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

[QuentinGeorge]

That is just not true at all. There are plenty of evil gods of myth/religion

Not in the way the worship or nature of "evil" deities is in D&D. I mean, Ares was an unpleasant individual, but not a satanic sort of force, more a personification of mindless violence. The titans represented a sort of primordial evil (although not completely), but they were explicitly outside the pantheon of gods. None of them had priests or clerics cackling in temples dedicated to evil. The most destructive group of worshippers in the Hellenic world were in fact the Bacchites, and no one would consider him "evil".

Set was originally one of the patron gods of egypt, and only ended up demonised, so to speak, thanks to his adoption by the Hyksos invaders. After that he was certainly an adversary, but also active worship of him effectively ended. There were no "priests of Set" wandering around causing havoc. The malign figures of a religion might be given an offering, hoping to draw away their attention, but no one would worship them in any organised way except for the crazed lunatics which most rulers would be driving away as a matter of urgency.

Kali wasn't evil, and Loki only seems as such in our minds because many of the interpretations of Norse mythology were coloured by early Christianity filtering into Scandinavia which changed the significance of him and Ragnarok. We are viewing a lot of these classic religions in a Christian-inspired lens, making us search for the "good" and "Evil" members of the pantheons.

A lot of D&D's problems with evil gods stem from its refusal to have much in the way of post-Antiquity religions (monotheisms and the like) but at the same time wanting to have organised religions complete with priestly hierarchy and big buildings in the middle of cities. D&D settings present polytheisms but then have them act like monotheism, complete with priests of Bane operating unhindered in civilised centres. No one would tolerate religions of open evil - the priests would be pelted with rotten fruit and driven from every town and city.

Clerics are based on Templar Knights more than anything else, so it seems strange that we are so resistant to actually having them in religions where they might make sense.

 

[Bohandas]

its refusal to have much in the way of post-Antiquity religions (monotheisms and the like) but at the same time wanting to have organised religions complete with priestly hierarchy and big buildings in the middle of cities.

I'm pretty sure pagan Rome had all of those things

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I'm pretty sure pagan Rome had all of those things

It didn't have evil gods with full hierarchies in the middle of cities. That was my point. The Bacchites were a despised bunch of criminals whose violence and vandalism people hated.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1) When designing a world, having things exist "just because" is poor design. It needs to have a reason, or why waste the space creating it

I would say just the opposite is true. The real world is packed full of things that exist "just because". Things that exist that are irrelevant to the PCs and the adventure are what give a world it's depth - the illusion that it exists independently. The Lord of the Rings (and the Hobbit, which mentions the fall of Gondolin) are chock full of references to things that are of no relevance and are not explained. That what makes Middle Earth feel so deep, when the fantasy worlds of other authors feel so shallow.

2) Sure, Umberlee is "evil" because of the cruel sea. But, why not just make her neutral and moody? After all, the ocean is the bounty of life.

Because the author (Ed Greenwood?) Chose to make her evil. It matched his perception of the sea. All Art is subjective.

But FR has a plethora of gods - if you want to add another sea god with a different temperament there is no reason not to. In certain editions the rule for the FR was "all casters of divine spells must choose a god" but also "if you can't find one you like make one up".

 

[Aldarc]

Because the author (Ed Greenwood?) Chose to make her evil. It matched his perception of the sea. All Art is subjective.

It certainly matched his perception of Umberlee, but why do you keep asserting that it reflects his perception of the sea as if the gods in fictive reflect how authors really feel about the domains of those gods?

Me making a sea god evil in a homebrew world does not necessarily mean that it matches my perception of the sea. It means that I chose to make a particular deity evil for the sake of the sort of stories I want players to explore in the world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It certainly matched his perception of Umberlee, but why do you keep asserting that it reflects his perception of the sea as if the gods in fictive reflect how authors really feel about the domains of those gods?

Because people make choices for reasons. We don't even know it was Ed Greenwood who created Umberlee, other people worked on the Forgotten Realms.

And frankly, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

People make choices for a mixed up bag of reasons. You want to do something different in your setting, or add another sea god to the Forgotten Realms? Go ahead, there is nothing stopping you.

 

[Aldarc]

Because people make choices for reasons. We don't even know it was Ed Greenwood who created Umberlee, other people worked on the Forgotten Realms.

And frankly, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

People make choices for a mixed up bag of reasons. You want to do something different in your setting, or add another sea god to the Forgotten Realms? Go ahead, there is nothing stopping you.

That's the point! There are lots of reasons why people make the setting choices that they do and multiple people may have been involved with the fiction of Umberlee BUT you - not me - are the one who has asserted at multiple times in this thread that this reflects Ed Greenwood's negative views of the sea.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's the point! There are lots of reasons why people make the setting choices that they do and multiple people may have been involved with the fiction of Umberlee BUT you - not me - are the one who has asserted at multiple times in this thread that this reflects Ed Greenwood's negative views of the sea.

I was speculating that it reflects Ed Greenwood's view of the sea. If you look through poetry, you will find a lot more references to "the cruel sea" than "the kind sea". Obviously, the sea is nether and Umberlee DOES NOT EXIST. Personification is Art, not Science. Which means there are no FACTS. Only feelings, opinions, speculations and perspectives.

 

[Weiley31]

why isn't Nerull in charge and smacking Orcus around like a schoolyard bully?

Well for starters, The Raven Queen killed dat fool (Nerull).

 

[Aldarc]

I was speculating that it reflects Ed Greenwood's view of the sea. If you look through poetry, you will find a lot more references to "the cruel sea" than "the kind sea". Obviously, the sea is nether and Umberlee DOES NOT EXIST. Personification is Art, not Science. Which means there are no FACTS. Only feelings, opinions, speculations and perspectives.

Stop trying to wiggle out of the hole you dug yourself into. You were arguing that Umberlee reflects the artist's view of the sea. Arguing a positive claim is not speculating. You are right that you had no facts - apart from Ed Greenwood being Canadian - to back up your claim. Regardless of what you may believe, when one speculates or argues about "art" to make an argument, it does not mean that your position is above reproach from criticism, it means that you have to put forth evidence that supports your claim. Neither art criticism nor art history are simply people talking about their feelings and saying "there are no FACTS" the moment that someone challenges their assertions about the artist. Because you are not just saying something about the art; you are saying something about Ed Greenwood (or whoever was the author). You were making a claim about the creator and their views about the ocean. Can you not see the difference between what you are trying to assert above and what you have been arguing previously? Can you not see why you can't just retreat to "it's art and so facts don't matter" when making an assertion about the artist?