D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[pemerton]

Permerton's rules, from what I've seen of them (which isn't every post), don't really support your assertion. And you haven't provided any facts that I've seen.

<snip>

But the fact bot arch-things and gods can grant spells doesn't make them redundant.

The material I've quoted - from rulebooks, modules, etc - has shown that from the earliest days of the game, there were clerics using spells granted by demons and devils.

Upthread you denied that, agreeing with @Maxperson and @Helldritch that the game rules went the other way. Now you seem to have changed your mind based on your discovery in the 5e DMG of exactly the same thing as I've been pointing to in earlier works.

I'm not clear what lingering doubts you have about the material that I've quoted.

 

[Maxperson]

The material I've quoted - from rulebooks, modules, etc - has shown that from the earliest days of the game, there were clerics using spells granted by demons and devils.

Yes, but it does not show that they were doing so as anything other than exceptions or inconsistencies. At least not once you get past 1e(and I guess 4e).

 

[Maxperson]

It's not an oversight - DDG hadn't been written yet! In 1979, when D3 was published, the game-rule concept of "lesser god" hadn't been invented yet. Lolth was presented as a Demon Queen with clerical worshippers.

Then there you go! It would have been there had the Deities & Demigods been out. Lolth is a lesser goddess unless you opt out of those abilities.

 

[Faolyn]

That was not intentional. There's been a lot going on and I'm getting to these posts in-between life stuff. Would you please quote it again?

In the 5e DMG, under "Other Religious Systems," it says: "Monotheistic religions revere only one deity, and in some cases, deny the existence of any other deity. If you introduce a monotheistic religion into your campaign, you need to decide whether other gods exist. Even if they don't, other religions can exist side by side with the monotheistic religion. If these religions have clerics with spellcasting ability, their spells might be powered by the one true deity, by lesser spirits who aren't deities (possibly including powerful aberrations, celestials, fey, fiends, or elementals), or simply by their faith." (emphasis mine)

The DMG specifically states that clerics (specifically clerics, not "priests" or "worshipers" or "warlocks") can gain spells from fiends.

This I don't agree with. Veterans are warriors, but not fighters. The last time I was a player, I was a wizard with the Acolyte background and was also a priest of my god as a result. You can be a member of the clergy(little c) without being a Cleric(big C). It's like the Big E little e, evil argument going on. The druid NPC is not the PC class and while I personally would consider it a druid, if I wanted a real druid NPC I'd build one with PC rules.

You are confusing job/background with class. Clerics and priests are not the same thing.

I would let any divine individual attune to it, including paladins who also pray. NPCs also use different rules than PCs, so there's no reason to assume that those different rules wouldn't include the ability to attune magic items that way.

See above.

This is a homebrew solution. Since adventures produced WotC have NPCs not built using PC class rules but have attuned to items that require being in a specific class, this shows that the game considers these NPCs as being part of a class, even if they aren't built the same way PCs are.

 

[Faolyn]

The material I've quoted - from rulebooks, modules, etc - has shown that from the earliest days of the game, there were clerics using spells granted by demons and devils.

Upthread you denied that, agreeing with @Maxperson and @Helldritch that the game rules went the other way. Now you seem to have changed your mind based on your discovery in the 5e DMG of exactly the same thing as I've been pointing to in earlier works.

I'm not clear what lingering doubts you have about the material that I've quoted.

I've never actually denied that arch-things can grant spells. I've even brought that up myself.

 

[Helldritch]

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

And it was.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

I'd go the same way for her domain.
For the second part... that is debatable. Unless your cleric worship a whole pantheon. Then sure, why not.

 

[Maxperson]

In the 5e DMG, under "Other Religious Systems," it says: "Monotheistic religions revere only one deity, and in some cases, deny the existence of any other deity. If you introduce a monotheistic religion into your campaign, you need to decide whether other gods exist. Even if they don't, other religions can exist side by side with the monotheistic religion. If these religions have clerics with spellcasting ability, their spells might be powered by the one true deity, by lesser spirits who aren't deities (possibly including powerful aberrations, celestials, fey, fiends, or elementals), or simply by their faith." (emphasis mine)

The DMG specifically states that clerics (specifically clerics, not "priests" or "worshipers" or "warlocks") can gain spells from fiends.

That isn't what that paragraph means. It doesn't say that they can do it as a blanket statement. It says that if the DM chooses to build his own setting, the DM can build a religious system where fiends do grant spells. The rules don't care where the power comes from.

If you choose a pre-established setting, though, you go with what the setting default and for most settings(like Greyhawk and the Realms) that is the Loose Pantheon model.

You are confusing job/background with class. Clerics and priests are not the same thing.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that 5e confuses the hell out of things by using multiple meanings for the same terms. Clerical spells don't mean you are a cleric.

This is a homebrew solution. Since adventures produced WotC have NPCs not built using PC class rules but have attuned to items that require being in a specific class, this shows that the game considers these NPCs as being part of a class, even if they aren't built the same way PCs are.

It's not a homebrew solution. The NPC section refers you to chapter 9 for creation of NPCs. In that chapter you can give NPCs whatever abilities you want, including equipping them with magic items. It even gives sample features, but that is non-exhaustive list. Hell, since NPCs don't use PC rules, there's nothing that actually requires an NPC to attune items at all.

 

[Helldritch]

It's not an oversight - DDG hadn't been written yet! In 1979, when D3 was published, the game-rule concept of "lesser god" hadn't been invented yet. Lolth was presented as a Demon Queen with clerical worshippers.

Ahem... the concept was already in the DMG. P.38

 

[Helldritch]

I've never actually denied that arch-things can grant spells. I've even brought that up myself.

And I might add that you provided proof of both. They could in one, couldn't in an other. I feel like the fiends are dancing a tcha tcha with their powers... I can, I can not... tcha tcha tcha...