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

[QuentinGeorge]

No this is talking more generally about war gods, not D&D's weird-ass take on war domain specifically. Hence the list a while back of "evil" areas. That'd explain the disconnect though.

Oh I'd suggest the entire 5E implementation of domains is fundamentally incompatible with historical takes on gods, even being really generous/broad, D&D 5E just has absolutely wack-ass lunatic ideas about what domains should exist (as compared to historical human cultures).

EDIT - Honestly, if there was one bit of D&D I could redo, well, I'd struggle to pick one, but Domains would be high on my list. Because they're awful. They don't reflect things people really care about, and they're not even that cool or thematic!

D&D really is terrible on religion. It gets polytheism completely wrong, ignores most monotheisms and really misunderstands why people worship.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

D&D really is terrible on religion. It gets polytheism completely wrong, ignores most monotheisms and really misunderstands why people worship.

It is genuinely bizarre how bad at religion almost every edition and setting of D&D is. Other fantasy RPGs don't seem to have the same level or type of problem.

Eberron is perhaps the one very solid exception. The 1990s FR got into a weird place where sometimes the specifics of religions (in the various god-books) were extremely cool and fitting and so on, and sometimes the belief-structures, but where they still struggled so badly with the concept of why people worship that they decided to invent the Wall of the Faithless.

Btw I hear the Wall of the Faithless is no longer officially mentioned in any 5E products, having been errata'd out of SCAG and so on, hopefully that's right and any future 5E FR book confirms it's not a thing. I know Ed Greenwood has fairly consistently acted like it's not a thing since at least sometime in 4E (he didn't come up with it and never liked it, AFAICT).

 

[MGibster]

Oh I'd suggest the entire 5E implementation of domains is fundamentally incompatible with historical takes on gods, even being really generous/broad, D&D 5E just has absolutely wack-ass lunatic ideas about what domains should exist (as compared to historical human cultures).

In fairness, I don't know if that's really much of a criticism for a game not to be compatible with historical takes on gods. It's not like the magic system as a whole is compatible with historical takes on magic. It kind of makes me think of Shadowrun. Most of the magic the rules deal with are spells and such that are useful for criminals involved in violent most often illegal activities. But there's more magic in the world that isn't touched on too much because it's just not the focus of the game.

D&D really is terrible on religion. It gets polytheism completely wrong, ignores most monotheisms and really misunderstands why people worship.

I suspect that's a deliberate design choice. For the most part, I've found very few D&D players who really care about religion one way or the other. Including people playing clerics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In fairness, I don't know if that's really much of a criticism for a game not to be compatible with historical takes on gods.

I think it's a serious criticism when 5E spent significant amounts of time and effort tying real-world historical gods to specific Domains and so on, which it did. It also doesn't even work well for most D&D settings, which is perhaps an even bigger problem!

I suspect that's a deliberate design choice.

I personally don't buy that it's intentional. It's too incompetently and inconsistently done. The inconsistency is particularly an issue.

Re: don't care - I sadly agree, but the crapness is in large part a cause of that attitude. In TT RPGs where the gods and religion are handled better, people care more, RP about that more, and so on. People don't care in D&D generally much because it's a mess and doesn't make sense. But even within D&D, Eberron produces much more and better religion-related RP and discussion and so on. That's to me, proof positive that doing better on this causes people to respond.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I don't really care about parity with the real world, but there ARE problems with evil gods that are solved by actual polytheism.

Like the jerk god who can't be kicked out because he's family that you sacrifice to and pray to to shut him up and keep him from putting scorpions in your underpants and heart attacks in your grandma and their clergy are more like an apologetic spouse smoothing over the whole 'rain of frogs' things and explaining how to keep him mollified with booze and the occasional flaming cow.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh I'd suggest the entire 5E implementation of domains is fundamentally incompatible with historical takes on gods, even being really generous/broad, D&D 5E just has absolutely wack-ass lunatic ideas about what domains should exist (as compared to historical human cultures).

4E POL did it best of all official methods.

There were a small set of gods. And each Domain was split between 2 goods of different alignments. So your PC could venerate any domain but still support a deity close to your alignment.

Then

There were a bunch of evil not-gods that a DM could form a cult over that touches each domain in order to have any flavor of enemy.

 

[Voadam]

Which suggests maybe the game sees her more as the Goddess of Strategy, Tactics, and Spying? She's the one the generals and tacticians behind the lines pray to; while the actual soldiers bleeding in the field look to Ares and curse his name.

I don't think it is recasting her as being narrowly a confluence of war knowledge. I think the PH just goes with suggesting two cleric domains for two big aspects of classical her that translate into 5e adventuring cleric domains. So war for being a warrior goddess and knowledge for being a wisdom goddess. None of the domains really match up to her classical aspect of patron of crafts.

As Athena Promachos, she was believed to lead soldiers into battle.[82][39] Athena represented the disciplined, strategic side of war, in contrast to her brother Ares, the patron of violence, bloodlust, and slaughter—"the raw force of war".[83][84] Athena was believed to only support those fighting for a just cause[83] and was thought to view war primarily as a means to resolve conflict.[83] The Greeks regarded Athena with much higher esteem than Ares.[83][84] Athena was especially worshipped in this role during the festivals of the Panathenaea and Pamboeotia,[85] both of which prominently featured displays of athletic and military prowess.[85] As the patroness of heroes and warriors, Athena was believed to favor those who used cunning and intelligence rather than brute strength.[86]

So while I think generals and tacticians would go for her, I think soldiers would as well, particularly if they thought they were on the just side of a war.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is where you lose me; there have been multiple editions of D&D where worshipers of a god don't have to have an alignment that matches that of their deity, sometimes wildly so. Yes, in the Forgotten Realms, Umberlee (the goddess of the sea) is Chaotic Evil. But Faiths & Avatars (AD&D 2E) says she accepts worshipers of any alignment, and that her clergy can be Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral, or True Neutral. In 3E's Faiths and Pantheons, she can have clerics that are CN, CE, or NE. It's not like the game mandates that the gods' worshipers match their alignments exactly.

I was responding back to @Lanefan who said that it was a requirement that clerics follow the alignment of the gods.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was responding back to @Lanefan who said that it was a requirement that clerics follow the alignment of the gods.

A requirement in his game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A requirement in his game. Nothing wrong with that.

Correct, nothing wrong with it for him game at all. My comments were just challenging him on his requirements in general.