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

[Doug McCrae]

To add to what Voadam has said: both the cleric and the paladin are mechanical realisations of a Christian knight templar or warring bishop archetype or saintly king archetype. They are heavily armed and armoured. They heal with a touch; they abjure evil spirits; they conjure light in darkness, hurl their staves to the ground and turn them into serpents, and call down pillars of fire. Originaly they defaulted to good or lawful good - evil high priests were labelled "anti-clerics".

1974 OD&D is the most Christian edition of D&D imo. There are, as yet, no pagan gods. The cleric's spells and level titles are strongly influenced by, respectively, Bible stories and church hierarchy. "Lama" doesn't fit, but I think it was just Gary resorting to his well-thumbed thesaurus.

"One likely factor in the choice of the term 'cleric' over 'priest' is the latter* word's close association, in the minds of the authors, with Christianity. Both Gygax and Arneson were practicing Christians at the time." - Jon Peterson, Playing at the World (2014)

EDIT: *Peterson surely means "former" here, otherwise the sentence doesn't make much sense!

 

[Coroc]

The use of blunt weapons to avoid the prohibition on shedding blood is a 19th century myth that made its way into D&D.

or the bishop was expecting heavy armored opposition. While maybe not the favorite weapon of choice at that time, it would give you the edge versus mail also, where it clearly outperforms any sword.

 

[Umbran]

1974 OD&D is the most Christian edition of D&D imo.

Mod Note

And that's the point at which we need to walk this back off religion. A comment or two about historical points and what is or isn't a myth is fine. Judging what counts as "most Christian" is over the line.

So, folks, please turn away from this line of discussion. Thanks.

 

[Mirtek]

The restriction in early D&D had the mechanical reason to curtail their fighting abilities. They were too close to the fighter as it was and thus limiting them to weapons with smaller damage dice helped to keep them behind.

The cleric-adventurer is not a meek priest; he is a warrior who has spells and magical powers to aid him as he destroys the enemies of his god. Like Archbishop Turpin, he can use his powers to bless and support his comrades, and he is an able fighter in his own right, second only to a professional warrior in skill.
[...]
Clericadventurers are trained warriors; they fight better than trained men-at-arms, are comfortable with armor, and are bold enough to enter places no cynical mercenary would dare come near. They are warrior-priests, and it should show in their outlook. This warlike outlook is evident in a properly motivated cleric player character. Why does a cleric-adventurer go on adventures? Certainly not just to play medic; he could do that where it’s safe — people get hurt everywhere.
[...]
His motives are basically aggressive: he wants to destroy his god’s enemies, wrest away their wealth, and accumulate personal experience in a rapid but risky manner; and all for his god’s benefit. This is a cleric worthy of Turpin’s approval. After all, how meek can you expect a person who fights terrible monsters to be? Just descending into a dungeon is an act of uncommon boldness. The cleric-adventurer isn’t, and really can’t be, a meek healer. His purpose demands that he be a bold killer, a champion of his god.

 

[Voadam]

The restriction in early D&D had the mechanical reason to curtail their fighting abilities. They were too close to the fighter as it was and thus limiting them to weapons with smaller damage dice helped to keep them behind.

Partially. In OD&D all weapons at base did 1d6 damage. Clerics had fewer d6s for their HD than fighters across levels and could not use swords which meant they could not use magic swords which was the most common type of magic weapon, the most powerful magic weapons, and the big domain of fighters. Restricting their weapon selection meant restricting their magic weapon selection and designing the treasure charts to favor non cleric magic weapons.

 

[pemerton]

Partially. In OD&D all weapons at base did 1d6 damage. Clerics had fewer d6s for their HD than fighters across levels and could not use swords which meant they could not use magic swords which was the most common type of magic weapon, the most powerful magic weapons, and the big domain of fighters. Restricting their weapon selection meant restricting their magic weapon selection and designing the treasure charts to favor non cleric magic weapons.

I think this is an area where legacy design elements of D&D have lost touch with their original rationale.

 

[cbwjm]

So are evil gods necessary. I don't know if I've actually responded to the OP, but I would say that no, evil gods aren't necessary. The tone of the game might change depending on the gods that you have in the game and how they are portrayed, but removing evil gods and using the demon and devil lords as the stand in I think would create a very sword and sorcery style of game where the players follow the gods and strike out against the cults of the lower planes. You could even go full Eberron and remove all the gods and just keep religions (at least I think that's the gist for Eberron, I've read bits about it but never played in the setting). Some of these religions may even think they follow a god but without any actual avatars or divine visitations they can't be sure, it would be a matter of faith for some, for others their god is a demon masquerading as a god.

I think having a setting similar to the Conan mythos where there are a number of supernatural beings who are inimical to humanity would make for a cool, grim and gritty setting. What good gods exist are rarely, if ever, felt or seen by the populous but the religions exist because they have a promise of something better for the people who live in such a world.

 

[pemerton]

removing evil gods and using the demon and devil lords as the stand in I think would create a very sword and sorcery style of game where the players follow the gods and strike out against the cults of the lower planes.

<snip>

I think having a setting similar to the Conan mythos where there are a number of supernatural beings who are inimical to humanity would make for a cool, grim and gritty setting. What good gods exist are rarely, if ever, felt or seen by the populous but the religions exist because they have a promise of something better for the people who live in such a world.

I think this is all doable in D&D. It requires some thought about what to do with clerics and paladins.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So are evil gods necessary. I don't know if I've actually responded to the OP, but I would say that no, evil gods aren't 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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Minor point, because it has been years, but if this is the poet I think it is, then most historian's seem to agree that it was written by a woman.

I do remember from my college classes that the first fictional writing was a series of religious poems written in Mesopotamia by a Priestess. Though, names do escape my memory this many years later.

Was gonna make this point if no one else did. Particularly the idea that it was undoubtedly written by a man is absurd given what we know about ancient Mesopotamian female literacy, at least amongst royalty/priestesses.