D&D 5E To make D&D's Cosmology/Deities make more sense, they should introduce the idea of a fantasy version of Henads and Seirai

[Henadic Theologian]

To make D&D's Cosmology/Deities make more sense, they should introduce the idea of a fantasy version of Henads and Seirai.

Henads are the top most level of Divinity in neoplatonism, they are Gods beyond time, being, life, and intellect. They are the points of the Monad where chains of causation begins, called Seirai plural or Seira singular.

From them emanate all Noetic Gods, Noeric Gods, Archangels, Angels, Celestial Archons, Hylic Archons, Diamons, Heroes, Pure Soul, etc...,right into material things.

Adapting to D&D would explain why there are different versions of Gods in different settings,they are all part of the Seira of a higher, Immaterial form of the God in question. As the Henad is beyond time, existence, life, death, being, etc..., it can't be destroyed, so when a D&D gets killed in a setting, it can always come back later, because of its Henad, reforming it later.

All Henads are considered good, but it's a mathematical conception of goodness as self suffient wholeness as opposed to ordinary human conceptions of morality in day to day life.

There are already influences from Neoplatonism in D&D, such as D&D Angels which are functionally eminations of D&D Gods, although in some ways indirectly via Theosphy which draws heavy influences from Neoplatonism.

 

[Voadam]

The 5e DMG on page 11 provides a basic split between greater deities and lesser deities. Lesser deities are generally embodied on a specific plane and can be directly encountered by a character (Lolth in the Abyss is the example) while greater gods are generally removed from mortal interactions, and while they can project an avatar it is not essential to them and even destroying the avatar has no real impact on the greater god.

This is a bit reflective of the split you are talking about.

It does not match the emanations from one source aspect, but it reflects some of the aspects of the splits in type.

Of course 5e does not then use this classification system anywhere else, Appendix B of the PH just lists gods and does not differentiate between lesser or greater deities or even philosophies.

 

[Rogerd1]

I would have Empyrean as gods on each plane, which will resemble the DCEU Olympians.

But the aeons are incorporeal beings (like DC Lords of Chaos / Order), they can take on many corporeal forms and possess many different domains. Thus they may take on the appearance of any god they please.

They can even splinter a part of their essence to act independently; these are called Archons, but can reansorb when they choose. These are behind the tales of old ones and elder ones, as not all will look remotely human.

Alternatively could use the Sephiroth from Kult - as Chokmah is eerily similar to Nyarlathotep, or the God from 2000AD, in the Canon Fodder series.

 

[the Jester]

No. They should avoid imposing top-down edicts about what deities are in D&D. In some games, they are abstract and may not even exist. In others, they live in cities and can be slain by mid-level pcs. Both approaches are great.

 

[Voadam]

No. They should avoid imposing top-down edicts about what deities are in D&D. In some games, they are abstract and may not even exist. In others, they live in cities and can be slain by mid-level pcs. Both approaches are great.

Yeah, the 5e DMG section on gods and pantheons is generally best when providing options and the proscriptions it does give are fairly annoying (redefining demigods, titans, vestiges, and quasi-deities for the edition and defining them to not hear prayers, grant cleric spells, or be actual gods).

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, the 5e DMG section on gods and pantheons is generally best when providing options and the proscriptions it does give are fairly annoying (redefining demigods, titans, vestiges, and quasi-deities for the edition and defining them to not hear prayers, grant cleric spells, or be actual gods).

Yep. It's some of the only 5e lore I just plain discard.

 

[Charlaquin]

I find the philosophical underpinnings of Neoplatonism fascinating, but every time I hear people more knowledgeable about it discuss it, I feel like they’re just tossing out a whole bunch of nonsense words and I’m like… what does any of this have to do with Plato?? I mean, I know Neoplatonism is not Platonism and I should expect it to have its own ideas, but the walk from A to B must have been very long and winding…

It probably doesn’t help that whenever someone talks about it they seem to be assuming a certain baseline familiarity with the subject that I apparently just don’t have. Like, I want to bring this back around to the subject of gaming and potential cosmological models for D&D, but… I can’t because you’re going on about Noeric Gods and Hylic Archons and a mathematical conception of goodness, when I was already lost at “the points of the Monad where chains of causation begin.” Slow down and walk me through the first concept you introduced before name dropping five more.

 

[Voadam]

I find the philosophical underpinnings of Neoplatonism fascinating, but every time I hear people more knowledgeable about it discuss it, I feel like they’re just tossing out a whole bunch of nonsense words and I’m like… what does any of this have to do with Plato?? I mean, I know Neoplatonism is not Platonism and I should expect it to have its own ideas, but the walk from A to B must have been very long and winding…

It probably doesn’t help that whenever someone talks about it they seem to be assuming a certain baseline familiarity with the subject that I apparently just don’t have. Like, I want to bring this back around to the subject of gaming and potential cosmological models for D&D, but… I can’t because you’re going on about Noeric Gods and Hylic Archons and a mathematical conception of goodness, when I was already lost at “the points of the Monad where chains of causation begin.” Slow down and walk me through the first concept you introduced before name dropping five more.

Some gods are perfect ideals (sort of like Platonic ideal forms) who are essentially ideas and concepts without physical bodies who exist in the ideal realm of thoughts and concepts. In 5e DMG page 11 terms greater gods.

Emanations of them and reflections of them through lesser forms of reality turn more physical and more individual with multiple influences mixed in and are less perfect so you get 5e lesser gods and angels and such as aspects of the the true gods/forms farther from the source, imperfect copies in more physical medium. Avatars and Aspects and such come from a greater source, but can be individuals of their own and diverge from their source. They are not quite down to the level of full real world fully physical individuals, they still have a strong aspect of spirit and ideal form, but they are not a pure perfect spirit being like the original unembodied source gods.

If you think of the Abyss as the source of pure D&D CE, then Demon Lords like Pazuzu are less pure CE individual manifestations that are still really strongly spiritual CE concept beings but also embodied individuals, then smaller down the continuum you can see Vrocks as even lesser emanations that are more embodied but still more CE spirit than animals and people. Also if you squint you can see the winged vrocks as derivative lesser Pazuzus, but also their own thing and so not derivative.

That's one way to think of it.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

To make D&D's Cosmology/Deities make more sense, they should introduce the idea of a fantasy version of Henads and Seirai.

Henads are the top most level of Divinity in neoplatonism, they are Gods beyond time, being, life, and intellect. They are the points of the Monad where chains of causation begins, called Seirai plural or Seira singular.

From them emanate all Noetic Gods, Noeric Gods, Archangels, Angels, Celestial Archons, Hylic Archons, Diamons, Heroes, Pure Soul, etc...,right into material things.

Adapting to D&D would explain why there are different versions of Gods in different settings,they are all part of the Seira of a higher, Immaterial form of the God in question. As the Henad is beyond time, existence, life, death, being, etc..., it can't be destroyed, so when a D&D gets killed in a setting, it can always come back later, because of its Henad, reforming it later.

All Henads are considered good, but it's a mathematical conception of goodness as self suffient wholeness as opposed to ordinary human conceptions of morality in day to day life.

There are already influences from Neoplatonism in D&D, such as D&D Angels which are functionally eminations of D&D Gods, although in some ways indirectly via Theosphy which draws heavy influences from Neoplatonism.

It is a fine idea, but it is not the one we use in our game. Therefor, I would prefer D&D be neutral on the subject.

 

[el-remmen]

Sounds like exactly the kind of longwinded wild theological speculation that some old priest or monk NPC would go on and on about until the PCs walk away that fits perfectly into my setting where the cosmological system I came up with is "Nobody friggin' knows, so we all make up our own versions over time and then cultures/movements codify them and act as if they are real" - and thus, PCs can worship any god or saint they want - and we can figure out how it fits (or doesn't) as part of character creation and/or play.