Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2837664" data-attributes="member: 1757">Ah, but "flawed and sometimes cruel to human understanding" is a bit different from the eeevil presented in our good ol' aligned deities, IMHO. Even the Homeric Olympians are embodiments of conceptions that we consider either "good" (Apollo, Athena, Hermes) or exigencies (Ares, Poseidon); it's their character as individuals that can be selfish and petty. This is a far cry from deities who actually represent evil ideals. Far be it for me to divert this thread into a discussion on mythopoeics (which I'll cease from now on), Campbell's term for the latter are "demons" or "monsters," of which there are plenty in D&D already.I do get where you're coming from; having "evil" gods that exist to be placated is just as valid as having "good" gods that exist to be venerated. The problem is when you have a choice between the two, at which point the raison d'etre for the evil gods is rendered slightly more problematic. Again, my issue was with the idea of evil gods "serv[ing] a need." If it's an exogenous issue where the gods just exist, well sure; nothing's preventing you from having an ALL-evil pantheon, or a 13 evil-1 good pantheon, etc. If, OTOH, we're talking about paring an existing pantheon down to a small one and keeping only the deities to cover necessary aspects of mortal life, then I think that the only reason to have all those evil gods with evil portfolios in stock is to have more different flavors of enemy. Since this is easily accomplished by varying mortal foes, I don't think it's necessary.</blockquote>

Verification