Weiley31
Legend
I have it where that is due to the fact Lolth is kinda full of herself. NOBODY likes Lolth so she has quite the ego when it comes to titles and her attitude towards everybody that doesn't like her.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Are "evil gods" necessary? [THREAD NECRO]
- Thread starter DEFCON 1
- Start date
Helldritch
Hero
Are God's necessary? Of course,depending on the setting you are playing. Although I appreciate mono pantheon settings such as Dragonlance or Wildemount, I much prefer a multi pantheon setting where gods will fight each other when their followers are at war.
In Greyhawk, the Flan pantheon was more or less conquered by the Oeridian pantheon. The Suel pantheon lost against the Oeridian too. This is why so much gods from Greyhawk are of Oeridian origins. Other pantheon disappeared because their followers were eradicated and so on.
This adds a level of complexity that goes beyond the good vs evil or the law vs chaos usual axis that we see. The country vs country ( or simply culture vs culture) can also be a very fun axis to play. Seeing two LG paladins fight each other is interesting, as neither wants to slay the other but they are bound to fight as their respective countries are at war. Good vs good can also be fun.
In Greyhawk, the Flan pantheon was more or less conquered by the Oeridian pantheon. The Suel pantheon lost against the Oeridian too. This is why so much gods from Greyhawk are of Oeridian origins. Other pantheon disappeared because their followers were eradicated and so on.
This adds a level of complexity that goes beyond the good vs evil or the law vs chaos usual axis that we see. The country vs country ( or simply culture vs culture) can also be a very fun axis to play. Seeing two LG paladins fight each other is interesting, as neither wants to slay the other but they are bound to fight as their respective countries are at war. Good vs good can also be fun.
Sorcerers Apprentice
Hero
Evil gods are necessary to explain why evil stuff happens in a universe where other gods are good.
Hexmage-EN
Legend
You'll like the Exandria setting's take on Lolth, then!
1) When the big war between the Prime Deities and Betrayer Gods was going on Lolth was first to be taken out. Kord drove a spear into her and stuck her on a cliff. Best her followers could do was drink the blood oozing from her and hope it made them more powerful.
2) The kinds of drow civilizations Lolth traditionally rules over in other settings are falling apart in the Underdark of Tal'Dorei. They're getting completely overwhelmed by mindflayers and such.
3) Most of the drow of Wildemount converted to the worship of an entity called the Luxon. Lolth's remaining worshipers on the continent, the Children of Malice, are mostly goblinoids she's had no choice but to settle for. The head matron of the Children of Malice is a female drow, but she's forced to hide out in a hobgoblin fortress.
What about the idea instead that "Evil Devils and Evil Demons are necessary to explain why evil stuff happens in a universe where Gods are good?" Why does it have to be other Gods, instead of just devils and demons?
There's no right or wrong with either view and quite frankly I'm not telling other people they are wrong... but it does highlight my thoughts a bit. On the good side of default D&D and most of the settings, we have Gods that rules over all the Good aspects of the morality game in D&D. There really isn't a list of other defined and named "good" entities underneath them in most settings. There aren't lists of Angels for example that we have as the alternate embodiments of good (expect in rare supplements you can find in editions past). So when we need uber-entities that embody goodness... we use the setting's Gods. There isn't any redundancy.
But we do have entire lists of bad guys and bad girls... named entities with defined personalities, defined wants and needs, defined places in the multiverse. Entire lists of known Devils, and known Demons. And thus adding Evil Gods on top of those lists seems to me to be redundant. What is gained by doing that and having that overlap? To me... I feel like it lessens the importance of Archdevils and Archdemons when you have Evil Gods above them in terms of their place in most settings (especially considering that the Cleric has a much higher place of prominence in the game than the Warlock does.)
Obviously people have and continue to make use of both sets-- evil gods and evil fiends. Which is great... if it works it works. But for me... I just wonder if having one means no longer needing the other?
QuentinGeorge
Legend
I do this in my homebrew. "Gods" are distant beings that don't manifest in the world, or speak directly to their followers. The great religions of the world are taken on faith. But there is no "evil" goods - each culture believes its religion is benevolent.
Demons and devils are very real creatures worshipped by madmen in cults. No one is under any illusion that Orcus or Asmodeus are good guys - but they are a source of power and more "real" than the alternative.
Demons and devils are very real creatures worshipped by madmen in cults. No one is under any illusion that Orcus or Asmodeus are good guys - but they are a source of power and more "real" than the alternative.
QuentinGeorge
Legend
It's not needed in this universe, why in any other?
Hexmage-EN
Legend
Gods often have some nebulously-defined ability to affect the entirety of reality just by existing.
The presumed ending of the 4E Scales of War adventure path depicts the ultimate destruction of Tiamat as lessening the capacity for greed in all mortals. A specific example given is that even the temple of Bahamut becomes more charitable thanks to Tiamat's true death, going so far as to get rid of fancy religious iconography. However, it also states that another entity, such as the archdevil Mammon, may attempt to claim Tiamat's former power over greed, rise to become the new god of greed, and through godhood inspire greed in the hearts of mortals again.
That's why Orcus and other lesser evil entities desire godhood. Why would he settle for animating the undead personally when he could kill the god of death, claim dominion over death, and then change the rules of the multiverse so that every mortal who ever dies reanimates as a ghoul or something?
The presumed ending of the 4E Scales of War adventure path depicts the ultimate destruction of Tiamat as lessening the capacity for greed in all mortals. A specific example given is that even the temple of Bahamut becomes more charitable thanks to Tiamat's true death, going so far as to get rid of fancy religious iconography. However, it also states that another entity, such as the archdevil Mammon, may attempt to claim Tiamat's former power over greed, rise to become the new god of greed, and through godhood inspire greed in the hearts of mortals again.
That's why Orcus and other lesser evil entities desire godhood. Why would he settle for animating the undead personally when he could kill the god of death, claim dominion over death, and then change the rules of the multiverse so that every mortal who ever dies reanimates as a ghoul or something?
You're just making the devils and demons the evil deities. Basically asking why so many different evil entities are needed.
There isn't really a functional difference between Orcus' as the main cosmic entitiy of undead and having a deity of undead. Just less entities to go around
The only real change would be that you would firmly marry the term "god" to equate good.
Similar Threads
