D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

Are you saying DMG demigod quasi-deities are gods? It describes them as divine origin beings who in theory are able to ascend to godhood if they amass enough worshipers.

"Quasi-deities have a divine origin, but they don't hear or answer prayers, grant spells to clerics, or control aspects of mortal life. They are still immensely powerful beings, and in theory they could ascend to godhood if they amassed enough worshipers. Quasi-deities fall into three subcategories: demigods, titans, and vestiges."

Broadly, yes. The divine ranks are talking about deities(gods) of various ranks. Demigods are the lowest rank and could rise from demigod to true god, but are still the lowest rank of "god."

The opening paragraph talks about the divine ranks and how gods can vary, depending on the plane. The ranks are not greater and lesser god, but rather greater and lesser deity. Quasideity is the lowest rank, demigods are part of that. Again, they didn't do well with descriptions here. Had the above ranks been lesser god and greater god, then it would be clear that quasi-deities were not gods. But since all three are deities, otherwise known as gods, they are all just categories of the same. In the context used, "godhood" just means ability to grant spells.

 

[Helldritch]

"If you're playing a cleric or a character with the Acolyte background, decide which god your deity serves or served, and consider the deity's suggested domains when selecting your character's domain." PHB page 293

Does that mean that per raw, any spellcasters can now have a domain just by choosing the acolyte background???

No way. It does not imply that at all. But it would make up for some strange yet funny characters... imagine a wizard being an acolyte of... Pelor. The wizard would get access to cures and quite a lot of spells with the life domain.

Nah... would be to unbalanced, yet, it could explain the "white wizards" in Lankhmar...

 

[Maxperson]

Does that mean that per raw, any spellcasters can now have a domain just by choosing the acolyte background???

No way. It does not imply that at all. But it would make up for some strange yet funny characters... imagine a wizard being an acolyte of... Pelor. The wizard would get access to cures and quite a lot of spells with the life domain.

Nah... would be to unbalanced, yet, it could explain the "white wizards" in Lankhmar...

That would be really cool, but I think it's for RP reasons. You pick the god(deity or quasi-deity), let's say Auril. If you select tempest, your RP might be more wild and chaotic, than say if you chose nature.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That would be really cool, but I think it's for RP reasons. You pick the god(deity or quasi-deity), let's say Auril. If you select tempest, your RP might be more wild and chaotic, than say if you chose nature.

Except, if you aren't a cleric, you don't pick a domain.

 

[Lanefan]

So now we need two screw ups for you guys to be right. There needs to be an error in the PHB AND now also in the DMG.

Over 5 editions and several sub-editions of D&D one thing is and always has been true: only missing two screw-ups in editing is a pretty good day at the office.

 

[Lanefan]

Irrelevant to discussions of RAW. Yes, the DM can change literally anything he wants. So what.

Yet - and here's the conundrum - the fact that the RAW flat-out states that a DM can change anything she wants in effect gives RAW-level authority to a DM's changes....which kinda puts this whole discussion on a very sandy foundation as in this case (as per @Voadam 's analysis) the RAW seem to be intentionally set up in such a way as to be malleable by each DM.

End result: there's no definable right or wrong at any broader scope than a single DM's table(s).

 

[Maxperson]

Except, if you aren't a cleric, you don't pick a domain.

According to the PHB, this is wrong. You won't be able to cast spells, but even a non-spellcasting acolyte needs to consider domain.

 

[Maxperson]

Over 5 editions and several sub-editions of D&D one thing is and always has been true: only missing two screw-ups in editing is a pretty good day at the office.

Generally not about the same thing over three different books, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet - and here's the conundrum - the fact that the RAW flat-out states that a DM can change anything she wants in effect gives RAW-level authority to a DM's changes....which kinda puts this whole discussion on a very sandy foundation as in this case (as per @Voadam 's analysis) the RAW seem to be intentionally set up in such a way as to be malleable by each DM.

End result: there's no definable right or wrong at any broader scope than a single DM's table(s).

If everything the DM rules or changes is RAW, then RAW ceases to have any meaning.

 

[Lanefan]

If everything the DM rules or changes is RAW, then RAW ceases to have any meaning.

On a scale greater than a single table, exactly; and that's my point.

Discussing rules that most DMs don't change from their RAW version - e.g. combat rules, spell write-ups, and so on - can be useful. Discussing RAW that are intentionally set up to be changed or adapted by each DM/table, such as these definitions of divinity seem to be, is probably pointless for anything other than theorycrafting and-or generating ideas for one's own adaptation.