New Design and Development: Pantheon

[Lord Xtheth]

I wish I could read the link, because even though I've been a D&D insider Subscriber for quite some time, my name and/or Password is not recognised AND I can't re-subscribe because my name and/or password is already registered.
DAMN YOU D&D CUSTOMER SUPPORT!!!

 

[Rechan]

I wish I could read the link, because even though I've been a D&D insider Subscriber for quite some time, my name and/or Password is not recognised AND I can't re-subscribe because my name and/or password is already registered.
DAMN YOU D&D CUSTOMER SUPPORT!!!

Enter your email instead of your name.

Also, someone posted the article on the first page.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Bahamut: Here's another example of a familiar, draconic face showing up in a somewhat new light. Maybe it was the Platinum Knight prestige class in Draconomicon that did it, but something convinced me a long time ago that Bahamut was a much cooler god of paladins than Heironeous ever was. Like Corellon, Bahamut's not just for dragons any more. He's the god of justice, protection, and honor, and many paladins of all races worship him. Many metallic dragons revere him as well, thinking of him as the first of their kind. Some legends about Bahamut describe him as literally a shining platinum dragon, while others describe him as a more anthropomorphic deity, who's called the Platinum Dragon as a title of respect. Exhorting his followers to protect the weak, liberate the oppressed, and defend just order, Bahamut stands as the exemplar of the paladin's ideal.

Seems like Paladine from Dragonlance has made it into the 4e core. Damn Right! Props to the greatest paladin god ever!! This "Bahamut" might not be called Paladine, but he is Paladine and anyone who is a DL fan or knowns anything about this god will be able to see it.

Of course Paladine was based on Bahamut but in DL he transcended his purely draconic generic D&D background and became the very creature that 4e designers are describing.

Paladine is a god who is generally perceived as draconic but not universally so. He is the god of honor, justice, and protection, is the god of knights and paladins. Though he can apear as the Platinum Dragon, he is just as likely to appear in another form among non-draconic worshippers.

::sniffle:: Its good to see you back buddy ::sniffle::

Heiron....i...who?



Sundragon

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd prefer pantheons but there's a long established tradition in D&D (and the fantasy fiction which inspired it) of the worship of individual gods, seemingly divorced from their pantheons, such as Crom, Mithras and Set in the Conan tales.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Jettisoning racial dieties....oh sweet jeebus they are reading my mind. I always hated the idea of racial pantheons and have only used them in FR because they were a part of the landscape and were tied so intimately to the spiritual background of the setting. However whenever I homebrewed I created a pantheon of gods who were known by different names and different forms by various cultures, races, species and peoples.

Good stuff from 4e.



Sundragon

 

[Henry]

I'll try to be careful with my language, but, um, that's because in real life there is no proof that any deity actually exists.

In D&D there is proof. Or at least evidence.

Oh, I understand what you're saying, but someone on these forums pointed out to me years ago, and it stuck with me, that existance of gods or god-like beings still doesn't mandate worship, because of all the other god-like beings running around, like wizards, or Clerics of philosophies instead of deities (which some DMs don't allow, I know), or Bards who can heal, too.

In other words, unless you do have beings who smite you if you so much as get their name or doctrine wrong, which bring its own different set of campaign problems, then because of the nature of mortals, and humans in particular, you WILL get different gods, sects, names, and heresies for even the exact same beings over thousands of years. That an Elf will call Bahamut "Bahamut" and a human will call him "Bahamut" doesn't ring my credibility bell.

(Then again, they probably wouldn't be using the same currency, either, but that's for another thread.)

Again, for the default game, it's fine - D&D out of the box, so to speak, needs some conventions to make it play, and if that includes a unified currency, religious pantheon, and languages, then so be it.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I'd prefer pantheons but there's a long established tradition in D&D (and the fantasy fiction which inspired it) of the worship of individual gods, seemingly divorced from their pantheons, such as Crom, Mithras and Set in the Conan tales.

In general I am in 100% agreement with you. However when it comes to the non-setting setting of core 4e D&D a interconnected pantheon would be a bad idea. I say this because pantheons are complex things that require a rich backstory if the pantheon is going to be more than a sloppy mishmash of gods (like REH's Hyboria...though I love the setting and the D20 game). The problem is that rich backstories are ultimately tied to a setting and the setting's assumptions. D&D 4e isn't going to have a setting so I don't see a intricate, consistant pantheon being a possibiliy or even preferable in this case.


Sundragon

 

[Sundragon2012]

Oh, I understand what you're saying, but someone on these forums pointed out to me years ago, and it stuck with me, that existance of gods or god-like beings still doesn't mandate worship, because of all the other god-like beings running around, like wizards, or Clerics of philosophies instead of deities (which some DMs don't allow, I know), or Bards who can heal, too.

In other words, unless you do have beings who smite you if you so much as get their name or doctrine wrong, which bring its own different set of campaign problems, then because of the nature of mortals, and humans in particular, you WILL get different gods, sects, names, and heresies for even the exact same beings over thousands of years. That an Elf will call Bahamut "Bahamut" and a human will call him "Bahamut" doesn't ring my credibility bell.

(Then again, they probably wouldn't be using the same currency, either, but that's for another thread.)

Again, for the default game, it's fine - D&D out of the box, so to speak, needs some conventions to make it play, and if that includes a unified currency, religious pantheon, and languages, then so be it.

I like how Dragonlance did it in regards to gods having different names dependant on the culture in question. Lets use Paladine:

Paladine

Other names:

Bahamut
Bah'Mut
Celestial Paladin
Draco Paladin
Dragonlord
E'li (elves)
the Great Dragon
the Platinum Dragon
Skyblade
Thak the Hammer (dwarves)
Valthonis


This is IMO as it should be.


Sundragon

 

[TerraDave]

SNIP
They are finally accepting that in D&D, were the gods actually exist, using our real-world structure—a multitude of unrelated, humanocentric, artificially created, culture-based pantheons—fails to satisfy any real scrutiny.

In the real world, the gods (assuming they actually do exist) don't commune with their preists or grant them spells, so we've been free to create them in our own image based on our various cultures. Each with a numerous number of names and domains, with worshippers subject to a vast array of conflicting dogma.

In D&D the gods aren't subjective; one doesn't really have the option to disbelieve in them or completely disregard their goals.SNIP

SNIP

If Corellon really exists and has taken part in the history of the cosmos, it would seem to follow that just about every intelligent creature would know of him despite what name they used or how they depicted him. It's equally possible that some dragon or even a reformed orc might even pay homage to him.

There is nothing wrong with this approach to D&D. But it is not the only way. There are many variations.

And, while we can't really get into this here, some people (like a majority) believe prayers are answered and certain individuals have divine power. I am just saying.

 

[(contact)]

(Wait, you mean Conan isn't from the Bible?!)

He is, they just called him "Samson."