D&D 5E Are "evil gods" necessary? [THREAD NECRO]

[Clint_L]

No, it's not, because mafioso's still participate in their religion, which specifically includes unilateral forgiveness for anything. Meaning even though they commit evil acts, they do not reject their god (which would be the most evil act).

For you to give a counter example, you'd need to make the argument that someone could plausibly want/choose to go to hell - which is what I am saying is so irrational it would violate the PSR.

Pointing out that plenty of folks in the real world who believe in a literal heaven and hell still do terrible things. People are really good at rationalizing their own actions, and really bad at impulse control. I don't think this is any different in a fantasy environment.

Not that I use the tired "eternal torment/eternal bliss" tropes in my games anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nope gods are a lot harder to kill. Archfiends can grant spells but have very little power associated true divinity.

Generally varies by edition and they have elevated fiends to true
Deities.

This, of course, is a critical part of the disagreement here:

Is there such a thing as a "true divinity"? Or is "divine" just a label applied to something that is sufficiently powerful and can perform a particular list of tasks?

For example, in works more influenced by Eastern philosophy/theology, this "true divinity" distinction would be pretty meaningless. Divinity is simply a status one can achieve through various means, often through becoming "transcendent" in some fashion. E.g., Guan Yu becomes an outright god of war because he's just THAT good at killing people and commanding armies, and even non-divine entities can easily overcome and remove or replace existing deities. The "bureaucracy of heaven" concept plays heavily into this, with the idea that there are courtly positions, titles, etc. that can be gained or lost, transferred, created, etc.

In works more heavily influenced by Western philosophy/theology, on the other hand, divinity is an inherent nature, and thus "true divinity" can have meaning. Godly status cannot be earned; it is simply present or absent. Some things blur the line a little, e.g. it may be possible to steal someone else's divine "mantle," or for one or more gods to promote someone else to divinity, but once they're divine, they're genuinely different from what they were before (and, quite often, this "promotion to divine" usually requires that you meet an inherent prerequisite anyway, like being a demigod or "purging" your mortal aspects or the like.)

In a setting where "true divinity" is an arbitrary or socially-constructed line (even if that line is socially constructed by the gods themselves), there's really no difference. In a setting where "true divinity" really has meaning, where there's a threshold that you either cross or don't cross, then the distinction can matter a great deal. With "true divinity" on the table, even an unmatched demon-prince who can grant spells and otherwise mimic godhood does not actually possess godhood, and this may come with various other effects and considerations.

 

[Minigiant]

My belief was the defaults was

• Gods are immortal, have a divine rank, and can grant dinve spells.
• Demigods (offspring of a god and mortal), hero deities, divine creations, have a divine rank of 0 and can grant divine spells of a limited capacity.
• Arch-Xs have nodivine rank. They can only grant divine spells via the faith or oaths towards them and it is limited.
• Vestiges of forgotten gods, imprisoned gods, and dead gods have a have a divine rank but cannot grant divine spells of a limited capacity.

Having a divine rank above 0 allows a god to grant spells of full range and power. However a divine rank ties you to an aspect of the world. The god of storms becomes like the storms. The gods of death or the grave obsess on death and the afterlife because they control it. The god of magic controls the Weave. Divine ranks link you to reality.

This is why beings who lack divine ranks seek divine ranks. They control an aspect of the world absolutely until it mixes with another aspect or portfolio. This is why archdevil cult might fight with an evil god's church.

Evil Gods can be useful because gods more or less have a job. The Evil Gods has to manage an aspect of Evil. Like War, Secrets, or Deception.

Or possibly the Evil God is a warping of a core part of life. Set have domain over storms and deserts. Hades have domain over the dead.Those aspects of life don't go away and until those gods die, you have to respect them.

 

[SkidAce]

All your answers lie in this semi obscure tome of knowledge, by an at one time little known publisher.

 

[Maxperson]

This, of course, is a critical part of the disagreement here:

Is there such a thing as a "true divinity"? Or is "divine" just a label applied to something that is sufficiently powerful and can perform a particular list of tasks?

For example, in works more influenced by Eastern philosophy/theology, this "true divinity" distinction would be pretty meaningless. Divinity is simply a status one can achieve through various means, often through becoming "transcendent" in some fashion. E.g., Guan Yu becomes an outright god of war because he's just THAT good at killing people and commanding armies, and even non-divine entities can easily overcome and remove or replace existing deities. The "bureaucracy of heaven" concept plays heavily into this, with the idea that there are courtly positions, titles, etc. that can be gained or lost, transferred, created, etc.

In works more heavily influenced by Western philosophy/theology, on the other hand, divinity is an inherent nature, and thus "true divinity" can have meaning. Godly status cannot be earned; it is simply present or absent. Some things blur the line a little, e.g. it may be possible to steal someone else's divine "mantle," or for one or more gods to promote someone else to divinity, but once they're divine, they're genuinely different from what they were before (and, quite often, this "promotion to divine" usually requires that you meet an inherent prerequisite anyway, like being a demigod or "purging" your mortal aspects or the like.)

In a setting where "true divinity" is an arbitrary or socially-constructed line (even if that line is socially constructed by the gods themselves), there's really no difference. In a setting where "true divinity" really has meaning, where there's a threshold that you either cross or don't cross, then the distinction can matter a great deal. With "true divinity" on the table, even an unmatched demon-prince who can grant spells and otherwise mimic godhood does not actually possess godhood, and this may come with various other effects and considerations.

Divinity in D&D has been belief based since 1e. It's not a label applied to something sufficiently powerful, though exceptions might exist. For example we don't know if Ao the overgod is actually a god, some other class of being, or has belief in some other manner off screen that supports his power. Godhood is a label applied to a being supported by enough belief to be a god.

As belief in a god wanes, it drops in power(divine rank) until it "dies." In quotes because enough belief coming back and bring the god back to "life."

Beings on par with gods are out there and are still not gods, so sufficiently powerful can't be the criterion that establishes godhood. True divinity also doesn't really apply, since mortals can ascend to godhood and godhood can be stripped away, which wouldn't be possible with a true god. Belief is the key.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Divinity in D&D has been belief based since 1e. It's not a label applied to something sufficiently powerful, though exceptions might exist. For example we don't know if Ao the overgod is actually a god, some other class of being, or has belief in some other manner off screen that supports his power. Godhood is a label applied to a being supported by enough belief to be a god.

As belief in a god wanes, it drops in power(divine rank) until it "dies." In quotes because enough belief coming back and bring the god back to "life."

Beings on par with gods are out there and are still not gods, so sufficiently powerful can't be the criterion that establishes godhood. True divinity also doesn't really apply, since mortals can ascend to godhood and godhood can be stripped away, which wouldn't be possible with a true god. Belief is the key.

Sure, that's how it's done in the Forgotten Realms. Less so other settings, e.g. Eberron, where the only "became a god" thing is the Silver Flame, and even that's not really a "god" per se.

I was speaking more generally, about what possible things someone could do with their own setting, or tweaking an existing one. FR is pretty solidly committed to a very specific conception of divinity.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, that's how it's done in the Forgotten Realms. Less so other settings, e.g. Eberron, where the only "became a god" thing is the Silver Flame, and even that's not really a "god" per se.

I was speaking more generally, about what possible things someone could do with their own setting, or tweaking an existing one. FR is pretty solidly committed to a very specific conception of divinity.

Yeah. I'm talking default D&D. Specific settings alter default assumptions, so your setting, Eberron, etc. can do things differently. That's why I'm sick of generic setting #4361 from WotC. Give me some uniqueness in settings please.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that's how it's done in the Forgotten Realms. Less so other settings, e.g. Eberron, where the only "became a god" thing is the Silver Flame, and even that's not really a "god" per se.

I was speaking more generally, about what possible things someone could do with their own setting, or tweaking an existing one. FR is pretty solidly committed to a very specific conception of divinity.

Eberron is very specifically an exception to the divinity "rules" common to many D&D settings. Not surprising, since Eberron was created outside of the TSR era where most of D&D's other setting originated. People love to use it as a counter-example though. Reminds me of how often 4e is used as a counter-example whenever anyone tries to make a general statement about D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Eberron is very specifically an exception to the divinity "rules" common to many D&D settings. Not surprising, since Eberron was created outside of the TSR era where most of D&D's other setting originated. People love to use it as a counter-example though. Reminds me of how often 4e is used as a counter-example whenever anyone tries to make a general statement about D&D.

I mean, 4e's World of Nentir Vale/Dawn War setting/PoLand/Eustace is also a pretty clear exception as well. Divinity can only be acquired by taking someone else's divine mantle. IIRC, even Vecna only became the god of undeath and secrecy by stealing someone else's divinity. The Raven Queen became god of death by usurping her master, and then added Winter and Fate by having those domains re-assigned to her after Khala and Lolth respectively were stripped of them.

Doesn't matter how powerful a mortal gets, they won't become a Deity with a domain in the Astral Sea.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, 4e's World of Nentir Vale/Dawn War setting/PoLand/Eustace is also a pretty clear exception as well. Divinity can only be acquired by taking someone else's divine mantle. IIRC, even Vecna only became the god of undeath and secrecy by stealing someone else's divinity. The Raven Queen became god of death by usurping her master, and then added Winter and Fate by having those domains re-assigned to her after Khala and Lolth respectively were stripped of them.

Doesn't matter how powerful a mortal gets, they won't become a Deity with a domain in the Astral Sea.

Excellent point, although Nentir Vale (it's a less accurate but more dignified name than PoLand) was also a WotC creation. There's a real break between the two companies when it comes to settings.