D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

What I'm seeing here is that you homebrew things to be different and so in your game there's more redundancy. In the default game what @Faolyn pointed out with her ideas is true. Fiends are not worshipped widely and are shunned by the populace at large, so you could not run those scenarios interchangeably between fiends and gods.

The redundancy issue is one of your own making.

And what exactly did I homebrew?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, since you've done it in your campaign, it must be common throughout D&D?

No. Where would you even get this idea to accuse me of it? Where did I ever say that the commonality or rarity of a story mattered in any way, shape or form?

Sure, you can tell any story you like if you change the basic premises of the beings involved. And in D&D, one of the basic premises is that fiends aren't openly worshiped outside of evil communities.

Which isn't different from Evil Gods in most settings. You don't see Gruumshite's at the local bake sale after all.

At this point, if there's enough worship of Tana, then maybe she is no longer a fiend and has become a god--just like how Lolth started as a demon queen and became a god as well as a demon queen. She may not have started out wanting or needing worship, but now she does.

It seems to me that the reason you think evil gods and archfiends are redundant is because you have already combined them into a single type of entity, and you don't get that many of us treat them as separate entities with separate abilities and separate goals.

She is very much not a god, and she absolutely does not require worship to survive. Also, Lolth's publication history is very different than her narrative history.

But I do want to break down your last sentence a little bit. Seperate goals... That's a weird one to claim, because many of the Evil Gods do have vastly different goals... and those goals are in a macroscale are not that vastly different from the goals of Archfiends. They either want to control or destroy all life. And narratively, that is the fact that matters. Whether it is a demon or a god doesn't matter as much as the fact that Entity X wants to drown the world, wipe out anything that can't breathe underwater, and enslave the remains.

Does this contract between man and god require you to sign it in blood? Is it made at the crossroads on a moonless night? Do you swear away your soul from where it's supposed to be going? No? Then it's not that type of contract and you know it.

Sure it can be any of those. I've never had a player or a warlock sign a fiendish contract on a crossroad on a moonless night, never realized that was a strict requirement that all soul contracts had to abide by. Maybe they sign in blood, maybe with a golden pen, maybe with ink mixed with the tears of a widower. You seem to think that the details of how you sign the contract are the important part.

I'd say they don't do it because there would be too much risk of an evil god's own worship getting perverted or reduced, especially in a setting where gods are influenced by the beliefs of their worshipers and where gods rely on prayer.

Yes, and?

Maybe the god doesn't think he will get caught. Maybe he is confident that those goody-two-shoes won't try it. Maybe he is paranoid enough that he put in precautions against this type of subversion. Just because it has a chance to backfire doesn't mean a god won't do it. See any story of Gods fighting each other. Heck, look at myths about Loki, the guy was constantly writing checks he couldn't cash and nearly got beheaded for it at least once.

Because as I've already said, fiends don't care about worshipers, they care about souls. Forced conversions or murders aren't going to get them souls. They get souls of evil people in general, or of people who sign contracts with them. Gods care about souls.

Right here is one of the major differences between gods and fiends, maybe the biggest one: gods die without belief; fiends don't.

None of this is inherently true. First of all, there is no reason to believe that Fiends don't care about worshipers. Worshipers are agents they can utilize and souls they will gain, there is all the reason to care about them.

Secondly, a forced conversion can absolutely get you a soul. Pledging your soul to a Demon Lord and being branded by their power is a sure fire way to get a one-way trip. Additionally, while murder doesn't get them souls... most fiends also tend to like murder. They can have multiple goals and multiple plans.

And finally, gods don't neccessarily die without worship. Yes, that is a common story in DnD because we like it, but it also is a story that didn't always be the case and sometimes doesn't work for what you want. For example, in Eberron if the Dark Six are even real, they are certainly not less powerful than the Soveriegns who are far more commonly worshiped.

And that's the same as saying "I can tell this story with either giants or dragons, so there's no need for both." Or "I can tell this story with either elves or dwarfs, so there's no need for both."

Do you think if I beat my face against a wall hard enough you will start listening to me? I have was not advocating for not needing both. I never advocating for removing either from anything more than my home game.

But you know what? If you can tell a story with giants or with dragons... then, no, you don't need both dragons and giants in that story. They can both still be in the toolbox, ready to pull out if you need them, but putting both of them in a story that only calls for one or the other risks the story becoming muddled.

Yokai can also be seen as fey, considering they're part of the natural world.

They could be, they aren't a concept that easily translates into a western understanding. of course, there were many times in Western myth that Fey were considered demons too. Take Rumplestiltskin after all.

That wasn't me, I don't think, but I like it. Maybe it was me; I have a bad memory.

You didn't come up with the world, no, but you said something that inspired the idea.

Yeah, that was a stupid adventure arc. It was also stupid when he wound up in Ravenloft. The writers just liked Vecna and wanted to stick him everywhere they could. He shouldn't have been able to get into Sigil since gods can't enter the city (if he was a god at that point), and while the Dark Powers may actually be more powerful than gods, they're more about inventing their own gods than trapping them.

There's no canonical benefits that I know of of a god choosing to also become an archfiend. If it wants control of an entire layer in a lower plane, it can attempt to seize the layer by force. Many evil gods already have fiendish servitors. They don't gain any more powers by becoming a fiend, but they do have their life force tied to one or more soul amulets, which is probably a step down for them considering that gods can only truly be destroyed if they lose all their worshipers.

Being something you consider doesn't make it not a story you can tell. And the benefits would be whatever the setting and the author decided they would be.

Also, gods can truly be destroyed by whatever the setting says can destroy them. Thor was killed by poison. Baldur by a dart through the heart. You can say that in your world gods can only be destroyed by losing all of their worshipers, but that doesn't make it universally true for all of DnD. In fact, as mentioned, that was added to the game at a later date. And still isn't necessarily true in all settings.

Point in Fact, look at Theros. The Gods there are Nyx-born, they won't die if people stop worshipping them, they will die if people forget about them.

Sure. But Maglubiyet and Gruumsh are two gods (or rather, the heads of two pantheons of gods), and their battles rage across Acheron (and there, I think just part of one layer) and, to a much lesser extent, the Prime. But in the Prime, should goblins and orcs battle, it's as likely to be over territory and resources and just general jerkiness as it is to be because their gods tell them to. The Blood War is fought across almost the entirety of the lower planes and can spill out into other planes. Certain layers of certain planes get it the worst, but no lower plane is spared.

And sure, coups can happen--but again, in D&D, it's far more likely to happen with fiends.

Also, things like this may happen in various fictions, but do they happen in D&D? D&D tells different stories than novels do, because you can't control the actions of the players.

But you can control literally everything else. And I don't need the Main Character of the novel to act a certain way to world-build something.

But to the other points, you are making a distinction that does not matter. How big the war is wasn't a point of comparison. Just that it happens "out there" and also in the Prime. For a group playing just in the prime, caught between a religious war the only difference is that the Fiends are likely far scarier since they tend to have higher CR members involved in these battles.

And to the coups, I think again you are missing my point because you are assuming my intent. "In DnD it is more likely" doesn't matter. I'm looking solely at "is this a story that can be told either way?" If the answer is yes, then it is yes. That's all I care about in discussing these.

Yes, because the petitioners want to merge with the plane. From the Planescape campaign setting: "At best, a petitioner has a shadowy recollection of a precious life, but little or nothing useful can be learned from these fleeting images. Petitioners mostly desire to attain some ultimate union of with the powers of their plane. This can be accomplished in a number of ways: good works, serene contemplation, steadfast faith, or vile notoriety, depending on the petitioner's alignment."

Unlike in some real-world religions, petitioners who go to an evil god's afterlife aren't there to be punished. It's their reward. It may not be great by your standards, but the people who go there are literally happier their then they would be in one of the upper planes.

Okay, that is true for planescape. Is it literally true for every single possible DnD game? No. Because you can make a cosmology where that isn't true.

Again, you're homebrewing here. "Can" isn't the same as "actually have been written this way."

headdesk

I literally clarify three, four, five times, and still I run into things like this. And, It's my own fault, because we shifted gears and I only clarified it three or four times instead of a dozen.

When discussing things like "the rules say that Archfiends can't make clerics" then I am looking at the rules are written for DnD. This is important because when asking "what is the actual rule differences between these two things" we need to know what the actual rules are. Yes, we can always change these rules, but know what they are to begin with is helpful.

When asking "what stories can you tell with these beings" then we have to move beyond the rules. Because the rules don't cover which stories you are allowed to tell. You can make your own setting that isn't covered by the rules. You can use different versions of the setting, from different points in time. So, yes, I'm homebrewing. Because cosmology isn't set in unbreakable stone. So, there is nothing preventing me from having an Archfiend have the same story of one of their worshippers merging into their plane of existence. Especially since many of those planes are identical to places where Evil Gods are said to reside.

The souls that wind up in an archfiend's domain aren't the souls of worshipers, for the most part. They're souls that were stolen or bought. When the Wall of the Faithless was a thing, demons would steal souls out of it.

I'm pretty sure that the souls of human sacrifices in D&D go to the plane they're supposed to, unless magic was used to make sure the soul goes to the realm of the being it was sacrificed to.

And again, you're using "it stands to reason" as your claim here. No, sorry, you can't make stuff up and say its canon.

I never said it was canon. I thought the shift in the conversation was obvious. If I had known you were posting "what stories have already been told in DnD" then I would have approached this differently than I did. But also, yes, that is the entire point of human sacrifice to a dark god, to have the magic of the ritual send their soul to that entity.

Those are incredibly different things. A proxy isn't a slave or even a servant. It's an extension of the god's will. With rare exceptions, a person wants to be a proxy; it's an honor to be chosen. With evil gods, it means better standards of living and a chance for promotion. Proxies are servants, but not slaves or prisoners. You can't compare the two at all.

Who says that the power of Asmodeus doesn't leave you with better standards or living and a chance for promotion? Not all of Asmodeus's people on the prime are slaves, they are extensions of his will, acting out his plans. Again, there is zero daylight here, these are identical concepts.

Also, using servant in the terms of "one who serves", not in any derogatory manner. And they do serve their higher power.

Also from the Planescape campaign setting: "Some Outsiders think every planar's a proxy, but that just ain't true. Proxies are those beings--primes, planars, and even petitioners--specially chosen to act as agents of the powers. Usually, the body chosen is transformed into a creature favored by the deity--into an evil rutterkin or a good deva, for example. On rare occasions, the being isn't transformed, but is bestowed with special powers. Proxies are absolute servants, obeying the wishes of their deity as fully as is appropriate to that alignment. Those of good powers are unswervingly loyal and obedient, and those of evil powers are utterly difficult and tricky, even for their masters. On the Upper Planes, a proxy knows he can rise even higher through good service. On the Lower Planes, a proxy usually prospers by finding some clever and nasty way to create an opening for his high-up man."

This is fine for Planescape. Doesn't mean it is universal. However, it is also 100% agreeing with me. Rutterkin in DnD 5e are fiends, and I'm fairly confident that that was true back in 2e as well. Additionally, turning someone into a devil or a demon is a very doable act.

OK, let's go the other way around now, since I admit I mostly did fiends but not gods.

Literal holy wars. Whether it's god v. god, god v. fiend, or something else, you can't do a holy war with at least one side involving gods. This can be a battle between faiths or protecting (or seizing) holy ground. The Blood Wars, BTW, are not (un)holy wars; they're wars of chaos v. law and of racial supremacy. Even the war between Maglubiyet and Gruumsh aren't really holy wars, because they're mostly about racial supremacy.

"At least one side". So, you can have a holy war between good gods and evil Archfiends. This literally describes the conflict between the Hindu Deva's and the Asura. Remember, we've been discussing evil gods. Obviously fiends can't replace good gods, because fiends are evil. But since you can do evil fiends vs good gods, then you can do a holy war with Archfiends filling the role of Evil Gods.

The death of a god. What ramifications does it have for the world? In some settings, it means that whatever it is the god represented no longer functions. No more winter, no more people dying, no more functional forges, whatever. It could mean that all of a sudden lots of entities grab on to bits of the portfolio, like in Pratchett's Reaper Man. It could mean that whatever the god controlled now runs wild, free, and uncontrolled. The god of winter dies and now it snows whenever the heck it wants to. Or perhaps whatever the god controlled now acts naturally. Perhaps the existence of the god of murder spurred people into murdering each other for even minor things, but if that god died, then maybe people don't find themselves quite as prone to murder as they used to. The god of winter dies and now it snows only in winter, only when the temperature and humidity is correct (you know, like in the real world), rather than whenever the god got bored and decided to dump a blizzard on someone.

I suppose this gets into a question. If a fiend is the source of an evil, let's say undeath, then does killing that fiend reduce or destroy undead? I think that if you set up a cosmology where Orcus was the true and only source of undeath and necromantic magic, then by killing him and removing that core, then things could logically collapse, removing his influence, and thus destroying all undead.

I don't see how this doesn't work as a story you could tell.

 

[Faolyn]

No. Where would you even get this idea to accuse me of it? Where did I ever say that the commonality or rarity of a story mattered in any way, shape or form?

Because you seem to think that because you have homebrewed something in a particular way (i.e., that gods and archthings are interchangeable) that that's the way they are for the game in general.

Which isn't different from Evil Gods in most settings. You don't see Gruumshite's at the local bake sale after all.

Says who? If a city has temples to Gruumsh, then the worshipers are going to be interacting with the rest of the city.

She is very much not a god, and she absolutely does not require worship to survive. Also, Lolth's publication history is very different than her narrative history.

Assuming the "she" is your Tana--it's because you decided that.

But thanks for confirming a major difference between archthings and gods, and thus showing that they are not truly redundant.

Sure it can be any of those. I've never had a player or a warlock sign a fiendish contract on a crossroad on a moonless night, never realized that was a strict requirement that all soul contracts had to abide by. Maybe they sign in blood, maybe with a golden pen, maybe with ink mixed with the tears of a widower. You seem to think that the details of how you sign the contract are the important part.

Then, by the way D&D works, those would be fiends, not gods. You have homebrewed your gods to work like fiends, but that's not the way D&D works.

Yes, and?

Maybe the god doesn't think he will get caught. Maybe he is confident that those goody-two-shoes won't try it. Maybe he is paranoid enough that he put in precautions against this type of subversion. Just because it has a chance to backfire doesn't mean a god won't do it. See any story of Gods fighting each other. Heck, look at myths about Loki, the guy was constantly writing checks he couldn't cash and nearly got beheaded for it at least once.

"Maybe, maybe, maybe." And yet, you dismiss other people who say "maybe it's actually this other way" if that way contradicts you.

And it's not a question of "getting caught." It's a question of the religion that surrounds your faith changing, and changing you as a result. Would Loki be willing to "write a check he couldn't cash" if it meant that his religion changed and the god whose church he was trying to corrupt got merged into a single being, because the human worshipers came to conflate the two?

Another difference. Gods are subject to the thoughts and minds of mortals. Fiends aren't.

None of this is inherently true. First of all, there is no reason to believe that Fiends don't care about worshipers. Worshipers are agents they can utilize and souls they will gain, there is all the reason to care about them.

OK, show me where, canonically, fiends care about worshipers.

While they may benefit from worshipers, when it comes down to it, they only care about the soul. That has been shown in D&D time and time again. And they can get souls in a variety of ways, to the point that having worshipers provides only a fraction of the souls they need or want. As I said before, it's icing, not cake.

Secondly, a forced conversion can absolutely get you a soul. Pledging your soul to a Demon Lord and being branded by their power is a sure fire way to get a one-way trip. Additionally, while murder doesn't get them souls... most fiends also tend to like murder. They can have multiple goals and multiple plans.

Nope, because if your destination after death relies on your belief, then being forced to convert against your will won't actually affect your beliefs, just your actions. It's probably why there actually haven't been that many canonical holy wars or gods who demand conversions in D&D.

And finally, gods don't neccessarily die without worship. Yes, that is a common story in DnD because we like it, but it also is a story that didn't always be the case and sometimes doesn't work for what you want. For example, in Eberron if the Dark Six are even real, they are certainly not less powerful than the Soveriegns who are far more commonly worshiped.

In Eberron, it's unclear if those gods even exist. In every other setting gods die if they lose followers. Its why there's a bunch of god-corpses floating around in the Astral--and why those corpses can be resurrected with enough prayer.

And Eberron is not actually connected to the Great Wheel and uses an entirely different afterlife model than other setting--all souls go to Dolorh (or however it's spelled), regardless of faith. There's no actual petitioners.

Do you think if I beat my face against a wall hard enough you will start listening to me? I have was not advocating for not needing both. I never advocating for removing either from anything more than my home game.

But you know what? If you can tell a story with giants or with dragons... then, no, you don't need both dragons and giants in that story. They can both still be in the toolbox, ready to pull out if you need them, but putting both of them in a story that only calls for one or the other risks the story becoming muddled.

Or you can tell the story with both dragons and giants. And the story may very well be more interesting for including them both.

No matter what you're trying to claim here, you are very definitely advocating for getting rid of either gods or fiends. Between telling me I'm doing it wrong for how I would determine what gods to use to you saying that using both of them may create a muddled story. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions are continuously showing that you think that people shouldn't use both.

And also, having both fiends and gods in the setting doesn't mean I need to have them in the same story. I can run one adventure featuring Zuggtmoy and another one featuring Psylofir, and even those they have the same basic concept--fungi--the stories I tell with them would be completely different. Even if Psylofir were evil instead of neutral, the stories would be different.

Think about super hero comics for a moment. You can create a universe where all supers get their powers from a single source. I know there's been some universes like that.

Or, you can create a universe where--like with Marvel and DC--you can have supers who were born with their powers, got them from or because they're aliens, built super-suits, trained until they had incredible skills, were exposed to or injured by something radioactive, got zapped by magic or blessed by gods, were genetically engineered or cybernetically enhanced, or got splashed with heavy water while being struck by lightning.

You can tell equally good stories with both of those types of super hero universes. Or you can tell equally crappy stories.

Saying that having both fiends and gods in a game risks a muddled story is just blaming your tools.

Also, gods can truly be destroyed by whatever the setting says can destroy them. Thor was killed by poison. Baldur by a dart through the heart.

Gasp! You mean real-world mythology doesn't necessarily mesh with D&D's rules?

You can say that in your world gods can only be destroyed by losing all of their worshipers, but that doesn't make it universally true for all of DnD. In fact, as mentioned, that was added to the game at a later date. And still isn't necessarily true in all settings.

Point in Fact, look at Theros. The Gods there are Nyx-born, they won't die if people stop worshipping them, they will die if people forget about them.

So, practically the same thing, then. And, since Theros is a MtG setting, it's going to rely on their rules.

But you can control literally everything else. And I don't need the Main Character of the novel to act a certain way to world-build something.

Sure. Which means you can have an archfiend and a god have incredibly different purposes, if you put your mind to it.

And to the coups, I think again you are missing my point because you are assuming my intent. "In DnD it is more likely" doesn't matter. I'm looking solely at "is this a story that can be told either way?" If the answer is yes, then it is yes. That's all I care about in discussing these.

Why not? Those "maybes" mattered for you up above.

Okay, that is true for planescape. Is it literally true for every single possible DnD game? No. Because you can make a cosmology where that isn't true.

By homebrewing it, sure. Or by using a setting that isn't connected to the Great Wheel. At the time of Planescape's publishing, every was part of the Great Wheel and used it.

You can homebrew anything. Much earlier, I said that I wasn't seeing much of a reason to have any gods and you replied that no, there was definitely a use for cosmic powers. So "maybe" I can just ignore you and homebrew a setting with no gods at all (or simply use Dark Sun), or have a setting with only evil god(s) and fiends (for instance, Ravenloft*, or the d20 setting Midnight) and no good gods, and thus invalidate your claims.

Once you bring in homebrew, anything is possible. So maybe stop going with "maybes".

* Assuming the Dark Powers fit somewhere in the god/archthings continuum.

When discussing things like "the rules say that Archfiends can't make clerics" then I am looking at the rules are written for DnD. This is important because when asking "what is the actual rule differences between these two things" we need to know what the actual rules are. Yes, we can always change these rules, but know what they are to begin with is helpful.

The rules are: whatever you want in 5e, more distinct in earlier editions. But even in earlier editions they varied and contradicted each other, so pick what you want.

When asking "what stories can you tell with these beings" then we have to move beyond the rules. Because the rules don't cover which stories you are allowed to tell. You can make your own setting that isn't covered by the rules. You can use different versions of the setting, from different points in time. So, yes, I'm homebrewing. Because cosmology isn't set in unbreakable stone. So, there is nothing preventing me from having an Archfiend have the same story of one of their worshippers merging into their plane of existence. Especially since many of those planes are identical to places where Evil Gods are said to reside.

Agreed. But this fails to make archfiends and evil gods redundant. There may not be anything you preventing you from telling the same story, but that's only because you haven't come up with rules. Other people have. I have. In fact, I can come up with different rules for each setting I make, if I wanted to.

But right now, you're literally saying that your imagination is failing you in regards to telling different stories with gods and archfiends, or in even telling the difference between the two, and therefore, it's impossible for anyone to do so.

Who says that the power of Asmodeus doesn't leave you with better standards or living and a chance for promotion? Not all of Asmodeus's people on the prime are slaves, they are extensions of his will, acting out his plans. Again, there is zero daylight here, these are identical concepts.

Who says it does?

This is fine for Planescape. Doesn't mean it is universal. However, it is also 100% agreeing with me. Rutterkin in DnD 5e are fiends, and I'm fairly confident that that was true back in 2e as well. Additionally, turning someone into a devil or a demon is a very doable act.

It's universal as of every setting published in 2e.

You're also missing an important steps. A god can point to a petitioner and turn it into a devil or demon. An archfiend needs to put that same petitioner through the "cleansing" process to get the same result. In 2e, it took 11 days of hellfire to turn a larva into an imp or quasit. That would be automatic for a god. At most, it would require an action.

"At least one side". So, you can have a holy war between good gods and evil Archfiends. This literally describes the conflict between the Hindu Deva's and the Asura. Remember, we've been discussing evil gods. Obviously fiends can't replace good gods, because fiends are evil. But since you can do evil fiends vs good gods, then you can do a holy war with Archfiends filling the role of Evil Gods.

An archfiend vs. archfiend battle wouldn't be a holy war by definition, since there are no holy beings (gods) involved.

I suppose this gets into a question. If a fiend is the source of an evil, let's say undeath, then does killing that fiend reduce or destroy undead? I think that if you set up a cosmology where Orcus was the true and only source of undeath and necromantic magic, then by killing him and removing that core, then things could logically collapse, removing his influence, and thus destroying all undead.

No, because archfiends are not cosmic forces in that matter.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because you seem to think that because you have homebrewed something in a particular way (i.e., that gods and archthings are interchangeable) that that's the way they are for the game in general.

No. I don't think that because I homebrewed it. I think that they are interchangeable because after over a weeks worth of discussion over 5 editions of the game, there has been no consistent rule making them mechanically different. And despite nearly ten attempts, you have no actually provided a story that only works for one particular type of being. In part, because there are no mechanical distinctions that we can find.

It all just depends on the setting you build. So you can build a setting that works either way.

Says who? If a city has temples to Gruumsh, then the worshipers are going to be interacting with the rest of the city.

Because if you are talking about not being worshipped "outside of evil communities" which was your claim, then you are likely in an elven, dwarven, or human city. And Gruumsh's story involves bloody war upon the cities of those "civilized" races. So, sure, if you change who Gruumsh is, then you can, but typically he isn't openly worshiped outside of evil communities, because his dogma is pretty messed up for civilized society, and the majority of civilized society is his enemy.

Assuming the "she" is your Tana--it's because you decided that.

But thanks for confirming a major difference between archthings and gods, and thus showing that they are not truly redundant.

I did nothing of the sort. She isn't a god in my setting, because she is a Archdevil, and thus part of a meritocracy whose power can be taken from her if a more worthy individual shows up. God's don't work that way in my setting.

Additionally, you said that gods required worship to survive, but I haven't decided that is true in my setting. In fact, many gods that wouldn't even make sense for in my setting, Just like it doesn't make sense in other settings.

Then, by the way D&D works, those would be fiends, not gods. You have homebrewed your gods to work like fiends, but that's not the way D&D works.

Um... no? Whether or not a contract is signed in blood has nothing to do with whether or not something is a fiend or a god. Where are you even getting this idea from?

"Maybe, maybe, maybe." And yet, you dismiss other people who say "maybe it's actually this other way" if that way contradicts you.

And it's not a question of "getting caught." It's a question of the religion that surrounds your faith changing, and changing you as a result. Would Loki be willing to "write a check he couldn't cash" if it meant that his religion changed and the god whose church he was trying to corrupt got merged into a single being, because the human worshipers came to conflate the two?

Another difference. Gods are subject to the thoughts and minds of mortals. Fiends aren't.

No they aren't. Not in all settings. Gods have impersonated each other in DnD before and never been merged into a single being. Again, you seem to be taking Planescape and applying it to all settings, whether it applies or not.

Also, I did the "maybe, maybe, maybe" because you presented your point as though it was too risky, and therefore a god would never attempt it. But, there are reasons they would take that sort of risk. That's very different than "maybe the universe works like this, so the rules don't apply"

OK, show me where, canonically, fiends care about worshipers.

While they may benefit from worshipers, when it comes down to it, they only care about the soul. That has been shown in D&D time and time again. And they can get souls in a variety of ways, to the point that having worshipers provides only a fraction of the souls they need or want. As I said before, it's icing, not cake.

Care in what way? Like, they like them? Care about them as people?

You think Nerull or Erythnul cares about people? We aren't talking about all gods, and therefor we have to consider the good ones. We are talking about Evil gods. Evil people don't care about each other as a general trait, they are just looking to use each other. Evil gods include beings that will kill their own worshippers, who hate and despise them and want them to suffer, because they hate EVERYTHING.

You don't need to care about a knife to make sure it stays oiled and sharp, it is just a more effective tool that way. And when a knife can choose to work for you or not, you don't present your worst side to them to recruit them.

Nope, because if your destination after death relies on your belief, then being forced to convert against your will won't actually affect your beliefs, just your actions. It's probably why there actually haven't been that many canonical holy wars or gods who demand conversions in D&D.

Nope, this is not true in all settings. In fact, in a few settings, where you go when you die is the exact same place regardless of your beliefs or actions.

Again, you take a single setting, and apply it too broadly, and you get these inaccurate statements.

In Eberron, it's unclear if those gods even exist. In every other setting gods die if they lose followers. Its why there's a bunch of god-corpses floating around in the Astral--and why those corpses can be resurrected with enough prayer.

And Eberron is not actually connected to the Great Wheel and uses an entirely different afterlife model than other setting--all souls go to Dolorh (or however it's spelled), regardless of faith. There's no actual petitioners.

Exactly! In Eberron things work differently. So you can't keep applying your model from planescape to every single setting, because it doesn't apply to every single setting. Someone running 1e Greyhawk isn't dealing with dead gods, because the only way to kill a god is to stab them with an artifact.

Yes, a lot of settings have adopted this model. It is a cool model, I kind of like it sometimes, but it isn't the only model that applies.

Or you can tell the story with both dragons and giants. And the story may very well be more interesting for including them both.

Very unlikely. Sometimes people can pull it off, but the vast majority of the time it just leads to a bloated story, because you can't give every faction the same amount of attention, and so the factions feel flatter and less interesting.

No matter what you're trying to claim here, you are very definitely advocating for getting rid of either gods or fiends. Between telling me I'm doing it wrong for how I would determine what gods to use to you saying that using both of them may create a muddled story. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions are continuously showing that you think that people shouldn't use both.

Just come out and say that I am a liar and that you will never believe a word I say. Because despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that was not my intent, you have never actually believed me. Instead you keep making things up to "AHA!" me to prove what a villain I am.

Am I telling you that you are doing it wrong? NO!!! I literally said, three times over, that I wasn't saying you were doing it wrong. That these were good ideas. That these would work as interesting stories. I also said that you could swap them with no consequence or loss of story. That isn't saying you are wrong. Good lord, this is like you throwing a fit over me saying that you could paint the roses yellow or red, and that both colors would work. Is that truly so insluting to you, that two things could be similar enough to be interchangeable?

Can having too many of the same types of beings lead to muddled stories? Yes! Let me give a quick example. Ghaunadaur is the God of Oozes, he can control oozes from anywhere in existence and has many ooze related powers. Jubilex is the Demon Lord of Oozes and can control oozes from anywhere in existence and has many ooze related powers. If you had a game where the main enemy was secretive cult was using oozes and raising them to intelligence, forming a cabal based around the power of ooze... is there any value in having both of them? They have the same powers. Same basic attitudes (Jubilex is a little grosser) and aren't your players going to get confused when you reveal an enemy working for "The Lord of Slime" and they have to ask "which one?"

Is it impossible to craft a good story and adventure using both of them? No. But it is far harder to do it right, and if you have no interest in a conflict between them, then there is no reason to have both. Pick one, move on with telling the story you want to tell.

If you want to use both, because you have some ingenious design that utilizes both, knock yourself out. Go nuts and have fun. For me, personally, I find it much easier and much more enjoyable to simplify. I only need one Lord of All Ooze

And also, having both fiends and gods in the setting doesn't mean I need to have them in the same story. I can run one adventure featuring Zuggtmoy and another one featuring Psylofir, and even those they have the same basic concept--fungi--the stories I tell with them would be completely different. Even if Psylofir were evil instead of neutral, the stories would be different.

Of course you don't. I never said that you couldn't.

Think about super hero comics for a moment. You can create a universe where all supers get their powers from a single source. I know there's been some universes like that.

Or, you can create a universe where--like with Marvel and DC--you can have supers who were born with their powers, got them from or because they're aliens, built super-suits, trained until they had incredible skills, were exposed to or injured by something radioactive, got zapped by magic or blessed by gods, were genetically engineered or cybernetically enhanced, or got splashed with heavy water while being struck by lightning.

You can tell equally good stories with both of those types of super hero universes. Or you can tell equally crappy stories.

Yes, but I will say, it is a lot easier to tell a single coherent story when you don't need to balance psychics vs mutants vs magic-users vs technolgy vs aliens vs lab accidents. I know, because I'm writing in a universe like Marvel and DC, and it is incredibly hard. Meanwhile, I have another story where everything is just magic, and that is a lot easier.

Saying that having both fiends and gods in a game risks a muddled story is just blaming your tools.

Or acknowledging that while I can use a screwdriver to carve a wooden statue, sometimes tools have limits. People can get too ambitious. Superhero stories are like that a lot. People try to make them exactly like Marvel and DC, but forget how we got Marvel and DC. And it leads to their worlds feeling like chaos, too much going on, and too easy for things to get muddled and details to be lost.

It can be done. I never meant to say it couldn't be done, but it is hard. It risks making an inferior product, just look at the first suicide squad, or Batman vs Superman. Having too much going on in a single story can make a mess of it. So if you don't have a very good reason to do so... why would you?

Gasp! You mean real-world mythology doesn't necessarily mesh with D&D's rules?

You mean planescapes rules. Which are only part of DnD's rules. You seem to forget that you can run a DnD game set in ancient Norse Mythology, using Ancient Norse cosmology and rules, instead of planescapes.

So, practically the same thing, then. And, since Theros is a MtG setting, it's going to rely on their rules.

No, it isn't even close to practically the same thing. If you kill everyone who worships a god under planescape rules, then even if people know about them, talk about the evil god whom they destroyed, then that god is still dead. No one is praying to them, and they are still powerless. Eventually people will forget the story, but the god was dead long before that.

In Theros, even if you kill all of their worshipers, if you are still thinking about them, if people remember that there was this terrible god whose worshipers they killed and may seek vengeance? Then that god is still alive, and still powerful.


And, I don't see what the point of stating "they work by MtG rules" matters, to my knowledge MtG has never had a comprehensive rule or lore set for how gods work in their various settings. It has been a case by case basis I imagine.

Sure. Which means you can have an archfiend and a god have incredibly different purposes, if you put your mind to it.

I've never said that you can't make differences. I'm saying that it is usually pretty easy to reverse those differences and make an inverse. They are interchangeable pieces in a lot of ways.

Why not? Those "maybes" mattered for you up above.

Because there is a difference between motivation and possibility.

Maybe a god will do something incredibly risky because they have reasons to. But, "it is unlikely that a god will face a coup" is meaningless in the question of "can you tell a story of a god facing a coup?" Because even if it is unlikely, the answer is yes.

Let me put it this way. It is incredibly dangerous to break into people's houses and steal from them, you could potentially get seriously hurt. It doesn't mean that people don't do it. And even if it is unlikely that your house will get broken into, it isn't impossible.

By homebrewing it, sure. Or by using a setting that isn't connected to the Great Wheel. At the time of Planescape's publishing, every was part of the Great Wheel and used it.

You can homebrew anything. Much earlier, I said that I wasn't seeing much of a reason to have any gods and you replied that no, there was definitely a use for cosmic powers. So "maybe" I can just ignore you and homebrew a setting with no gods at all (or simply use Dark Sun), or have a setting with only evil god(s) and fiends (for instance, Ravenloft*, or the d20 setting Midnight) and no good gods, and thus invalidate your claims.

Once you bring in homebrew, anything is possible. So maybe stop going with "maybes".

* Assuming the Dark Powers fit somewhere in the god/archthings continuum.

Making a setting with no gods doesn't invalidate my claims at all. I claimed that there was a reason to have cosmic powers, whether they be gods, GOOs, fiends, or annoying chimeric dragons. Those forces have a use and a purpose if you want to use them.

But that doesn't mean that every setting needs them, or that every story needs them. And just because you choose not to use a tool doesn't mean that that tool is useless. And just because you have two identical tools that doesn't mean one of them is worse than the other, or that you can't bring both anyways.

The rules are: whatever you want in 5e, more distinct in earlier editions. But even in earlier editions they varied and contradicted each other, so pick what you want.

And I know you believe that. And that tends to align very closely to what I see happening in the game. But that doesn't mean I'm not still discussing it with other people.

Agreed. But this fails to make archfiends and evil gods redundant. There may not be anything you preventing you from telling the same story, but that's only because you haven't come up with rules. Other people have. I have. In fact, I can come up with different rules for each setting I make, if I wanted to.

But right now, you're literally saying that your imagination is failing you in regards to telling different stories with gods and archfiends, or in even telling the difference between the two, and therefore, it's impossible for anyone to do so.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all. I've repeated my intentions again and again. Obviously if you say "Only gods can enter the Jade Palace" then you can make a story of an evil god in the jade palace, and you can't do that with a demon, because you made up a rule that excluded demons. However, the game doesn't have that rule, so I could make up a different rule, and tell the same story with the evil god but make them a demon instead.

It isn't that I lack the imagination to make up disctinctions between the two groups (thanks for the repeated insults by the way, makes discussing with you such a pleasant experience). It is the fact that I realized I was making up the distinctions, and therefore enforcing a redundancy in concepts that I didn't actually personally want. What is the role of an evil god? To be a powerful immortal evil beyond mortal ken. What is the Role of an Archfiend? To be a powerful immortal evil beyond mortal ken. Anything else is me adding distinctions, so I should ask myself "what value do I get for making up this distinction to support this?". And, again, for me personally and no one else, I found that I liked the idea of Gods being worshipped as a core of their interaction with the world, but that many Evil Gods wouldn't be worshipped. They were too simple and too niche. I'd have almost no one worshiping a god who advocates that all people should be strangled by their own entrails. That doesn't offer me something I even want in my setting. So, I made them a Demon Lord. A Demon Lord who advocates that works just as well, and if they do have a small sect of crazy mortals, then that's fine, they don't have a whole religion. But, some fiends do have whole religions, because their messages resonate, but they are also fiends and that is why they have the messaging they do.

And if you want to do something different? Go ahead. I won't say you are wrong for making up your own rules and deciding that you want the entrail god to stay a god, because he is fundamental to the understanding of the world. But I can say, with certainty, that the game and the cosmology wasn't harmed by me catergorizing him differently. There is nothing inherent in godhood that makes me unable to switch them. They can still make the same kinds of servants with the same sorts of powers. They live nearly identical existences. It is a change of title, nothing more.

Who says it does?

Examples of Cult Leaders of Asmodeus who were high ranking members of society, their wealth and fortune gained through the power of the Lord of Nessus.

It's universal as of every setting published in 2e.

No, it isn't. Eberron. Dark Sun. Theros. Ravnica. Exandria. Nerath. None of these use Planescape straight out of the box.

You're also missing an important steps. A god can point to a petitioner and turn it into a devil or demon. An archfiend needs to put that same petitioner through the "cleansing" process to get the same result. In 2e, it took 11 days of hellfire to turn a larva into an imp or quasit. That would be automatic for a god. At most, it would require an action.

Or it wouldn't. I see no reason that Asmodeus couldn't turn a mortal into a devil in a single action if he so chose. Just by bleeding the guy creates pit fiends. And I have no issue with a god needing 11 days to "cleanse" a petitioner of their mortality either.

An archfiend vs. archfiend battle wouldn't be a holy war by definition, since there are no holy beings (gods) involved.

It is a holy war by definition, because you only need a "religious cause" which can include supporting an immortal being who exists on a separate plane of existence.

No, because archfiends are not cosmic forces in that matter.

Why not?

 

[Lanefan]

It's universal as of every setting published in 2e.

No, it isn't. Eberron. Dark Sun. Theros. Ravnica. Exandria. Nerath. None of these use Planescape straight out of the box.

Other than Dark Sun (which I think does tie in to Planescape) none of those settings existed in or before 2e.

Never mind that Planescape, by its very nature, has carte blanche to hoover up any setting it wants...

 

[Maxperson]

And what exactly did I homebrew?

Devils being worshipped out in the open and by lots of people. If you homebrew such changes, any redundancy issues that crop up are of your own creation.

 

[Maxperson]

People used the MM with the existing rules that had been published in 1974, and enriched with the supplements.


Again, the DMG came last precisely because people were able to keep using the old rules.

It's not as if people who bought the PHB in 1978 had it sitting around gathering dust!

They weren't playing 1e, though. They were playing a homebrew version of D&D.

I don't think there is any inconsistency! (In general: of course there are some inconsistencies of detail. As I've posted multiple times, the PHB and DMG state different rules for memorising clerical spells. I wouldn't normally think of that as a big deal, but given how much weight @Helldritch is hanging on that I'm surprised they have ignored it throughout this thread. And the DDG keeps the DMG rule but builds on it further in light of the demi-/lesser/greater god concepts it introduces.)

But in fact there is consistency from 1979 to 1989 of having clerics of devils and demons, and of having no functional or story contrast between evil gods and archfiends.

There is still a progression going on that stops with the Deities & Demigods. Stopping prior to that release in order to show that modules written before the complete rules were published didn't use the unpublished rules doesn't really prove much. Of course they weren't going to use rules that were in the process of being written down and tested. That would have confused the players.

Ed Greenwood's earlier (from memory #75-76) articles on the Nine Hells did get adopted nearly in entirety in MotP. But in any event my point is that Ed Greenwood - who is not a trivial figure in the history of D&D authorship - clearly saw the situation the same as I did when I was playing AD&D in the mid-80s. Namely, that archfiends had clerics.

Or else like most DMs at the time, he just made stuff up for his game.

 

[pemerton]

By homebrewing it, sure. Or by using a setting that isn't connected to the Great Wheel. At the time of Planescape's publishing, every was part of the Great Wheel and used it.

This isn't true.

I played some games in AD&D 2nd ed, and I don't think the Great Wheel was part of our cosmology. I don't know if the GMs had purchased or read any Planescape stuff - the one GMing in 1990 wouldn't have, because it hadn't been published yet; but I don't know about 1996-7 - but if they had done so it seemed to have no influence on our campaign.ho

It's one thing to assert that there is some overarching D&D canon that includes Planescape. I still think that is contestable, but it's a claim about the truth of the the overall body of work.

But not buying a book published N years after you bought your core rulebooks is not "homebrewing" or "houseruling". Whatever that book said does not, thereby, become true for all players of the game.

In 1st ed AD&D the "Great Wheel" is in Appendix IV of the PHB, and then developed further in DDG. The MM takes it largely as given, and so does the DMG. But Dragonlance didn't use the Great Wheel. I think everyone understood that the Great Wheel was a framework - perhaps a default framework - but not mandatory or core in the same way that (say) hit points and saving throws are. Changing the planar structure is more like changing encounter tables - themselves found in an appendix of the DMG, Appendix C.

I have no idea how Planescape differentiates evil gods from demons - in Dead Gods, which is one of three Planescape books I own, they aren't distinguished given it contains a 12th level cleric of Orcus!

 

[Aldarc]

Other than Dark Sun (which I think does tie in to Planescape) none of those settings existed in or before 2e.

Never mind that Planescape, by its very nature, has carte blanche to hoover up any setting it wants...

Neither did the majority of the 5e playerbase.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

For reference:

In the Realms (my campaign world), I have followed the idea of the shifts specified by Mr. Gygax in DRAGON #64, removing all non-devil deities from the Nine Hells except for Sekolah. In the campaign pantheon there exists a greater god of lawful evil alignment (Bane, by name) who is worshipped by humans. The problem of how to deal with such a deity vis-a-vis the archdevils has been avoided by separating the two (the deity and the devils) entirely. Bane does not attempt to hinder or control Asmodeus or the other devils because they serve his purposes acting on their own, freeing Bane to do his work elsewhere. By strictly avoiding the devils, Bane maintains an unwitting (?) but steadfast and quite powerful set of allies without fearing treachery from them, and without expending time and effort in the intrigues of training, organizing, or commanding infernal armies.

High-level clerics of Bane regard devils as a group of lawful evil beings who can be commanded into various services by the proper means, and who can be expected to act thus-and-so due to their lawful evil nature and the social organization of the hells, but who are self-interested and not willing servants of Bane or of the clerics. This is essentially no different from the way clerics of other deities regard the devils; the diabolical are never dealt with in safety and trust. To what extent Bane and the archdevils know of each other, or have contact, can remain vague part of a DM's design elbow room for now. (Bane is geographically separated from the Nine Hells, too he is in Acheron.)

FWIW, I favour the idea of a qualitative difference between archfiends and evil deities, but I wouldn't suggest that early AD&D was in any way consistent in this approach and I freely admit I'd be pressed to explain exactly what those actual differences were.