D&D 5E (2024) Let's make 5e specific setting, starting with a pantheon

[Omand]

You mentioned the wrong one.

Hieroneous-paladin
Ehlonna-rangers

FR is fairly explicit as well.

Original classes pre 3E.

Please re-read the second sentence of my post.

I do not deny that there are deities in both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms that track directly to a class. But your point appeared to be that the two worlds were built (in so far as deities are concerned) to have one to one links between classes and deities as a first principle (as in, that is why they were created). I just don't agree with that and believe what I am posting disproves your position.

St. Cuthbert and Pholtus were the first two deities created for Greyhawk by Gygax when he realized his players wanted that type of support (he told the story multiple times, including in his Col Playdoh thread here I believe, and it is referenced on the Wikipedia post about Greyhawk Deities). Neither really tracks to a class.

The original list of Greyhawk Deities was as follows (same link as above):

Good: St. Cuthbert, Pholtus, Heironeous, Ehlonna, Trithereon, Zagyg
Neutral: Celestian, Fharlanghn, Istus, Obad-Hai, Boccob, Olidammara
Evil: Hextor, Iuz, Erythnul, Incabulos, Nerull, Ralishaz, Wastri

The 1983 WoG boxed set increased the deity list to 50 total, which includes all of the deities I mentioned in my original example/post.

As to FR my, admittedly basic, understanding is that the world existed before D&D to allow Ed Greenwood to tell stories. He translated it to D&D eventually, and created some mythology to tie the world together. Amongst the original deities were Selune, Shar and Mystra. Only one of those three links to a class, and it can be argued that Azuth is actually more the god of magic-users than Mystra, since she is magic itself.

Anyways, I am belabouring a point here which is derailing the thread. You can believe what you want.

Cheers

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Did an update, added what deities were already submitted. Also, glad to see discussion started by this thread, tho I fear me trying to join it would be seen as defensive, so I will refrain from that.

An addition from me:

• Name: Odin
• Titles: The All-Father
• Domain: Arcana
• Followers
  • Background: Rune Carvers, Sages, Scribbes
  • Class: Wizard
  • People: Mountain Dwarves, Goliaths, Kor
• Setting taken from: Mystara
• Odin claims mastery of all magic, both the knowledge of which he learned from hanging of Yggdrasil as well as all magic he invents and develops, and if a form of magic is created he does not know, he will venture to learn it at all costs. This has endeared him to Wizards, who too pursue magic through rigurous study.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

does anyone else see the irony in creating a 'new' 5e pantheon entirely out of old gods?

Not at all.

It's precisely in keeping with what 5e is.

 

[Azzy]

does anyone else see the irony in creating a 'new' 5e pantheon entirely out of old gods?

Wasn't that the intention behind 4e's default pantheon?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

“We demand a new thing. But it must be exactly the same as the old thing.”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

“We demand a new thing. But it must be exactly the same as the old thing.”

And then...

"No. This is too much exactly the same as the old thing. Get rid of it and give us a new thing."
"No. This is too new. It's not exactly the same as the old thing. Get rid of it. Give us something exactly the same!"

It needs to be exactly the same but with none of the faults and more of the awesome and also those things you think are faults are features, and those things you think are features are faults, but we also think the faults are faults, and we think the features are features.

Hence why I don't really give two figs about "traditionalism" except as covered in post--that is, the physical appearance, typesetting, graphics, etc. of the book. People will 100% guaranteed ALWAYS, A L W A Y S, complain about things being both too new to ever be acceptable and too unchanged to be worth bothering.

The one and only set of priorities that should be on the designer's mind when designing the game are:
1) What design goals do I want to achieve with these mechanics?
2) Did I achieve them?
3) Could I achieve them better, without sacrificing other values in the doing?

Making the game look and feel familiar is almost totally down to aesthetics. Making the game actually RUN, making it do the things the designers built it to do, is the actually difficult part. Aesthetics can be changed into absolutely anything you want, ever, because you just draw something new or have the writers rephrase it or whatever. Mechanics cannot be absolutely anything you want, because lots of combinations of mechanics straight-up don't work, or work at cross purposes, or actively run away from the goals you're pursuing.

"Feel" is almost trivial. Sure, it'll probably take two or three cycles to get it right--but you'll nearly always get there, usually sooner rather than later. Math? Math is hard. Really really damn hard. And it's an unending frustration that folks constantly underestimate this.