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.
In over a week's worth of discussion, many, many rules have been posted from the various editions showing how archfiends and gods are different.
There is
never going to be a single consistent rule because we're dealing with scores of different sources written over five editions. You are demanding the impossible and refusing to except what actually has been shown.
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?
And this is showing that you either don't know or don't care about the differences that other people have between gods and archfiends. In probably
most games, and certainly in the base game, gods don't require contracts. The fact that you can imagine such a thing doesn't change the base expectation.
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.
And that's not even a Planescape thing. It's a "stands to reason" thing--if you're fine with using them, then I can use them two. Two reasons.
One, if gods are dependent on belief, then human beliefs are going to change them. The fact that
in the Realms one god impersonated another one without any dire changes is less about how gods work and more about the writers wanting to keep the Status Quo--if only because it would be difficult (especially in the more rules-heavy editions when the impersonations took place) to get across the idea that two faiths were merging into one in a series of game books and adventures. Heck, if the writers tried to use the idea of a god being changed by mortal belief in 3x, they'd probably have to have lists involving number of worshipers involved and the percentage change that there would be an effect and what the save DC is to avoid it.
And two, because the gods in question (Shar, wasn't it?)
weren't trying to corrupt other religions. They were taking over, or using them to hide. If anything, this was the god trying to grab onto more portfolios.
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.
Yes, I think Nerull and Erythnul care about people. Not as people or as individuals, but as status symbols, or as income, or as food. They care about people in the same way that a farmer cares about livestock. Even the worst farmers who warehouse all their animals in horrible conditions don't want them to all die unnecessarily. There are certainly some gods who don't care or encourage their worshipers to kill each other, but they're likely not very smart, or are confident that they have enough worshipers to sustain them anyway. Or they managed to grab onto some other source of power.
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.
I had never applied the Planescape model to Eberron. In fact, I have pointed out at least once before that Eberron isn't connected to Planescape at all.
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.
I don't think you're a liar. I think you really believe that you are telling people that they're redundant and nothing else. But maybe you're just not as good at writing that sort of nuance, because you've been
saying that it's wrong. Wrong for me to assign gods the way I do. Wrong for people to have more than one faction because the factions will feel "flatter and less interesting." You haven't used the word "wrong," but everything you've been writing has been saying it anyway.
For instance, you say:
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?
And you think you're saying "use either." But what you're
actually saying is "don't use both. Pick red or yellow, but only one of those--and don't even think about using
orange."
If
you prefer having a setting where there's only evil gods or only archfiends, that's fine, that's for you. And I can easily see a setting where there's only one of the two. But you're not saying "I prefer." You're not even saying "if you pick only one, you get
these benefits that you wouldn't get if you picked both."
You're saying "everyone should pick one of these two options because I say so, and anyone who says differently is doing it wrong." You're saying "I only need one lord of oozes," but are looking down on anyone who chooses to use both, saying it's too hard to do it "right"--meaning that you are elevating yourself to be the judge of who is playing the game correctly.
I'm reminded of a quote by Isaac Asimov, on why he didn't write dystopias or utopias. "You can't build a symphony on just one note." You can create a richer and possibly even more
realistic setting by having a mess of different lower-planar beings. It's not like real world mythology has neat little divisions.
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?"
First off, Ghaunadaur is the god of oozes, abominations, rebels, and outcasts (and dismal caverns, in 4e), and is/was once a member of the drow pantheon. His worshipers include oozes, drow, aboleths, and ropers.
Juiblex is the demon of oozes and shapeless things. His worshipers include oozes, "the insane," "desperate and diseased individuals," and aboleths.
So there's some overlap, but far less than you think.
Now, the FR Wiki says that Juiblex is an aspect of Ghaunadaur. So problem solved for you: you can have them both and they're the same thing! But that sounds like a 3x/4e thing where they consolidated deities, so let's say that they are actually totally different gods. Well, there's still not as much overlap as you claim. They have three things in common: oozes, aboleths, and preferring he/him pronouns. I see no reason why either aboleths or (intelligent) oozes can't worship two different but similar entities (except for the idea that aboleths would deign to worship anything; I'm going to assume they don't
worship either god but instead just get power from them). A lot of humanoid gods are fairly similar, after all.
So lets look at the FR Wiki again. Ghaunadaur wants basically one thing: sacrifices, especially "willing" sacrifices. What he gets out of those sacrifices, I don't know, but the entry also says that he really likes watching big monsters kill and maim people, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the purpose of these sacrifices is so that Ghaunadaur can watch people die messily.
Now, Juiblex is described as the simplest of the demon lords to understand, because he wants nothing more than to keep existing while surrounded by goo. And that
if he can be said to have a goal, it would be to dissolve everything into goo to surround himself with.
So these two entities are already quite different. And
then you can homebrew even more differences, if you wanted to. You can give Juiblex something of a personality and have him actively driving people insane and diseased. Maybe he causes people's brains to turn into gray oozes. You can focus on Ghaunadaur's portfolio as the god of rebels and outcasts, or of ropers.
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.
Fun fact time: my father actually writes comics for a living (as well as other, non-comic things), and has written and edited for DC, Marvel, and other companies for many decades now. It's actually how I got into D&D--he did some writing for TSR, back when they had a comics line (sadly, my dad doesn't game), and when I expressed an interest in the game, they gave me the core 2e books.
Balancing all of the different super hero origins? All it takes is practice and familiarity with the characters. Some people have encyclopedic knowledge of the characters and issues. I've nearly always preferred
non-super hero comics, but I can still name at least a few characters with each of the powers on the list without looking them up.
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?
You mean, look at movies instead of the actual comics?
Why not look at the Batman/Superman crossover "World's Finest" from the old Batman: the Animated Series and Superman '90s cartoons, where Batman and Superman met for the first time and had to fight a team-up of Luthor and Joker. It was a well-written and fun story, and I will die on the hill of Kevin Conroy is Best Batman.
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.
So you finally understand that you can have
both gods and archthings in a single setting and it's just as good as having only one?
No, it isn't. Eberron. Dark Sun. Theros. Ravnica. Exandria. Nerath. None of these use Planescape straight out of the box.
Did you not read what I wrote? I said "It's universal as of every setting
published in 2e."
One of these settings was made for 2e. Eberron was made for 3x, Nerath was made for 4e, and Theros, Ravnica, and Exandria were made for 5e.
And Dark Sun is a special case because it's completely and specifically sealed off from both the outer planes and from the rest of the Material universe (closed sphere; no spelljamming).
Because I guess you also haven't read any of the other posts I've made on this exact same subject multiple times already in this thread.
