If the different writers didn't need to consult each other, and came up with opposite rules... doesn't that imply that it didn't really matter and that they were fairly interchangeable? There are even gods who were also specifically Demon Lords, like Thasmudyan from "The Complete Book of Necromancers" from 1995.
No, why would I make the assumption that they were interchangeable? They're writing across editions and across settings and with their own homebrew ideas flavoring what they write.
In fact, if Thasmudyan--had to look him up--was both a god and an archdevil (baatezu were devils), then I would assume that he was
both a god and an archdevil. And to me, that would suggest that those are two different things, and he happens to be both. He's multiclassed.
Okay, but that wasn't the original example, so maybe you should be more clear that you are altering the example. You are right, it doesn't make a lot of sense to impersonate another god to get worshipers, of course, you still absolutely could have a false face as a different diety to get worship if you happen to be an evil god of some terrible thing, not that hard to do I'd imagine.
I very clearly have been talking about worshipers this whole time.
And a "false face" is different than actually impersonating another god. And Eberron is
very different because the gods may not even
exist, and the archfiends aren't rulers of vast planes and engaged in an unending war with other fiends; they're trapped.
3) Um... yeah, so you realize that Helm has a genocide in Matizca right? I'm sure if we dug through the various settings with a fine toothed comb we'd find plenty of "good" beings that committed terrible acts. Dragonlance anyone? Eberron just made it a bit more explicit.
Helm is Lawful Neutral, not Good. And the gods in Dragonlance are a really messed-up version of good that bears little resemblance to actual good. They're more like the original Cosmic Balance Chaos/Law than
actual good and evil--to the point that if there's too much Good, they do Evil things to balance it.
I have no reason to show that it is bad. I have talked about how it can end up creating a muddled and confused story, which in my mind is fairly bad, but I don't need to prove it is bad, because I don't care if people think it is good or bad. I simply am pointing out that it is.
Why do I care that people are saying "No, you are wrong, this is the truth"? Well, because I don't think I'm wrong. Is it so strange that I'm responding to people who have a different perspective by trying to convince them of my side? Isn't that the point of discussing? I don't believe in just making a statement then abandoning the field. I defend my ideas.
First you say that you are giving a piece of advice. But giving advice isn't having a "side." It's giving tips. "Hey, you might find it's better to have fewer factions because you can give more time and detail to them than if you have lots of factions."
If instead you have a
side, then that means you're not trying to just encourage people to be better DMs. It means you're trying to get people to think the same way that you do. In which case, yes, you have every reason to show its bad:
you are making a claim. If you are claiming that having too many factions leads to muddled results, then find an example of that and
show how it went wrong.
So what is it: are you offering advice or trying to get everyone to accept your beliefs and reject opposing beliefs? It can't be both.
As for the first part, why am I responding to your answers with the fact that they are redundant? Because you claimed you could tell a story with evil gods that was impossible to tell with Archfiends. So, if your evidence doesn't prove that, then I'm going to tell you that it doesn't. Why can't I accept people enforcing differences they made up? Because you are presenting those not as "here is something you could potentially do" but as "You are wrong that they are redundant, because I made up a reason that they aren't redundant" which doesn't make me wrong, it makes you having made-up facts that did not otherwise exist.
My story ideas only "failed" to prove it because you refuse to accept that there are any differences between gods and archthings in the first place. Of course you're going to dismiss it--accepting it would mean that your basic premise isn't universally accepted.
And yet there are clearly stories that are tied to one and not the other. Elves are not known for many of the same things Dwarves are. In most depictions of them they are incredibly different beings.
If you wanted to say that elves and dwarves are nearly indistinguishable from each other, I'd be interested in seeing your arguments, but just the fact that caves are natural and beautiful doesn't make them the same as living in a forest. And Elves are not really seen in the clan structures that dwarves have, which is a major driver of some dwarven stories.
Oh, but somebody can have a world where elves live in clans and are master smiths! Lots of stories have elves living in tribes, and those are very similar to clans (Elfquest), many elves already live underground (drow, shadow elves, dokkalfar), and elves are already known for their fine craftsmanship, including with metal (elven chain) and alcohol (elven wine). And you can always homebrew it that D&D elves can grow beards (some do in Elfquest). And in many stories, dwarfs are highly magical, either by creating magic items (LotR) or using actual spells (Digger). And in Norse mythology, dwarfs weren't
short, they were more human sized. And both elves and dwarfs are long-lived humanoids with long memories who view humans as being somewhat beneath them. So clearly, nobody needs
both. It's too hard to write both races well. It'd get muddled.
And really, any story you can tell with dwarfs you can tell with elves. Evil monsters encroaching on the place they use to gather materials? Doesn't matter if it's a mine or a forest, it's the same thing. Someone did something that besmirched the family honor? Doesn't matter if it's an elf or dwarf, it's the same thing. An evil offshoot that was banished to the Underdark is making its presence known? Doesn't matter if it's drow, duegar, or derro, it's the same thing. You don't believe me? It's clearly because you don't have an open mind.
If you don't find this particular argument compelling, well. This is the exact argument you've been using for saying archfiends and evil gods are the same.
And as I said, you don't even need
either elves or dwarfs. You don't need
any gods, either--you can have nothing but celestials, archfey, and archfiends. Why bother with Correllon when you can include archfey? Why have Ilsensine when you have GOOs?
So you don't
need any of these things. If I have dwarfs and elves, it's because I want to. If I have archfiends and evil gods, it's because I want to.
Then how do you run Yeenoghu? You claim you run him differently than me, and I run him how the books say to, so how do you run him?
Actually, I
didn't claim I run him differently. I said I
would run him differently, since I haven't used him yet and don't like what 5e has done with gnolls (I
like hyenas).
Since he's not a god, he can't send avatars with the prime without the use of mortal spellcasters summoning him. He's always looking for spellcasters to "convince" to bring him here, or for magic items that would open gates.
Since he's not a a fiend and not a god, there isn't any structure to the religion that surrounds him. While each cult has a few things in common (specifically, maiming, killing, and eating, not necessarily in that order), most of the rituals, individual beliefs, and goals were created by the cult's high priests, rather than dictated to them by Yeenoghu or one of his direct servitor. Thus, each cult is going to be more different from each other than each temple to a god would be, and each cult leader has their own goal which can be addressed.
Because he's a demon, and demons are corruptive, the area around his shrines is also corruptive, causing evil Regional Effects and general madness. This also means that many of his cultists are mutated in one way. This doesn't happen with gods and their worshipers.
I'm sure I could come up with others, but this is enough for a start.
How would removing redundancies show people that they are redundant? Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive?
If you remove redundancies, then they're no longer redundant.
And, yes, "only gods can create clerics" is something that is not true. You can make it true for your world if you want, but that doesn't make it a true fact of the game.
Yes, it is a true fact that only gods can create clerics. It's also a true fact that gods and archthings and elemental powers can all create clerics. It's also a true fact that a person can become a cleric of a philosophy or ideal, without
any gods involved. It's a true fact that a person can lose their clerical abilities if they stray from their god's portfolio. It's also a true fact that they
don't lose their clerical abilities no matter how far they stray (seriously, no RAW rules for that in 5e).
Every single one of those is supported by RAW. Every single one of these is a true fact.
So that means
you can pick the one you want, and I can pick the one
I want, and we're both right.