But it's not the only way. It's also not necessarily the most interesting way.
Right here, right now, tell me: what is
wrong with having "redundant" gods? Other than that you feel they're unnecessary.
You seem to once again be going down the road of telling me I shouldn't debate with someone over their claims, because you believe their claim is only for their game. If you feel so strongly about this, why don't you talk to the other side about their positions being only for their own campaigns and not universally true? Because I've gotten the impression that they are arguing for universality and thus I am arguing against them, because at best it is only true in their campaigns.
You're not debating anyone, though. You're demanding that people prove that their preferences are canon and then telling them they're wrong because they have a use for both evil gods and archfiends.
Now this is a rather different take. This seems to imply that portfolio's are shared. However, this has traditionally not been the case. It has often been asserted (and I'm using FR examples simply because I'm staying consistent with Chauntea and Silvanus who are FR dieties) that if a deity dies then the thing they have control over dies as well. If you kill the Goddess of Winter, there is no more Winter until someone else takes up that portfolio. This implies that these portfolio's are not shared spaces that can be conflicted over the opinion of two different dieties, but that they must be held solely by a single party.
In that version of the Forgotten Realms, yes. In fact, this is a very good reason for there to be redundancy, so that all of a thing doesn't vanish just because one god is killed. But this is not the way it's done in other settings. IIRC, Ao set it up so there can be one god of a thing at a time. That's not the case in other settings. It's barely even the case in the Realms when you consider non-human gods, like Thrym, god of cold, ice, and frost giants. Or, for that matter, any cold-oriented arch-fey or arch-fiends. There's probably even an Ithaqua-like GOO.
So yeah, if you have a setting where killing a god means that its portfolio vanishes, then it makes sense for there to be multiple powers who can take up the slack should one of them die.
This seems far more fitting with the idea of Portfolio's as presented, but you are taking this in the wrong direction. I don't care about how their personalities would have them respond, that has nothing to do with the point. Maxperson's claim was that the cosmic order (the way things are) would not be disrupted, because disruptions to the Cosmic order get beings like AO involved to smack people down.
So, if it once belonged to a god, and then is taken from them and given to a mortal to make them a god, this is a disruption of the cosmic order, by definition I think. And this was my assertion.
So let's say that this is true. And then what? What does "disruption of the cosmic order" mean to you?
Then why did Maxperson claim that gods are part of the cosmic order, and that newly ascended gods take unclaimed portfolios (which we have shown to be highly unlikely due to overlap) and that this is the canonical answer that every gamer should abide by?
Beats me. Ask them.
Just like I'll ask you to show me that it's unlikely that there are going to be unclaimed portfolios. You've claimed to show overlap between gods but there hasn't been. Maybe you need to stop thinking so big (i.e., "Magic") and look at the nuances. "Magical knowledge" and "magical secrets" are actually different things. One's about the known, and uncovering the unknown. The other is about the unknown, and keeping it that way. They may center on the same thing, but their
personalities shape their different portfolios.
Oh sure, he'll tell me that he is perfectly fine with people changing it, but his position was clearly that he way was canoncially correct, and THAT is what I am debating him on. If you are just here to lecture me that I shouldn't judge home games, because there is no single canonical answer, then you are missing the entire conversation. Max didn't make a claim about his own home game, he made a claim about the game as a whole for all gamers.
So far you haven't actually provided any evidence that supports your claims. Max, and others here, have.
But above you're claiming that Max is saying that everyone should be abiding by this canonical answer, and here you're telling me he would say that no, people don't have to abide by this answer.
(See, here's an ah-ha! moment.)
So, the god of Paladins wouldn't cover the realm of Honesty? What do they cover then?
The god of paladins is the god of paladins.
Just like Caoimhin, the killmoulis god of food, doesn't cover farms, ranches, slaughterhouses, breweries, or even kitchens, despite the fact that each of those things are necessary to make food. He's just the god of food (and shy friendship and comfort--he's kinda adorbs).
If that still doesn't convince you, take a look at paladins now, in 5e. If Heironeous is still the god of paladins, then he's as much the god of Vengeance and Conquest paladins as he is the god of Devotion paladins. Do you think that either Vengeance or Conquest pallys care about honesty? It's not in their oath. Heck, honesty isn't even part of the oath of the
Redemption paladins, and they're probably the goodest paladins.
So, did Heironeous' portfolio change? Is he only the god of
some paladins? Or did he never care as much about honesty, because that was only one aspect of his actual portfolio, which is paladins?
(The PHB says Heironeous is the god of chivalry and valor. It doesn't say paladins, and likely won't until we get an actual Greyhawk book. )
Also, Cuthbert is a mortal turned God, Heironeous is a god, therefore Heironeous is likely much older. And "who is worshipped more" is a point with zero relevance.
"Who is worshiped more" almost certainly directly affects their power level (unless Greyhawk says otherwise). An ancient god worshiped by a few villages is likely not nearly as powerful as an upstart worshiped by millions.
I have never once claimed that everyone should adhere to my answer. I have never said my way is the only way. So, you can stop accusing me of things I've never done.
But you keep complaining when people don'
t. So what's your endgame?
People have refuted that I have established that. They are still arguing that it isn't true, therefore I am still discussing it with them.
Because you haven't actually shown it to be the case, is why. And that's because it varies from edition to edition.
That is nonsensical. It cannot be that there is both no differences and lots of differences between two things in an established body.
Yes, there can be. Because each edition, and even each book in each edition, has said something different. Some are radically different, some are only a tiny bit different. But there is no single answer that has been true in every edition. Thus, you can find support for any of your claims.
I also note that you are giving equal weight things people have made up, and the rules presented in the books. At a table level, these things can be given equal weight, but at a discussion at this level where we are discussing what the books have established, things people made up have no bearing.
Because, as I have said, the books are all different from each other, and they often don't go into any details.
"Huh, those are interesting ideas I personally wouldn't use,"
And this is so incredibly rude I almost can't believe you posted it. Or it is just kowtowing to them, one of the two. See, by saying "I personally wouldn't use" then I am establishing one of two things. Their evidence is meaningless, and not worth discussing. Or they are 100% correct, and my evidence was meaningless and either not worth discussing or outright wrong. The proper response is to actually discuss their evidence and if it contradicts mine, or if my own evidence is still upheld. Perhaps one of us is wrong, that's worth discussing.
Wow, you certainly misread that.
The thing is, you're completely dismissing everyone else's evidence if it contradicts yours--which you haven't really even presented.
And you're ignoring that this game consists of nothing more than options for people to take, change, or dismiss, not hard and fast rules that must be adhered to.
The fact that you saw this as "kowtowing to them" indicates that you have this "me versus them" thing going on, that anything that doesn't support you must be against you. You never considered my actual meaning, which is literally "either that's something that was written in one of the books or you made it up; either way, it's not something I want to use in my games."
You seem to be taking the route that there is no canon truth and therefore there is nothing to discuss, which is fine, because we have established that the canon is wildly contradictory, which is part of the reasoning behind there not being any clear distinctions established in the books. But I don't see establishing that as somehow being me telling people what they can or can't do in their home games.
So then what does it matter to you that other people don't find evil gods redundant?
