Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 187398" data-attributes="member: 2067">Ah, well that's a totally different issue now, iddin't it? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I can live with non-divine fiends. I actually like the thing that SKR suggested (the idea of the fiend giving part of it's personal power to those who make some sort of pact with them). The line between "godhood" and "really big fiend" is blurred by this...I suppose, in theory, any PC who got the right feats could start up their own cult.Baiscally, a Cleric of Orcus (or whoever) isn't worshiping a true god, but a powerful outsider nonetheless. And when you think of gods in DDg terms, there really isn't a whole scad of difference.Why did they change it so they were not "gods," at least in name, anymore? Perhaps to make a split in flavor, more than anything else. Making a pact with a demon is a bit more of a different process than going to church every week and saying a prayer here and there. There's 1,001 reasons not to have divine fiends, relating in no way to pissing off people who don't buy the books anyway. Many of them involve the dynamics and the flavor of the campaign in general. Obviously, if the fiends don't have the powers of true gods in the default setting, that's a particular flavor choice for it. If the fiends are deities in FR (which they're not...though what they are is still unclear), that's a particular flavor choice for it, and no one choice is better than the other.There's lots of reasons that I can think of, personally, from a DM standpoint and from a crafting of my campaign's cosmology, to not allow big-time fiends to be gods. I don't know the reasons of WotC and/or Monte on this, but I don't need to. They don't need to justify their choice of flavor to me, and neither do the good folks over in the Realms.I guess I just don't see a problem at all. The line is so blurry, and the title so relative...this is an issue for every DM to decide. And the collective DM of FR decided to have fiends that could be worshiped....odly enough, if the BoVD contains rules for worshipping fiends, it appears that GH made the same agreement, even if they aren't called "gods."It's semantics that differentiate in flavor. What's wrong with that?...and as for the whole Lolth thing...Well, the deities are nearly the same, but they do have different stats...however you want the campaign to explain this is fine, but there's no reason that the FR Lolth has to be related in any way, distantly or otherwise, to the GH Lolth, just like I can make a Pharonic god without any relation to anything in FR, and vice versa. I could introduce the worship of an Olympian pantheon based on debauchery and wickedness without having to rationalize it with the real Olympian pantheon at all, if my campaign needed it.They can be linked, if you wish...Doesn't hurt me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But there's no reason any campaign has to impact any other campaign in any way.</blockquote>

Verification