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

[pemerton]

Hearing so many people talk about how 4E did this well is music to my ears, and it makes me wonder how well the Nentir Vale and all the 4E lore would have been received had it all been attached to the 5E system instead.

The core D&D fanbase seems very conservative in its attitude to published setting material, and seems very hostile to material that closely emulates the liiterary roots of fantasy. By this second clause I mean that there has never been a popular D&D setting I can think of that follows JRRT's bascially Christian (but pre-incarnation) theology, nor REH's absence of gods but presence of Cthulhu-esque beings and "fiends". Personally I feel this has been driven by a desire to "domesticate" the cleric class without going back to its obvious literary/historical roots.

So I think the answer to your question is "I think it would still have been controversial."

 

[Voadam]

The core D&D fanbase seems very conservative in its attitude to published setting material, and seems very hostile to material that closely emulates the liiterary roots of fantasy. By this second clause I mean that there has never been a popular D&D setting I can think of that follows JRRT's bascially Christian (but pre-incarnation) theology, nor REH's absence of gods but presence of Cthulhu-esque beings and "fiends". Personally I feel this has been driven by a desire to "domesticate" the cleric class without going back to its obvious literary/historical roots.

So I think the answer to your question is "I think it would still have been controvesial."

Hyboria is full of Gods and is pretty much the template for D&D ones. Crom, Set, Mitra, Bel, Jebbal Sag.

I have more than one Conan book on pantheons of the Hyborian world, one of which is currently in print (Nameless Cults). If the action of the story focuses on the mortal magical priests and not the actuality of the gods themselves then Eberron is a lot like Hyboria.

 

[prabe]

I don't see that any of this gets in the way of having a D&D campaign in which all divinity is good. It requires a little bit of reconceptualisatio of evil high priests and the like: rather than conjuring up necrotic forces (which sounds like evil as a distinct source of power) they might have to be framed as literal manifestations of corruption (so eg their curses and foul magic literally drain away the goodness and life in things, a metaphysical metaphor for falling away from truth). But that doesn't seem too hard.

My feeling is that if you define all gawds as good, you need something that can reasonably oppose them. You can decide that your Great Evil Powers aren't gawds, but they need to exist and they need to have goals and they need to have at least something like a plausible path to those goals--that last might involve cabals or something (if they're not gawds I'm not even sure I'd call them cults, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology). I don't think having, e.g., mortal cabalists as a counterpoint to good gawds works. For me, this is about aesthetics of the setting more than anything else--too much unopposed good is just as boring (very) as too much unopposed evil.

 

[Mirtek]

Note that the archfiends actually counted as lesser deities in 1e and a lot of the more powerful ones were also deities during 2e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm not sure this thread is the right place for a debate about moral theology.

I agree, but I didn't see any way to avoid it - you can't answer the OP without defining what you mean by "evil".

If you use the broad Gygaxian definition of evil it's easy to see the difference between a demon and an evil god - demons are always as evil as it is possible to be, whereas an evil god might just be slightly more selfish than they are altruistic.

If you use "evil" in the way it is more commonly used in society - as a very strong word only used for the worst of the worst - then the same god is neutral. The god hasn't changed, your definition of evil has.

 

[Coroc]

I agree, but I didn't see any way to avoid it - you can't answer the OP without defining what you mean by "evil".

If you use the broad Gygaxian definition of evil it's easy to see the difference between a demon and an evil god - demons are always as evil as it is possible to be, whereas an evil god might just be slightly more selfish than they are altruistic.

If you use "evil" in the way it is more commonly used in society - as a very strong word only used for the worst of the worst - then the same god is neutral. The god hasn't changed, your definition of evil has.

Demon is chaotic evil "elemental-like". See it like the difference between a fire elemental and a campfire. Both are burning quite hot, but one is pure fire,
and the other fire and incineration byproducts.
A CE mortal would be more like the campfire.
A CE god would mostly cover one or more of the aspects of CE behavior e.g. psychopathic murder, although his essence would be as pure as a demons but on a different powerlevel.

So one is the mortal with his alignment tendencies, the evil god might have in his portfolio one or more of the aspects of a CE life and the demon just is CE "personified", normally not specialized in one aspect of CE.

Ok with LE it gets more difficult, because nine hells have each a different theme. But also here, a devil is the lawful evil essence and a LE god might cover one or more of the topics of different layers of the nine hells, or even reside there (like e.g. Thiamat aka Takishis)

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I have thought for a long time that in fantasy gaming, and the accompanying settings, there are too many "evil with a capital E" deities. Tolkien did his world with one major Evil god, along with the lesser evil non-mortal beings who followed/were corrupted by him.

But yes, for there to be conflict between good and evil in a fantasy setting, there have to be evil deities, but there needs to be a limit. Look at the various pagan religions from our world. Despite how they have been written up in all the editions of D&D, how many of them would even be truly Evil? A lot of them have grey areas to what they are patrons of and would only be evil, or even more Neutral with evil tendencies.

Absolute Evil should be very rare among deities because even the lesser evil ones would team up with the good deities to keep the Evil down, since it would threaten their own influence and control. Look at the MCU. When Loki was faced with a greater evil, he worked with the good guys for his own survival.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tolkien did his world with one major Evil god, along with the lesser evil non-mortal beings who followed/were corrupted by him.

Morgoth was closer to a fallen angel than a god. He is Lucifer with the numbers filed off.

But yes, for there to be conflict between good and evil in a fantasy setting, there have to be evil deities

No, mortals are quite capable of being evil all by themselves.

 

[pemerton]

Hyboria is full of Gods and is pretty much the template for D&D ones. Crom, Set, Mitra, Bel, Jebbal Sag.

I have more than one Conan book on pantheons of the Hyborian world, one of which is currently in print (Nameless Cults). If the action of the story focuses on the mortal magical priests and not the actuality of the gods themselves then Eberron is a lot like Hyboria.

My point is that, in REH Conan, the gods play no role in the stories. There are demons (eg as in The Phoenix on the Sword) and there are magicians, but there is no evidence of divine action in the world (the closest we get to that that I can think of is The Hour of the Dragon, but to the extent that that story involves providential good fortune it is not mediated through priests/clerics).

This isn't an accidental feature of REH Conan either. It's about its modernist character.

In a Conan game there would be no need to have a cleric class distinct from other sorcerers, and no need to address the question raised in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

My feeling is that if you define all gawds as good, you need something that can reasonably oppose them. You can decide that your Great Evil Powers aren't gawds, but they need to exist and they need to have goals and they need to have at least something like a plausible path to those goals

<snip>

For me, this is about aesthetics of the setting more than anything else--too much unopposed good is just as boring (very) as too much unopposed evil.

for there to be conflict between good and evil in a fantasy setting, there have to be evil deities

On this I agree with @Paul Farquhar. A setting in which the divine is, per se, good, may still have opposition. LotR gives a fantasy example.

Tolkien did his world with one major Evil god, along with the lesser evil non-mortal beings who followed/were corrupted by him.

JRRT has no evil gods. It's a monotheistic setting.

Morgoth is a fallen angel. He has no power to create. He can corrupt, lure and dominate. It seems likely - in D&D terms - that he can cast spells, but not ones that create or conjure forth forces or beings. We know, for instance, that Melkor could not himself make the Silmarils. When Sauron makes the ring, he has to power it with his own essence (he can't create new power). The Black Captain can destroy things by speaking words of power and terror - but I don't think he can create.

I think this can all be done in D&D, if one wants to, without too much trouble.

Of course alternative approaches are possible that give evil gods a particular role - eg broadly Manichaean (eg Dragonlance); or law/from vs chaos/matter (eg 4e). But on those approaches it would still make sense to consider how evil gods relate to demons and devils. In a Manichaean setting, for instance, it doesn't make much sense to treat them as distinct metaphysical categories.