D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Voadam]

I think it is unfortunate that 5e as a baseline ties a cleric's domains to a god's narrowly defined portfolio. You cannot plan out your cleric's powers without knowing the campaign specific gods. Hopefully the campaign you are in has a conjunction of gods you want to follow with associated domains you want to take.

Most other classes do not have this issue. A Paladin does not have their oath tied to campaign specific beings. Warklocks with their pact probably come closest.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Correct.

Incorrect! Yet another up is down declaration by you. I never once, in any capacity, said that vigilance was ever a part of twilight and in fact said the exact opposite.

What I said was, and please follow it this time, that once twilight was a part of a single god of vigilance. Like sugar(twilight) is a part of cake(vigilance), but cake(vigilance) is not a part of sugar(twilight).

There is no reason to assume that one god of vigilance, who has never before this edition had any association with Light, who was given access to Twilight is somehow special. There is no argument that you have put forth that makes Helm special and grants him access when other gods of the same arrangement would not.

Darkvision? Halflings don't get darkvision, so the Halfling Goddess of Protection and Vigilance should get it then if that is your argument.

You are trying to make this special pleading, that Helm is somehow unique in a way that he is not.

Only because you intentionally refuse to understand, like you do with any point that refutes you.

Or maybe you don't make good points.

Riiiiiiight, Helm is a non-human god and is on that list.

I don't think you even understood my post because your response is nonsensical.

Helm is presented as a "general god" who is worshiped by all races.
Helm is not expressly stated to be a human god. Nothing anywhere states "Helm, the human god of".
This personally annoys me despite being true.
There is no god or goddess listed in in the PHB who is "The Human god(dess) of..."

Helm is in the PHB.
Helm is, again, not "The Human God of..." anywhere.

Stealing a secret doesn't mean that you can use the secret. If you want to be a cleric of nature, worship a nature god. If you want to be a cleric of a god of secrets, you get knowledge or maybe trickery.

Why can't I use those secrets? I have the knowledge of the magic and how to use it (that's part of the secret, just knowing that something is possible is rarely a secret, especially when it comes to obvious powers of people) so I should be able to... do it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Maxperson and me think alike on that one.
We never said a player could not make an appeal to a DM's logic and fairness. We just say that a player can not impose his non conventional choice of domain and god to the DM. Vecna is not a life domain god nor is Pelor a god of Death and Twilight. These choices would be ludicrous at best and would break versimilitude in the world.

And even if the choice could make sense. Like Hel or Anubis suddenly giving access to the "grave" domain, it should still be with DM's approval.

Why? If we accept that DMs can veto the existence of Fireball and Longswords, why do we have to explicitly have a "mother may I?" set up on whether or not my character can be part of an obscure cult?

 

[Maxperson]

There is no reason to assume that one god of vigilance, who has never before this edition had any association with Light, who was given access to Twilight is somehow special. There is no argument that you have put forth that makes Helm special and grants him access when other gods of the same arrangement would not.

So I'm going to do something that you do not do and own my mistake. Reading twilight domain closer, it does say the following,

"The darkness can also bring terrors, but the gods of twilight guard against the horrors of the night."

So there is some measure of vigilance in there. I don't think every god of vigilance is a god of twilight, but I was wrong. That leaves us with the rest not being on that list because the list is necessarily incomplete. Get the DM to add twilight to your vigilance god if you want to pick it.

Helm is presented as a "general god" who is worshiped by all races.

Helm is expressly a human god(not being a non-human god). He does have worshippers of all races, but very few as those races tend to worship their own gods.

This personally annoys me despite being true.

Because they don't have to state the obvious. He is not a non-human god, therefore......................human god.

Why can't I use those secrets? I have the knowledge of the magic and how to use it (that's part of the secret, just knowing that something is possible is rarely a secret, especially when it comes to obvious powers of people) so I should be able to... do it.

Because he is not a god of nature. You just have to suck it up and accept that his domain is not trees and tweeting birdies.

 

[Helldritch]

Why? If we accept that DMs can veto the existence of Fireball and Longswords, why do we have to explicitly have a "mother may I?" set up on whether or not my character can be part of an obscure cult?

I was about to reply to your other post but I saw this one and it now dawns on me.
The problem we have is that you have a totally different play style from the average.

You seem to expect that a player has total freedom in creating a character and that the DM is under the obligation to accept the what the player made as long as the player has some good background/justifications.

From what I read of @Maxperson posts history, we play a lot like the old school that 5ed is trying to emulate.
1) A DM is the sole authority on his world campaign.
2) A player has total freedom on his character creation as long as they are within the campaign's world parameters.
3) No deviation from 1 or 2 is acceptable unless the DM approves it.
4) Stuff from other books is not immediately integrated. Only parts of them are integrated if the DM deems it ok.
5) A player can try to change something in the game world if the DM approves it for story reason. These are rare, but still possible. But they will never be imposed on the DM.

There are more differences but that should be it for character creation.

And this is what is tainting your argumentation. At least, this is what I believe. You fail to acknowledge that your playstyle is not ours (and in my area, you would be the only one doing this in about 50 other tables that I am aware of...) This means that a lot of what you consider normal and desirable at your table is outlandish and alien to us. This taint so much your argumentation that you can't see that, tough it can work from your perspective, it would not from ours.

Yes some table will offer more leeways in character creation, but they're as RAW as you might think. I usually go for a strict interpretation of the rules and stay as close as RAW as possible because I do a lot of live play in our Fridaynight Dungeon (about once or twice a month depending on my work schedule). This means that I am used to be watch by quite a few people and If I do not stick to RAW, I have to explain why I do such and such at the end of the session. This taints my arguments as I try to stick to core books for argumentation simply because not everyone have the other books. This is helpful in reducing the learning curve to a more managable form as I have young DM in my area (12 is the youngest, but I have heard of a few of 11 now...) but since my Fridaynight Dungeon is usually ending around 10 pm, it does not leave time to discuss a lot beyound the rulings I made and a few rules in the core. Adding more than the core would be a nightmare. And this is tainting my way of discussing rules. We are probably victims of our playstyles contaminating our arguments.

 

[Maxperson]

I was about to reply to your other post but I saw this one and it now dawns on me.
The problem we have is that you have a totally different play style from the average.

You seem to expect that a player has total freedom in creating a character and that the DM is under the obligation to accept the what the player made as long as the player has some good background/justifications.

From what I read of @Maxperson posts history, we play a lot like the old school that 5ed is trying to emulate.
1) A DM is the sole authority on his world campaign.
2) A player has total freedom on his character creation as long as they are within the campaign's world parameters.
3) No deviation from 1 or 2 is acceptable unless the DM approves it.
4) Stuff from other books is not immediately integrated. Only parts of them are integrated if the DM deems it ok.
5) A player can try to change something in the game world if the DM approves it for story reason. These are rare, but still possible. But they will never be imposed on the DM.

Number 4 for me is the opposite. I allow anything from an official book(player specific options), but reserve the right to ban or change something if it is problematic. So the players can just pick an Aasimar to play, but if they want a god to have the twilight domain, I need to see that it makes sense for the god to have it and then I'll allow the choice.

 

[pemerton]

The rules say to pick from the suggested domains. It's mandated that the player choose from the available suggested domains.

No. That's not what the rules say. That's what you interpret the rules as requiring, and it is your interpretation that I have said is bizarre. Voadam has stated the rules:

5e PH Page 58 under Divine Domain: "Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War. Each domain is detailed at the end of the class description, and each one provides examples of gods associated with it. Your choice grants you domain spells and other features when you choose it at 1st level."

<snip>

5e PH Page 59 under Divine Domains: "In a pantheon, every deity has influence over different aspects of mortal life and civilization, called a deity's domain. All the domains over which a deity has influence are called the deity's portfolio. For example, the portfolio of the Greek god Apollo includes the domains of Knowledge, Life, and Light. As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity's portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain."

The same text is found here.

And Appendix B gives us:

Your DM determines which gods, if any, are worshiped in his or her campaign. From among the gods available, you can choose a single deity for your character to serve, worship, or pay lip service to. Or you can pick a few that your character prays to most often. Or just make a mental note of the gods who are revered in your DM’s campaign so you can invoke their names when appropriate. 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.

This can be read (and I would read it) as saying that the GM establishes the setting, including the gods, and then the player considers the suggested domains - suggested by the GM, given that they're choosing the gods - and having done so, chooses a domain.

There is a degree of ambiguity over where the balance of authority lies between player and GM. That's not entirely surprising - it is typical of a lot of RPG rules-writing where PC features depend on setting details.

But it doesn't say anywhere that lists of gods and their associated domains published by WotC have any sort of force beyond being prompts and suggestions.

The DM is the only one who has the power to add a domain to a god(suggested/examples), so if the player feels that a god who is not one of the examples should have a domain that isn't on the suggested list, he can make his case to the DM. He cannot just choose that domain for that god without that DM approval.

If you resolve the ambiguity I noted in favour of the GM, then the player can't make any domain-related decision without talking to their GM. The lists don't have any special relevance: they're just examples/suggestions/things to consider.

@Maxperson and me think alike on that one.

Yes, I know that.

We never said a player could not make an appeal to a DM's logic and fairness. We just say that a player can not impose his non conventional choice of domain and god to the DM.

And my point is that it is tolerably clear that the whole issue of gods and domains is setting-specific. So if you regard the GM as in charge of all setting stuff, then the player needs the GM's permission to make any choice of god and domain, whether or not it is "non-conventional".

The Appendix B lists, and the lists of names in the domains, are clearly just suggestions for possible setting choices. To quote the Life Domain text again (I think @Voadam already quoted this upthread):

Almost any non-evil deity can claim influence over this domain, particularly agricultural deities (such as Chauntea, Arawai, and Demeter), sun gods (such as Lathander, Pelor, and Re-Horakhty), gods of healing or endurance (such as Ilmater, Mishakal, Apollo, and Diancecht), and gods of home and community (such as Hestia, Hathor, and Boldrei).​

That is not a statement of a rule telling a player what gods and domains are permitted! It's a bit of advice about what makes for a coherent setting.

 

[Maxperson]

No. That's not what the rules say. That's what you interpret the rules as requiring, and it is your interpretation that I have said is bizarre. Voadam has stated the rules:

The same text is found here.

And Appendix B gives us:

[quote}Your DM determines which gods, if any, are worshiped in his or her campaign. From among the gods available, you can choose a single deity for your character to serve, worship, or pay lip service to. Or you can pick a few that your character prays to most often. Or just make a mental note of the gods who are revered in your DM’s campaign so you can invoke their names when appropriate. 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.

If you've read class descriptions, the domains related to the deities are the suggested domains from Appendix B. So...

5e PH Page 58 under Divine Domain: "Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War. Each domain is detailed at the end of the class description, and each one provides examples of gods associated with it. Your choice grants you domain spells and other features when you choose it at 1st level."

Becomes, choose one of the suggested domains for the god chosen in Appendix B.

And the following...

5e PH Page 59 under Divine Domains: "In a pantheon, every deity has influence over different aspects of mortal life and civilization, called a deity's domain. All the domains over which a deity has influence are called the deity's portfolio. For example, the portfolio of the Greek god Apollo includes the domains of Knowledge, Life, and Light. As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity's portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain."

Are also the suggested domains in Appendix B, as portfolio = domain.

This can be read (and I would read it) as saying that the GM establishes the setting, including the gods, and then the player considers the suggested domains - suggested by the GM, given that they're choosing the gods - and having done so, chooses a domain.

The DM chooses the setting, which comes with gods. The default domains are those listed in the PHB. The DM has the option of adding more domains per the DMG or creating alternate religion(s).

There is a degree of ambiguity over where the balance of authority lies between player and GM. That's not entirely surprising - it is typical of a lot of RPG rules-writing where PC features depend on setting details.

There's no ambiguity that I can see. The DMG gives full authority to the DM to decide domains and alternate religions. The player can only pick from the defaults listed in Appendix B and/or those provided by the DM.

If you resolve the ambiguity I noted in favour of the GM, then the player can't make any domain-related decision without talking to their GM. The lists don't have any special relevance: they're just examples/suggestions/things to consider.

I disagree. The cleric class tells the player to choose from Appendix B. Those don't require the DM's approval, though if he opts to the DM can change those lists.

 

[pemerton]

Becomes, choose one of the suggested domains for the god chosen in Appendix B.

That word "becomes" is your own interpolation. The cleric player is told to choose a domain related to their portfolio. Some examples are given under each domain. The cleric player is also told that the GM will establish the setting, including the gods and their domains.

Nowhere is Appendix B said to be anything but a list of possibilities for setting-design. To even call Appendix B a set of "defaults" would be too strong, given that it contains sets of gods that many would regard as mutually exclusive!

 

[Maxperson]

That word "becomes" is your own interpolation. The cleric player is told to choose a domain related to their portfolio. Some examples are given under each domain. The cleric player is also told that the GM will establish the setting, including the gods and their domains.

Not necessarily and their domains. The DM is told that he can adopt a pantheon from Appendix B whole cloth, so in that case he wouldn't be establishing the domains. Just the gods. It then goes on to tell him that he can associate any domains he chooses with the deities, so he can insert other domains in the suggested domain list for the gods in Appendix B. Those become suggested domains at that point.

Nowhere is Appendix B said to be anything but a list of possibilities for setting-design. To even call Appendix B a set of "defaults" would be too strong, given that it contains sets of gods that many would regard as mutually exclusive!

They are defaults for the DM to pick if he wants to use them. The DM says, "Hey guys, I'm using the Forgotten Realms gods in Appendix B." All the default information on them there is then used. Alternatively, the DM can say, "Hey guys, I'm using the Forgotten Realms gods in Appendix B, but in addition to the default information there, I'm adding these domains from other books to these gods, because it makes sense for those gods to have them."