[Article] Wandering Monsters - Wandering Deities and Demigods ;)

[delericho]

Yea, I don't think they're trying hard enough. Next week's WM column should be "D&D Next vs Pathfinder: Why We're Better".

I so hope they do this. But they should warn us first - I'd want to lay in a store of popcorn.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A hugely frustrating article, I'm afraid. James Wyatt writes about something he's very clearly an expert in... and says nothing of consequence. Basically, they're keen to make sure you can continue doing whatever you have been doing... oh, and they're retconning bits of the FR pantheon but doing it in such a way that if you did make the change then that's good too.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm jumpy from 4e's "Now everyone put the Raven Queen in all of your games!", but it's nice to hear that they're not taking a hard line with this. Pantheons, like cosmologies, can be extremely campaign-specific, and even table-specific. It's good to hear they're not trying One True Pantheon, too.

I mean, when I think about how I present gods in a Planescape game, and how I present them in my judeo-christian-inspired setting and how they're present in my Dark Sun game...depending on what kind of game I was talking about, I'd answer those questions in the poll a lot differently. So a diversity is the only way it's going to embrace that complexity, and it's good to hear that they basically agree with that position!

 

[SkidAce]

Of course, I am somewhat biased in this regard; I just finished reading The Primal Order (now available in POD and PDF), which I think is the greatest book on gods in RPGs ever written, and this is the view it advocates (which I wholeheartedly agree with).

It is the best.

Been using it since it was first published back in the day by a little known company called Wizards of the Coast (way before magic and before 3.0.)

 

[Larrin]

Religions in this context are much more easily defined from the top down, rather than the reverse.

Yes, thank you for putting it this way, because it explains (to me) why I haven't ever really cared for D&D's presentation of the pantheons. I always want to know "Who is this guy?", because once you have a personality or story for a godling, the form his followers take kinda falls into place a lot faster. For me, the bottom up approach leaves all the gods feeling like semi-interchangeable distant monoliths without form or function or like collectible trinkets that are only a pretty shell, hollow on the inside (for example: the 4e presentation of the gods in the essentials 'Heroes' books alway made me feel like the presented pantheon existed only as merit badges that you could wear if you occasionally kept 3 laws).

If I'm going to have a fantasy with gods in it, I want the gods to actually be in the fantasy! At the very least, they should be the focus of their own religion, right? Not their domains, not their laws, THEM.

But I can imagine this isn't everyone's desire, so I furthermore demand an article telling us we can have it both ways in 5e

 

[Mistwell]

I should create an "Onion" type newspaper that reports fake RPG news.

The Orc and Pie Gazeboteer!

 

[Talath]

I forgot how great of a job Eberron did in portraying different religions and this article reminded me of it. If you have multiple faiths, and they each grant miraculous powers, the focus should be on the nature of powerful beings, rather than if they exist or not.

 

[MarkB]

I forgot how great of a job Eberron did in portraying different religions and this article reminded me of it. If you have multiple faiths, and they each grant miraculous powers, the focus should be on the nature of powerful beings, rather than if they exist or not.

One aspect of Eberron's tight pantheons that I liked was the concept that it's perfectly alright, even as a cleric or paladin, to worship a pantheon as a whole, rather than devoting yourself to a single deity. I had a couple of characters who worshipped the Sovereign Host, and it was nice to play a character with a high degree of devotion who nevertheless wasn't defined by the narrow viewpoint of a single deity.

 

[Sonny]

I don't think it's a lack of things to talk about, as much as there being a lack of time to write really involved articles. D&D 5e is after all, mere months away.

 

[howandwhy99]

The hard part about deities and demigods is they are tied to the Alignment tracking mechanic and that isn't popularly used anymore. I think we should include it, but certainly alternate designs should be in place to. Maybe we could come up with mechanics that work differently for dealing with a multiverse filled with potentially omnipotent, omniscient, and ever-present entities as well as one that doesn't deny philosophies practiced as faiths. Monks are in D&D too after all, as I seem them a subclass of clerics, but they don't necessarily believe or follow deities. What are some other possible mechanics we can use for these practices which don't result in, at least solely, deities with combat stats?

 

[delericho]

I forgot how great of a job Eberron did in portraying different religions and this article reminded me of it.

Yep. "Faiths of Eberron", in particular, is an excellent book.

I also consider SKR's writings on some of the deities (first Greyhawn in Dragon and then Golarion in Pathfinder) to be among the best I've seen on the subject - really fleshed out those aspects of the settings really well.