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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why does God need a starship?

 

[Mannahnin]

Wait, the rules don't all agree with each other in 1e? GYGAX!!!!!!!! (Great topic, btw).

I don't want to go back through the thread to see if it has already been brought up, and if it has, I apologize. But Deities & Demigods has a definitive stance which somehow is tucked away.

If you are a normal person, and for to the section about Clerics and Deities (pp. 9-10) and read it, you will notice that it doesn't say anything about alignment, just transgressions, the need to advance the deity's interests, etc. So, should be good to go, right?

NOT SO FAST!

On page 6, in the explanatory notes for the Deity's stat blocks, it explains alignment (although deities are not constrained to follow their alignment) and then the Worshipper's Align. It says that this is the general alignment for those who follow the deity (but not all). BUT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO CLERICS, because they have to match the deity's alignment. But it's phrased really badly. Here-

WORSHIPER'S ALIGN: This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This does not necessarily apply to the alignment of the deity’s clerics, which must be identical with their patron’s.

(Underline is mine)

First, propitiate? Hell to the yeah! But second .... necessarily? Why not just say "does not apply" without any possible caveat? Ugh.

To recap- according to this book-
1. Worshippers of a deity should look to the "WORSHIPPER'S ALIGN" section. Which has the alignment of the worshippers. Except when it doesn't (sometimes it uses classes or other things instead of alignment, like "chaotic neutral and thieves") Heck, Hera doesn't have alignment for worshippers - she is worshipped by wives and intriguers. Oh. Ignore that. Anyway, it doesn't apply to all worshippers.

2. Clerics, however, must match the deity's alignment!

"Not necessarily" I suppose grammatically refers to the fact that sometimes (but not always) the "Worshipper's Align" may exactly match the deity's alignment. So in those specific instances, the "Worshipper's Align" functionally does match the Clerics, who always match the deity. But yeah, that could have been written much more clearly.

That begs another question though. How does anyone know what alignment a God has?*

*Some of you old school players are likely screaming an answer at the screen. Bear with me a moment.

Alignment is a game mechanic. Sure, it defines the multiverse, but it's not like anyone really knows what their alignment is, right? People don't have "CHAOTIC GOOD" tattooed on their foreheads, do they?**

I would hazard a guess that it's part of the (abstracted and unspecified) ethos and moral teachings of the deity. And that part of the selection, training, and indoctrination process for making Clerics is a) ensuring that they are ethically compatible with the deity's teachings to start with, and b) that they are indoctrinated into adherence to that belief and moral structure.

 

[Voadam]

"Not necessarily" I suppose grammatically refers to the fact that sometimes (but not always) the "Worshipper's Align" may exactly match the deity's alignment. So in those specific instances, the "Worshipper's Align" functionally does match the Clerics, who always match the deity.

Well parsed. Still an unnecessary qualifier (could have just said a cleric must match their deity's alignment), but this construction makes some sense of it as written.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"Not necessarily" I suppose grammatically refers to the fact that sometimes (but not always) the "Worshipper's Align" may exactly match the deity's alignment. So in those specific instances, the "Worshipper's Align" functionally does match the Clerics, who always match the deity. But yeah, that could have been written much more clearly.

I agree that this is both the necessary and correct parsing of this sentence... I'm just pointing out that this a perfect example of how 1e's .... profligate verbiage can introduce complications that don't need to exist!

Here's what they wrote-
WORSHIPER'S ALIGN: This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This does not necessarily apply to the alignment of the deity’s clerics, which must be identical with their patron’s.

Here's an easy re-write-
WORSHIPER'S ALIGN: This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This may also include classes or groups of worshippers irrespective of alignment. However, clerics must always have an alignment identical to their deity regardless of what is allowed for other worshippers.

I mean, there are other ways to re-write it, but I am just throwing it out there. This is just a mess, basically, for two reasons-

First, a lot of the deities don't have "alignments" (or just alignments") in this- instead, it allows for worship by various groups (people seeking magic knowledge, farmers, etc.). So it isn't really the "alignment" of worshippers.

Second, it introduces possible confusion on the cleric issue!

I mean, I agree with you completely as to how it must be parsed. But then again, I have written repeatedly about the -10hp myth in AD&D, broken it down, traced the history, explained it, etc. And even after that, there are still people who are like, "Naw." They're wrong, but the overly verbose language admittedly makes it more confusing than it should be.


Maybe that's why I like to do those deep dives into AD&D.... it has the prolixity of a legal code.

 

[Umbran]

Spoken like someone with zero responsibility or accountability on their shoulders.

Mod Note:
And this was spoken like someone who forgot they will be held accountable for how rude they are to others.

You are done in this discussion Krusty.