The Misalignment of the Gods

[hamishspence]

It does say Extremists

Not all followers of Melora are unaligned. You could have different followers working in different ways, from more benevolent: aiding those invaded and persecuted by the more evil members of the empire, to more malevolent: infiltration, corruption, terror.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So Melora's followers were right there with the cults of Bane and Tiamat bringing down the Empires.

Only if you ignore the word "extremists." I think--without citing examples, which would be in violation of board policy--that we can all think of real-world examples of extremists engaging in violent activities that are contrary to most people's interpretation of their faith.

 

[hamishspence]

Faerunian equivalents.

Tymora (CG) is the Faerunian god of good luck and adventures.
Shaudakul (CN) is Faerun travel god
Waukeen (N) is Faerun trade god.

If we focus heavily on Tymora aspect, then we have a case for Good.

Melora's Faerun counterpart as God of Nature is Silvanus who is Neutral.
There is a CE Sea God (Umberlee) who might fit well with the more unpleasant aspects of Melora.

Bane seems to have subsumed other War god traits in PoL, which may make him appear less evil.

Evil 4th ed deities can still be follwed by Unaligned adventurers, who might focus on the least Evil aspects of the deity. You could have an Unaligned sergeant of Bane going up against a hobgoblin general of Bane, and their shared deity would not affect their enmity.

 

[Andor]

Only if you ignore the word "extremists." I think--without citing examples, which would be in violation of board policy--that we can all think of real-world examples of extremists engaging in violent activities that are contrary to most people's interpretation of their faith.

True. And 4e does allow for clerics and paladins to maintain powers even if they earm their gods disfavor, nonetheless one has to believe that the gods have some influence over the actions of their followers or what's the point of having them?

They might as well just say "Well there are some gods out in the astral plane for epic dungeon crawls, but they don't actually interact with the Prime in any way so there is actually no relationship between what gods exist, and what religeons exist in the game."

While that would be an interesting premise, it's understood that in D&D there is a genuine divine presence, even in Eberron where the gods are very distant. Otherwise it's hard to understand why, for example, the followers of Lloth forment trouble in Drow society rather than trying to strengthen it to their own benefit.

So I feel that if the actions of Melora's followers were significant enough to have been a factor in the destruction of two civilizations then they must have had the permission if not encouragement of their deity. In our world deities are sadly reluctant to tell their followers to 'knock it off' when they go too far, I like to imagine that fantasy deities pay a little more attention and intervene more readily.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So I feel that if the actions of Melora's followers were significant enough to have been a factor in the destruction of two civilizations then they must have had the permission if not encouragement of their deitys. In our world deities are sadly reluctant to tell their followers to 'knock it off' when they go too far, I like to imagine that fantasy deities pay a little more attention and intervene more readily.

While that's certainly a valid way to play, though, it's not in line with 4E core as written. The gods, with very rare exceptions (and those exceptions are almost exclusively evil deities) don't get involved in what their followers are doing. It's entirely an individual's choice how to interpret the teachings of the Church, and whether or not to follow 'em.

 

[Mallus]

The gods, with very rare exceptions (and those exceptions are almost exclusively evil deities) don't get involved in what their followers are doing. It's entirely an individual's choice how to interpret the teachings of the Church, and whether or not to follow 'em.

Doesn't Eberron have a similar take on religion?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Doesn't Eberron have a similar take on religion?

Yep. Eberron takes it a step further, actually. There's no proof of the gods, and they pretty much never appear directly (as opposed to the 4E core gods, who almost never appear, except under certain circumstances).

 

[SSquirrel]

I disagree. Avandra also says that change is inevitable and encourages people fighting back at those who try to take your freedom.
Where you see "revolution for the good" I see anarchy. No respect for the stablished order or hierarchy isn't what a good god should encourage.

Again, my interpretation of this Goddess. She's the opposite of Erathis.

If you're going to quote, quote fully. Avandra says: "Change is inevitable, but it takes the work of the faithful to ensure that change is for the better." Change is inevitable, but she isn't trying to overthrow everything. She sounds far more libertarian, which is based on personal freedom that doesn't encroach on other's freedoms. This reads to me as "good".

Also, if she was Erathis' opposite, wouldn't Erathis be Evil? *grin* But Erathis is a god of judges and thus neutral. The law cannot be biased.

EDIT:A bit more here

That's exactly what I'm saying. She's an evil goddess who purposefully killed entire swathes of innocent people and toppled two empires "just because," yet she's not labeled as evil because she doesn't hang out with Asmodeus on the weekends. It doesn't matter that she's a cruel butcher - she's not with "Team Evil" so she's unaligned instead. It's dumb.

She is the female goddess that embodies the violence of nature and the fury of the storm. How is that inherently evil?

"Yeah Ma Nature is a real hosebeast this week, tornado took out my farm" "Didn't it also take out 3 square acres of woods nearby?"
"Yeah but it's MY farm!"

Another couple of PHB quotes:

"A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities,
aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve
chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits
of both good and evil or because they see themselves
as above the concerns of morality."

"Protect the wild places of the world from destruction
and overuse. Oppose the rampant spread of
cities and empires. Do not fear or condemn the savagery of nature. Live
in harmony with the wild."

Mother nature has no morals, just action. The second quote says to me that Melora would be against strip mining, rapid deforestation and urban sprawl, but not so much that she would be against the spread of humanity, so long as they can live with nature and not just try to control it.

while extremists loyal to Melora aimed to bring both empires down.

The key word here is extremists. Not the middle of the road, followers of the exact word of the god. Those who believe in a very skewed version of her faith. Extremists of any god could have done the same.

 

[Andor]

If you're going to quote, quote fully. Avandra says: "Change is inevitable, but it takes the work of the faithful to ensure that change is for the better." Change is inevitable, but she isn't trying to overthrow everything. She sounds far more libertarian, which is based on personal freedom that doesn't encroach on other's freedoms. This reads to me as "good".

Also, if she was Erathis' opposite, wouldn't Erathis be Evil? *grin* But Erathis is a god of judges and thus neutral. The law cannot be biased.

The law cannot be biased about good vs evil? Nonsense, there are good laws and bad laws, meaning laws whose intention and effect are for the public good, and laws whose intentions and effects are against the public good. So the concept of law is neutral in that sense, however we don't hire judges with the intent that they are just as willing to do evil as good, merely that they are willing to judge all men equaly so that greater good can be achieved by giving even an unpopular figure a fair shake and making a popular figure pay for his crimes.

So a hypothetical (3e style) Paladin of Erathis would have to be able to deal fairly even with an evil figure, but he doesn't have to be blind to his nature.

Or in other words I think Law is a good concept. We invented laws to make life better for most people. The application of law must be unbiased to achieve good but the God of Judges should or at least could be good.

She is the female goddess that embodies the violence of nature and the fury of the storm. How is that inherently evil?

"A few unaligned people, and most unaligned deities,
aren’t undecided about alignment. Rather, they’ve
chosen not to choose, either because they see the benefits
of both good and evil or because they see themselves
as above the concerns of morality."

"Protect the wild places of the world from destruction
and overuse. Oppose the rampant spread of
cities and empires. Do not fear or condemn the savagery of nature. Live
in harmony with the wild."

Mother nature has no morals, just action. The second quote says to me that Melora would be against strip mining, rapid deforestation and urban sprawl, but not so much that she would be against the spread of humanity, so long as they can live with nature and not just try to control it.

The problem is that there really is no such thing as man living without attempting to control nature, because that is the nature of man. Beavers build dams. Humans build, shape and control their enviroments. When we've learned a local eco-system well, it often benefits from our activity. For example the Native Americans (often held up as the sterling example of living in harmony with nature) in most areas burned off the undergrowth every fall. This is good for the ecosystems. It encourages diversity of plants and animals and prevents the buildup of the large fuel stores that allow really destructive fires. It is however managing wilderness as surely as irrigation and terrace farming.

The middle age societies we like to model in fantasy games intensely governed their local forests and enviroment, often in ways we sometimes assume were modern inventions.

Now there is probably less of this in D&D because while european peasants had to put up with wolves, lions and aurochs, those are still not much compared to Grey Renders, Ankhegs and Green Dragons.

So I suspect that a Goddess who expects people to "not fear or condemn the savagery of nature." probably frowns on the walls, pallisades, moats and paving that any sane farming village in a D&D world would use just to keep the damm bulettes away. And where does that leave anyone who want to avoid both Melora's wrath and the belly of the beasts?

 

[pemerton]

where does that leave anyone who want to avoid both Melora's wrath and the belly of the beasts?

Given that beasts and wilderness in D&D have always been unaligned, I still don't understand why one would expect the god of those things to be different.