log in or register to remove this ad


D&D 5E Are "evil gods" necessary?


Nothing is necessary, but the OP seems to be trying to argue that evil gods are redundant, because they can't see a difference between slightly evil and very evil.

And this is where real world religion comes in, by not really allowing for different degrees of evil.

I'm sorry, what?

Erythnul - God of Slaughter and butchery who wants you to massacre everything

Nerull - God of Death who literally wants to snuff out all life

Incabulos and Talona are both dieties of disease, poison and death, who want all the world to suffer and die.

Then we have The Beast of Butchery Yeenoghu, who wants to kill everything, Orcus the Prince of the Undead who wants to kill everything and rule it, and Asmodeus.

Which of these is the "slightly evil" side of the spectrum? These all seem very evil to me.

log in or register to remove this ad


I think this is all doable in D&D. It requires some thought about what to do with clerics and paladins.
This is one of the things I liked about Xoth, they came up with a replacements for the cleric and paladin with the classes cultist and conqueror respectively to better fit the sword and sorcery feel of the game they were trying for.

Even without that, I would be inclined to keep clerics for the "good" religions. Using the Hyborean age as an example Mitra has his priests (clerics) and then have warlocks, wizards, or sorcerers (or all of them) for cultists of the various demon lords. It doesn't quite work though since the crusading cleric archetype doesn't really fit the priests of Mitran religion. I might even refine my white wizard class which is a cleric replacement.

I did like the old Mongoose conan d20 game which just had the scholar class which was used for pretty much any caster class. Priests, cultists, vile sorcerers were all the scholar class.

Level Up!

An Advertisement