The Mortal God

[A'koss]

I've gone back and forth on the issue over the years - in some campaigns it made sense to have "killable" gods while in others it was better that they operated far, far above mortals.

I would be sanguine about it if the PCs had to take extraordinary measures, undergo a whole array of adventures to find the appropriate artifacts, destroying their most holy sites & relics and finding some way of stripping away at least some of their divine power before challenging them (eg. the Obelisk, the Earth Stone, etc.). That could be a worthy final adventure for 30th level characters (and possibly used as a means for their own ascension).

 

[TerraDave]

Gods being challenged by mortals - and killed by other gods (Balder, anyone?) - is a staple of mythology. But for a mortal to kill a god? Outwitting is fine but killing isn't.

Exactly.

And even if you "kill" a god, why would it be destroyed?

In D&D, lets say a dragon kills a 5th level rogue, to take a random example. There is all sorts of ways that mere mortal can come back. And presumably that will be the case in 4th ed. Shouldn't gods have the same priviledge?

That usually is the case in mythology. You can't keep a good god down long. Balder is the extreme case. But even he comes back. Eventually.

 

[SPECTRE666]

We have had a few hints (actually more then hints) that 4thed will, at some point, feature statted up gods, all ready for a fighting, and maybe even killing.

This has a long history in D&D. What do you think?

Bring on Cyric, because you are going down homeboy!!!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In a setting with multiple gods, I think it is okay for an epic level group to challenge a god and defeat him. If I don't like it in my campaigns, I can still say that means only banishment or just killing a mere avatar, or just halt the campaign before the PCs have a level to manage that.

If the god actively meddle in the affairs of men, the men should be able to meddle with the gods. If the gods are distant entities, possibly just abstract concept, you probably can't kill them (though maybe you're able to erase all memory of them? Kill or convert every believer in them?) either, but since you don't meddle directly, who would really "need" to kill them?


A level cap bothers me little. How much innovative adventuring material really makes sense with the power of 30th level or higher PCs? I certainly don't want the adventures feel like lower levels one but with bigger numbers (Diablo II "feel").
Protect Caravan, Clear dungeon, find out who killed Vallance, bring down local cult, stop a loose demon, rescue the city from a supernatural attack/catastrophe, find more information about the reason of the catastrophe, bring down the cultist responsible for it, hunt down the devil/demon/dragon behind it. That should cover the first 20 levels of the campaign. The next 10 levels become already difficult to guess for me, but I assume it involves a lot of plane-hopping, securing nations, manipulating the gods, and if the culmination is bringing down an evil god, I am fine with it.

 

[kennew142]

I prefer the Eberron model where gods are distant, unknowable, and may not even exist at all.

That said, I have no problem with a 30th level character deciding he wants to supplant the God of War either.

edit: it all depends on the campaign. Since it's easier to remove than to add, I vote "stats needed".

I am in agreement. In no campaign I've run (since 1979) have gods had stats. Not only could they not be killed, but there was never any proof of their existence. As for followers, you can't call it faith, if you have proof.

 

[Voadam]

Conan killed the Elephant in the Tower.

I like the Norse model that gods can fight and die.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My deities are just mortals with extra powers who don't die of old age. Immortal mortals, basically. They're not even the supreme power of my setting. Very killable for epic characters.

But I could very easily see other worldviews where gods are distant (like Eberron's pantheon) or where gods are superior and essentially unkillable (like Cthulhu).

I certainly don't think deity stats and things of that ilk belong in the core rules, given how few people ever play a game in which they fight a deity.

 

[delericho]

That said, I'd rather have deities with stats. This way, if I want statless deities, who function entirely behind the scenes or as plot devices, I can ditch the stats without problem.

Yeah, I agree with this. Anyone who doesn't want the stats can just not buy "Deities & Demigods" (or equivalent), and ignore the possibility of deicide.

Stats for the gods is an especially good thing in a game with an actual level cap, since this means there is a fixed point for "the greatest of mortal heroes", so you can pitch the stats for the gods to be a bit beyond the capabilities of those 30th level heroes. Which would mean that killing a god would be possible if the characters are really good and the characters are really lucky, and they do everything right. Which is as it should be.

 

[Mercule]

Some classic fantasy molds require that deities are mortal (e.g. Lankhmar). Some require that they aren't. Both have a place in D&D (FR vs. Eberron). There is nothing wrong with either. I say, leave 'em statted.

 

[Arnwyn]

Generic: Include the stats, since it's easier to ignore them than it is to create the sick amount of stats a god would likely require.

Campaign world: Include or don't include, as per the campaign world.