D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[pemerton]

So you think that having to opt OUT of her being a goddess means that she wasn't granting spells as a goddess as the default?

Yes.

First, your argument for opting out rather than in is weak. It just says they are optional and then gives a reason why you might not what to use them.

Second, in D3, published prior to Q1 and authored by Gygax rather than Sutherland, there is no mention of her being a goddess. It's obvious that the Q1 optional rules are there to establish conformity with DDG, not because anyone had doubts about whether or not drow clerics were getting their spells from a Demon Queen!

The 1e Deities & Demigods lists Sekolah as a lesser god that dwells in Hell and makes no mention of him being a devil. It also says clerics can only advance to 5th level, which contradicts the MM which says that they can go to 8th level.

Yes. Sekolah is not a devil. I've already made that point in multiple posts upthread. The DDG changes Sahuagin religion.

1e is notorious for contradictions that speak more to the chaos of the time, than the intent of the game designers. The races that are devil worshippers and get clerical spells in 1e are with very few exceptions also the races who worship actual listed gods.

Again, I don't know what your point is.

In 1977, in a core book - the MM - someone (presumably Gygax) decided that Sahuagin are devil worshippers with clerics getting spells from devils. In 1980, in the first hardback supplement - DDG - someone (presumably Ward) decided that Sahuagin worship a god, Sekolah.

Which is more canonical? How does this difference in the two publications possibly establish any "rule" about whether or not archdevils can have worshippers and grant spells to clerics?

 

[Faolyn]

So I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to the quote from the DMG saying fiends can have clerics.

So, whatever else 5e has said, the DMG has spoken. Archfiends can have clerics. Now, if you want to make a houserule saying that they can't grant higher-level spells, or can have fewer clerics than true gods, or something else like that, fine. But they can officially have clerics.

This does not mean they are redundant with evil gods however. They still have a different role in the multiverse.

This is only true for PCs. NPCs don't follow PC rules, so they have no class to have a list with. They're just assigned a list as needed by the DM or designers. They are not assigned a class.

Right. This is because they have no class, so they have no class lists. While there is nothing to say explicitly that the cultist is not a cleric, there is also nothing to say that it is. This is again because it's an NPC and the MM NPCs don't use classes. You can't assume that just because the NPC uses cleric spells that it's a cleric.

They use enough from the classes that they can be considered to be that class. And some of them specifically say they are members of the class. Acolytes are called junior clergy--clergy, like cleric. Veterans are professional fighters. There's a druid NPC statblock. They aren't built using PC rules, but they are close enough that they can be considered part of the class.

Look, a necklace of prayer beads, among many other magic items requires attunement by a cleric. Are you actually saying that no NPC could ever attune to it? That PCs are literally the only people who can attune to items that have class-based restrictions?

Because if so, that's ridiculous. Right now, going through a list of adventure NPCs, I find Arkhan the Cruel, from Avernus, described as a champion of Tiamat, who wields a named battleaxe, Fane Eater, that requires attunement by an evil cleric or paladin. He has no class-based spellcasting, but he has a paladin-like Aura. Avarice from Rime of the Frostmaiden has wizard spells and wields a staff of frost (darnit, we were literally 2 hit points away from killing her, too), which requires attunement by a wizard. Dragonbait in Tomb of Anhiliation has a holy avenger longsword, which requires attunement by a paladin.

At this point I decided to stop, because whether or not you think that the NPCs with class abilities are a member of that class, it's clear the game has decided they are class-based enough to be allowed to attune to magic items. You are wrong on this matter.

 

[pemerton]

More than half of D&D's stories are this because of so many unconnected authors and designers at different times.

Asmodeus has multiple possible origin stories in multiple settings it's so not structured.

Right. And this answers the OP question:

what is the purpose / role of evil gods in D&D? Why do we have gods of (un)death, murder, strife, disease, tyranny, slaughter, etc? Especially when you consider that D&D also has demons, devils and other foul entities that embody and promote all of those things. Why the overlap?

<snip>

What doesn't make sense is having gods who fulfill basically the same function as demons and devils and Lovecraftian Far Realm entities. Why have a god of tyranny like Bane, when you also have archdevils like Asmodeus and Levistus who promote tyranny? What does Bane have to offer someone that Asmodeus et al can't also offer? Why have a god of chaos and murder like Bhaal when you've got demons that are all about that sort of thing? Why have a god of death/undeath like Myrkul when you've got a "demon prince of undeath" in the form of Orcus? What sets Tharizdun apart from Cthulhu and Hadar and their ilk?

In D&D, considered as a whole body of work, there is no reason for the overlap. There is nothing in particular that sets varies fiends and GOOs and so on apart from evil gods. The whole thing has mostly been authored in a REH style - ie use whatever seems like it might be evocative and fun!

4e is as close as the game gets to fully systematisation, but even it has the Obyrith/Abyss/Tharizdun/Far Realms overlap.

 

[pemerton]

It's perhaps worth keeping in mind the greater politics of the day when looking at this stuff.

By the mid-80s the Satanic panic was getting up a head of steam, meaning that during late 1e and most of 2e sheer political expediency played heavily in favour of having archfiends etc. at least appear as written to rank lower than good/neutral deities, even if in practice they were of equal stature.

I made this point upthread.

 

[pemerton]

Ok. So why do all cultists in prince of the Apocalypse that are worshipping elemental lords are either sorcerers or warlocks and none are clerics? This is 5ed. They worship the elemental lords. These lords are even at the end of the adventure and you have to fight one. Yet, none are clerics...

Because that's what the author(s) thought would be fun!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok. So why do all cultists in prince of the Apocalypse that are worshipping elemental lords are either sorcerers or warlocks and none are clerics? This is 5ed. They worship the elemental lords. These lords are even at the end of the adventure and you have to fight one. Yet, none are clerics...

I agree, that is bizarre. I looked into that a while back for a different thing and noticed that it seemed to be based entirely on the different cults having different focuses. The Fire cult were all sorcerers with fire spells. The Water Cult had druids with water spells. ect.

I could probably come up with a half dozen answers in the game to explain it, but if I had to hazard a guess at the "real" answer, I'd look at the meta-textual level. I bet they were made sorcerers, druids and occasionally warlocks (I saw very few warlocks) because Clerics didn't have any access to the majority of elemental spells. for the designers, it was more important the fire guys were throwing water and the ice guys throwing ice than making sure they were all labled as clerics.

 

[Maxperson]

I ended up asking about this, so I'm going to jump in here.

Your position is that a worshiper of a being, who gets cleric spells from that being, specifically clerical spells that are only on the cleric spell list, like Inflict Wounds, can't be considered a cleric? Because "NPCs operate by different rules"?

Cultists get no cleric spells. They simply use the cleric list. If there was a cultist list, they would use that instead. Using the cleric list =/= cleric class. You're free to consider them clerics for your game, but RAW does not have them as clerics. They're cultists.

Well, that certainly is a stance that A) has no basis in anything and B) Suddenly turns this discussion on it's head.

No basis other than RAW anyway.

"When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the NPC a class and levels. The latter two options require a bit of explanation."

Note how it says monster block OR NPC class and levels. Now let's look at monster block.

"Appendix B of the Monster Manual contains statistics for many generic NPCs that you can customize as you see fit, and chapter 9 of this book offers guidelines on adjusting their statistics and creating a new stat block."

Appendix B, which you are using to get cultists and priests, by RAW use monster blocks, not the "or class levels."

To get an NPC with a class you either need to give them PC class levels or use the adventurer PC rules. The MM does not use either one of those.

Because now you are saying that only PCs can be clerics.

I explicitly said otherwise in my response to both you and @Faolyn. I really hate in when you accuse my of saying the opposite of what I just told you.

I did not say that only PCs can be clerics. I said that the MM does not use the rules that would allow them to be clerics.

Meaning that the idea that Evil Gods make evil Clerics would be limited entirely to players playing evil clerics. Which is not anything we have discussed before.

And this would now be a Strawman, as you twisted what I said to be the complete opposite and have now argued against your own fictional creation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No it would not. You would not have the basic domain spell related to their portfolio and might even be "forced" to retcon your decision if they were printed on a subsequent book. But Loki is already in the PHB. There is your difference. With Loki, we all have a common reference point. Not with those that are not printed yet.

Edit: And the original point is not what you say but the relevance of evil gods when we have fiends already. Do not get side tracked as I was.

No it wouldn't, not if they have any conception of who that individual was. Amaterasu is the Goddess of the Sun. She would be Light Domain, maybe healing.

Additionally, any cleric of any deity can have any domain. They suggest domains, but the clerics are not limited to them by RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes.

First, your argument for opting out rather than in is weak. It just says they are optional and then gives a reason why you might not what to use them.

What?! It does not "just say they are optional." I quoted it for you and will quote it again.

"The DM may choose not to use these in the module..." Choose NOT TO. Not choose to. It's explicitly spelled out for you that she is a lesser goddess and you have to opt OUT of her lesser goddess abilities.

Second, in D3, published prior to Q1 and authored by Gygax rather than Sutherland, there is no mention of her being a goddess. It's obvious that the Q1 optional rules are there to establish conformity with DDG, not because anyone had doubts about whether or not drow clerics were getting their spells from a Demon Queen!

D3 didn't need to say it. They meet her in Q1.

Yes. Sekolah is not a devil. I've already made that point in multiple posts upthread. The DDG changes Sahuagin religion.

Not necessarily. They could also worship devils. Nothing stops them from doing both. They just get their spells from their god.

In 1977, in a core book - the MM - someone (presumably Gygax) decided that Sahuagin are devil worshippers with clerics getting spells from devils. In 1980, in the first hardback supplement - DDG - someone (presumably Ward) decided that Sahuagin worship a god, Sekolah.

Gygax had to approve it.

 

[pemerton]

So I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to the quote from the DMG saying fiends can have clerics.

Well, now you know how I feel about people asserting it has been the rule since 1974 that fiends can't grant spells, while ignoring some or all of the MM entry for Sahuagin (1977), modules T1 and D3 (both 1979), DDG (1980), the Greyhawk Folio (1980) and boxed set (1983), which both have the Horned Society as devil worshippers, theEd Greenwood's article in Dragon 91 (1984), the Greyhawk City boxed set (1989), the Dead Gods module (1997), the 4e MM (2008) and MM2 (2009), and probably some other stuff that I've forgotten I've referenced.

So, whatever else 5e has said, the DMG has spoken. Archfiends can have clerics. Now, if you want to make a houserule saying that they can't grant higher-level spells, or can have fewer clerics than true gods, or something else like that, fine. But they can officially have clerics.

This does not mean they are redundant with evil gods however. They still have a different role in the multiverse.

That last pair of sentences is your view. Someone who takes a different view is not engaged in any departure from an established D&D "canon". That person would be taking exactly the same approach as the authors of much of the game's most well-known published settings and scenarios, like T1, D3, pre-From The Ashes GH, etc.