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

[Cadence]

Its not only about evil actions by sentient beings but also random events perceived as evil. Floods, draughts, plagues, etc.

For the kind of world I described, how is the soul given anything to be trained with and purified if it isn't tested? How can one show they've found charity if everyone is provided for? Or find courage if there is no fear? Or show will if there is no want? Show resilience if there is no pain? And again, in the course of eternity what's a plague or a flood? Maybe the act of thinking they are evil (or even worse thinking they were particularly planned and sent at a given person) is a sign that one isn't ready yet and will probably get another pass through?

Do players ever get better at playing characters if everything is just handed to them or is completely deterministic?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only real change would be that you would firmly marry the term "god" to equate good.

True. But then again... if most tables do not run with evil PCs then the Clerics that show up in game are almost all worshippers of the good or neutral gods anyway. Which means the "good gods" are really the only ones that tend to get any play. Then otherwise the only times "evil gods" ever show up are when the Evil Cultist tropes are used... and that's when I wonder if cultists of an evil god are somehow more worthwhile or interesting than devil worshippers or demon worshippers instead?

 

[DEFCON 1]

It doesn't have to be evil gods, but then the Devils and Demons must be a significant threat to the gods or you should explain why the good gods haven't just wiped out the demons and devils.

I guess it depends on what the assumed power levels gods have when compared to archdevil and archdemons? Personally, I've sort of seen all of them (gods/archdevils/archdemons/archfey) as essentially equivalent in the "unimaginable power" scale and thus there was no need to ask why one group hadn't eradicated the other yet. After all... there's been nothing in the game thus far that suggests the only reasons why the "good gods" haven't invaded the Nine Hells and the Abyss and taken them all out is because the evil gods have gotten in the way? So the assumption has always rather seemed to me to be that in their home planes, each of them has the power to avoid total eradication regardless of whether they are a "god" or "archdevil" or "archdemon".

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is not reason why you need to have any gods at all in your setting. Dark Sun doesn't, Eberron kind of doesn't.

And if you have gods, there is no reason why their worshipers should match them in alignment. Many polytheistic religions where about appeasing or currying favour with gods, not promoting their moral philosophy. One could easily envision a setting in which all the gods where evil and ordinary people are constantly trying to buy them off.

Oh, of course. My question was not about whether gods in their entirety are necessary. I personally really like the idea in Eberron that the Sovereign Host is a pantheon of "deities" for which there is no proof that any of them even exist in any sort of tangible form. People just have their faith and can manipulate magic because of it.

My question was more about whether anything is gained having tangible, interfering evil gods that supercede the tangible, interfering devils and demons? What makes having both layers of evil entities worthwhile? Or does the redundancy reduce either sides importance?

(Of course, on a similar note I suppose I could ask the same question about all the pantheons of the Forgotten Realms themselves, as they seem to be tripping over each other's portfolios from the get-go. I mean why have one god of combat when you can have Torm, Tyr, Tempus, Helm, and Bane all fighting over their worshippers, LOL!)

 

[Helldritch]

I my campaign, clerics can obtain spells up to level 4 by themselves. At level 5 a planetar will come to speak with the cleric (in a vision, during the prayers). At level 6 and 7 it is a solar and for level 8 and 9, it is the god itself.

This is not unlike first ed. This way, a cleric player feels that his god is not an abstract thing but something real. This also have the added bonus of allowing me (through the god) to tell the player if he is correct in his role-playing and how pleased with him/her her/hisis god is.

Players at the table hears the conversations and it help them to appreciate the RP related to a God and his clerics.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

That depends on what the gods actually are and what they represent.

If they maintain spheres on influence then evil ones are required. There has to be a god of murder,a a god of deceit, and so on. If they don't, then they don't.

For example, in my last game there were 10 gods. None of them were really "good" or "evil" (except maybe for Set). Each of them characterised one of the Schwartz value systems, covering both the good and the evil aspects of the value.

For another example, the classical Greek gods weren't exclusively good or evil, they were just men and women turned up to 11.

 

[Greg Benage]

One thing that always left me perplexed about evil gods in most D&D settings. If you are a faithful worshiper on one of them, you are guaranteed an afterlife of eternal torment. Doesn't sound too enticing. Their priests must have incredible marketing skills...

I don't believe that's true of most settings. In those for which it is true, I agree it's weird.

 

[Voadam]

The same question can be, and has been, asked about differentiating between demons and devils (and daemons and rakshasas, and obyriths, and demodands). None of it is necessary, but having different groups establishes different cosmologies and different story opportunities. You could easily do a setting with no evil gods, just undifferentiated demons as one group of evil cosmological outsiders. You can also go the other way as Pathfinder did and expand the groups to have Kytons and oni and so on each with their own themes and story potentials. You could even easily go without explicit gods and have no outsiders in the game at all as was the default for B/X D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh, of course. My question was not about whether gods in their entirety are necessary. I personally really like the idea in Eberron that the Sovereign Host is a pantheon of "deities" for which there is no proof that any of them even exist in any sort of tangible form. People just have their faith and can manipulate magic because of it.

My question was more about whether anything is gained having tangible, interfering evil gods that supercede the tangible, interfering devils and demons? What makes having both layers of evil entities worthwhile? Or does the redundancy reduce either sides importance?

(Of course, on a similar note I suppose I could ask the same question about all the pantheons of the Forgotten Realms themselves, as they seem to be tripping over each other's portfolios from the get-go. I mean why have one god of combat when you can have Torm, Tyr, Tempus, Helm, and Bane all fighting over their worshippers, LOL!)

Why have good gods when there are angels (solars, planetars, devas)? Or lawful gods when there are modrons? Or chaotic gods when there are slaad?

Aside from a difference in power level and origin stories, I think you are getting hung up on the "tangible interfering" bit. Evil is not a synonym for antagonistic. Consider Umbelee. She is evil because of a metaphor - the cruel sea. Many sailors sacrifice to her, not because they like her or approve of her teachings. They sacrifice because they are afraid of her. And Umberlee is fine with that, and will kill slightly fewer sailors to keep them sacrificing. That's a completely different agenda to a chaotic evil demon, who just wants to kill everyone. Umberlee doesn't want people dead because she needs them alive to fear her. On the whole, gods, irrespective of alignment, are simply part of the background scenery.

As for Auril in Rime of the Frost Maiden, we simply don't know what her agenda is or what has caused her to go rogue. By standard FR metaphysics there is nothing in it for her to kill her worshipers, and most evil beings (apart from demons sometimes) act rationally to their own advantage.

A Greek inspired campaign, such as Theros is a different thing again. Those gods can be petty and childish irrespective of "good" and "evil" labels, and it's up to mortal heroes to sort out their problems for them.

BTW, the reason FR has gods "tripping over their own portfolios" is it is inclusive. There are gods from many different peoples and cultures and they are all real. (and Tyr is an immigrant from another universe altogether).

 

[Aldarc]

Because good deities would not grant them, unless the petitioner had a rather significant change of outlook?

You are assuming here that deities grant spells. But that is not necessarily true. As per canon, there are evil priests, clergy, clerics and the like for good deities. Can you answer how they get their spells?

Therefore, either not an LG deity or an LG deity with very severe discipline issues among his clerics.

Or you are wrong about the game. Other possibilities exist apart from your false dichotomy that you have constructed here.

Overall, I don't really think that the problem is evil deities per se, but, rather, how there is overall a lack of nuance or complexity in D&D religion. There should be reasons why good creatures provide prayers to evil deities and why evil creatures provide prayers to good deities. To take the Dawn War Pantheon as a starting set, maybe orc warriors do say prayers to Gruumsh, as would many other infantry soldiers. But maybe orcs also venerate Kord for his strength, Melora for being the Earth Mother, and Bane for his strategy and conquest, Avandra for wealth and luck, and Moradin for caves, riches, and steelcraft for weapons.