D&D General The purpose of deity stats in D&D.

[Steampunkette]

I remember reading the old testament and there were several passages where other entites were labeled as god. Of course, that was the Lutherian German translation, or at least based on it. So the exact translation in different versions of the bible might differ.
But if someone wanted to, there is certainly a good reason to say that a mono-theistic god might just be a god that had good public relations (at least with one particularly area). In that case, stats might be needed to show this. (depending on whether the number of believers also affect the power of a good.)

Without getting into the weeds and into Religion:

There was a -ton- of crossover in religious ideas and identities across the region known as Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates and the fertile crescent which ran down along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea into the Nile Delta region.

Regional and National deities were structured into pantheons, torn apart when dynasties fell, and were rebuilt later. There was intentional and unintentional syncretization of deities in the various religions being mashed together into the same character, and more.

And those gods were referred to -as- gods in works written in that time period because that's just the word for what they were.

There may well have been some of that thinking involved, but there's also the game-side design practicalities to consider.

In the 0e-1e era alignment was a Big Deal. The deities were to a large extent representative of and core to their alignments, which makes a pantheistic system (with one or more discrete deities per alignment) immensely more game-useful and design-friendly than a monotheistic system where one deity has to try to cover all the bases.

I've run up against this myself when designing setting pantheons - if a society is monotheistic, how can that deity represent and support Clerics of all alignments at once? One alternative is that there's only one alignment of Cleric in that whole society, which isn't much fun for anyone. Another is that the deity says "Screw it, I don't care what my Clerics do or think as long as they worship me", which would quickly lead to the rather silly situation (see far too often in reality!) where Clerics to the same deity go to war against each other.

While that is, definitely, a potential issue, I would posit that breaking things down on an alignment could be done through the concept of the trinity for good alignments, and various evils and ills for bad alignments separate from the deity in question.

And since that sort of concept is -also- part of our binaristic culture, I think it's more likely they just didn't even think about it.

Seeing stuff like this, whether posted by you or anyone else, makes me immediately want to dismiss whatever else is being said in that post.

Fair. I was just dazzled by the amount of logical fallacies the poster threw one after the other which had nothing to do with what I wrote. It was bizarre to see once. But now I've got two nickels 'cause they replied to that post.

 

[cbwjm]

This is a good point. I'd imagine a monotheistic system could "cheat" - i.e. many different facets/aspects of the same deity.

From memory, the 3e god book had an example of a montheistic deity who encompassed all of the domains. I can't remember if that meant that there were different cults dedicated to her or not which focused on specific aspects.

 

[cbwjm]

Seeing stuff like this, whether posted by you or anyone else, makes me immediately want to dismiss whatever else is being said in that post.

You and me both, I normally just start skipping posters who calim such and such are X arguments, just not worth reading their posts.

 

[Maxperson]

Depending on the death god they actually might have to have line of effect and you get a save. Can't do it through a closed window.

3.0 DDG page 44:

Hand of Death
The deity can slay any living mortal creature.
Benefit: The deity points to any mortal within the deity’s sensory range and snuffs out its life. There must be an unbroken line of effect between the deity and the target.
Notes: This ability works like the destruction spell, except that there is no material component. The mortal is allowed a Fortitude saving throw with a DC of 20 + the deity’s Charisma bonus + the deity’s divine rank. Even if the save succeeds, the subject takes 10d6 points of damage, which may kill it anyway. If the attack kills the mortal (either through a failed saving throw or through damage), the mortal cannot be raised or resurrected afterward, except by a deity of equal or higher rank using the Gift of Life, Life and Death, or Mass Life and Death salient divine ability.
Suggested Portfolio Elements: Death.

Life and Death
The deity can kill a mortal creature almost anywhere. Likewise, the deity can bestow life upon any dead mortal being almost anywhere.
Prerequisites: Divine rank 6, Gift of Life or Hand of Death salient divine ability.
Benefit: The deity designates any mortal and snuffs out its life. Or the deity can designate any dead mortal and restore it to life.
Notes: This ability works across planar boundaries and penetrates any barrier except a divine shield. However, the subject must be in a location the deity can sense, either within the deity’s sense range or in a location the deity can perceive through its remote sensing ability. If the deity cannot see the subject, the deity must unambiguously identify the subject in some fashion, such as by reciting the subject’s time and place of birth or death, listing the subject’s notable or infamous deeds, or something similar.
If the deity chooses to kill a mortal, the ability works like the destruction spell, except that there is no material component or saving throw. The mortal cannot be raised or resurrected afterward, except by a deity of equal or higher rank using the Gift of Life or Life and Death salient divine ability.
If the deity restores life to a mortal, this ability works like the true resurrection spell, except that there is no material component and the amount of time the subject has been dead is irrelevant.
This ability cannot restore a creature to life against its will, but it can resurrect an elemental or outsider. It can resurrect a creature whose soul is trapped (as the trap the soul spell in the Player’s Handbook), provided the soul is not held by a deity of higher rank than the one using this ability.
This ability cannot restore life to a creature that has been slain by the Hand of Death, Life and Death, or Mass Life and Death ability of a deity with a higher rank.
Rest: After using either version of this ability, the deity must rest for 1 minute per level or Hit Die of the creature affected.
Deities whose portfolio includes death do not have to rest after using this ability.
Suggested Portfolio Elements: Death, supreme.

I forgot about the Hand of Death. Life and Death was the power I was thinking of.

 

[Alzrius]

From memory, the 3e god book had an example of a montheistic deity who encompassed all of the domains. I can't remember if that meant that there were different cults dedicated to her or not which focused on specific aspects.

That was Taiia, as I recall. If I recall correctly, she didn't have all of the domains, but still a lot. Rather oddly, the number of domains that her clerics could choose from was in excess of the number that she was supposed to have as per her stats, from what I remember.

 

[Lanefan]

While that is, definitely, a potential issue, I would posit that breaking things down on an alignment could be done through the concept of the trinity for good alignments, and various evils and ills for bad alignments separate from the deity in question.

And since that sort of concept is -also- part of our binaristic culture, I think it's more likely they just didn't even think about it.

Without knowing better, my guess would be that they did think about it (quite possibly to great extent) but couldn't figure out a way to implement it that would both a) work in the game as structured and b) not offend too many people, maybe even including themselves.

 

[Steampunkette]

Without knowing better, my guess would be that they did think about it (quite possibly to great extent) but couldn't figure out a way to implement it that would both a) work in the game as structured and b) not offend too many people, maybe even including themselves.

If they did that? Then they made the conscious decision to offend other cultures.

Since by necessity they would've had to examine why they or other people might find it offensive, but then go "Oh, yeah, with -our- religion that's a bad idea. But foreign religions are fair game!"

I feel like it's more likely that they just never considered the other cultures' religious beliefs as something that needed protecting or treating with respect. Like the person I was replying to, earlier, it was "Just Mythology" and not modern, practiced, religion to them.

Ancient stories rather than modern beliefs. A subtle cultural bias rather than an active decision.

 

[dave2008]

It is possible, still bugs me a bit though. Especially as FR apparently also has (in far less prominent role) Kiputytto, as a goddess of disease, but she was actually the goddess of pain and her name (properly Kipu-tyttö) literally means "Pain Girl," so they switched the portfolios.

It just feels sloppy. I always have much more respect for people who use mythology as inspiration, if it seems that they have at least some understanding of that mythology.

Personally, when I stat or give lore to a deity I go in with the assumption that all mythology and religion is to some degree wrong. It is not, IMO, fundamentally possible for mortals to understand gods, so the stories we tell about them will always be flawed. Gives me the freedom to freestyle a bit with the lore. To me that is more respectful than simply mimicking what others have written (not to mention historical most mythologies have many different versions of the same tales).

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, obviously, I mean. It's not like he was in charge of the company and had any kind of decision-making power on what was or wasn't published. Just kinda stood around looking pretty and occasionally wrote forewords!

Yeah, I covered that with the "Backlash from people who might be a danger to him and his company"

As far as bolding Mythology: Vishnu is literally statted out. That is an actively worshipped deity in the real world. Same thing with the deities of the Chinese Folk Religion that are put into the book.

Foreign religious figures were treated as fair game 'cause they're "Myths" rather than, y'know, Religious Figures of the Abrahamic religion which are treated as if they're real and thus something not to be messed with.

Because of the inherent biases of the writers and the company and the culture they're writing from.

See? Just like this.

Certainly not on this forum because it's a forum about D&D. Which is why we're discussing D&D related stuff. But that's a cute Strawman you've built to try and undermine my position with an Ad Hominem accusing me of being a hypocrite.

It's giving "Whataboutism"

Well I guess if you've got a few allegorical examples of some friends of yours who are okay with it being a thing no one anywhere is ever allowed to say anything different!

And certainly not allowed to use it as a jumping off point to indicate the inherent biases in TSR choosing to represent real world religious figures as entities you can kill -except- for the Christian ones.

Gee. It's almost like I'm not saying "Making Vishnu statted out is a bad thing" with no other basis for argumentation, and what I'm -really- saying is that the exclusion of the Abrahamic god, his saints, his son, etc, is a telling note as to what people consider "Real" or "Mythological" based on their inherent cultural biases.

Because, surely, protesting invariably results in a reduction of individual authors separately using specific terminology which shows their individual cognitive biases and we can see that in practice... um.

...

Have we -ever- seen that in practice?

I guess book burnings and bans in school libraries are an example, but those invariably rely on the majority attacking minority groups for some unfathomable reason.

No, not really. Because that's a whole -other- discussion from the actual thrust of my post, which you seem to have ignored in favor of whatever windmills you're tilting at over there.

Good for you!

The book didn't.

And that still represents a significant cultural bias... you get that, right? Making AO or the Tetragrammaton or whatever into an "Overdeity" who is more powerful than all other gods makes a political statement.

Cool beans. Still not the point. And also Epic Boons exist in 5e (if you're even talking about 5e) for 'Levels Above 20' in the 2014 DMG. Are they not in the 2024 DMG?

Ah, who am I kidding? This is, once more, another irrelevant aside to the argument I'm making! Gallop along, Gish!

Oh, -obviously- they would LOGICALLY have to be BEYOND Greater Gods. Because math, purely and exclusively.

It's not as if this is all a fantasy game into which we're pouring a bunch of cultural baggage and pretending it's totes cool and follows any kind of logical structure.

And there'd be no point! Because... um... R-...reasons?

Sure. That is a way that something could be implemented.

But it wasn't. Showing the biases of the writers and company. Which is the point.

View attachment 387811

IIRC, Jim Ward discussed this some on his post on this site about Deities and Demigods. I believe, again IIRC, there was discussion about including Abrahamic mythology. Can't remember the reasoning why it was excluded, but you probably have it mostly correct.

 

[dave2008]

Well from what I know at the time of Deities & Demigods being written, Gary was in Hollywood trying to get a Dungeons & Dragons movie made (or something of that nature)...the failed development of which eventually morphed into the Krull movie.

So Gary didn't have any input into that book and in fact reportedly (by Jim Ward) didn't like the book because it didn't include Quasi and Hero-deity transitional ranks.

Just wanted to clarify that Gary did have some input according to Jim Ward. The only thing specific I remember is that Jim wanted the cap for the greater goods to be 1,000 HP and Gary insisted on 400 HP.