D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Helldritch]

Vecna is literally a god of finding and keeping dark secrets. That has Trickery written all over it.

Well, he used to be in 3.xed. But he changed his mind in 5ed. Blame the designers...

 

[Voadam]

Well, they are quite ok from the PHB and DMG. It does say that when you build your pantheon, you should have only one god of each domain. Ease of use? Ease of building? Ease for the players? Who cares? One is more than enough and if you are not happy with that, homebrew time!

I think it is more accurate to say the DMG advocates making a god for each domain if you want to create a pantheon quickly, not that this is the 5e instructions for building a pantheon in general and anything else is homebrew. It gives lots of advice on different setups, the quick pantheon is only one.

DMG Page 10: "To quickly build a pantheon for your world, create a single god for each of the eight domains available to clerics"

and it says why "This approach gives you a small pantheon that covers the most significant aspects of existence, and it's easy enough to extrapolate other areas of life each deity controls."

The sample pantheon immediately after the quick pantheon advice has 20 gods with a number of them having multiple domains.

Earlier it says "Most D&D worlds have a loose pantheon of gods. A multitude of deities rule the various aspects of existence, variously cooperating with and competing against one another to administer the affairs of the universe."

 

[Voadam]

Well, he used to be in 3.xed. But he changed his mind in 5ed. Blame the designers...

He's still listed as the God of Evil Secrets on page 295 of the 5e PH. I think Greyhawk Vecna is still Greyhawk Vecna in 5e with only mechanical edition changes and not narrative ones.

I credit and blame the designers for the 5e language and rules messes in these areas and the choices they made.

 

[Helldritch]

I think it is more accurate to say the DMG advocates making a god for each domain if you want to create a pantheon quickly, not that this is the 5e instructions for building a pantheon in general and anything else is homebrew. It gives lots of advice on different setups, the quick pantheon is only one.

DMG Page 10: "To quickly build a pantheon for your world, create a single god for each of the eight domains available to clerics"

and it says why "This approach gives you a small pantheon that covers the most significant aspects of existence, and it's easy enough to extrapolate other areas of life each deity controls."

The sample pantheon immediately after the quick pantheon advice has 20 gods with a number of them having multiple domains.

Earlier it says "Most D&D worlds have a loose pantheon of gods. A multitude of deities rule the various aspects of existence, variously cooperating with and competing against one another to administer the affairs of the universe."

And on the other spectrum, a mono god world will have different orders revering different aspect of the god with different domains. Nothing is set in stones yet a cleric, in this example, chooses the domain but there it will not be a god that he will follow, but an order, a cult or an aspect of the deity. Same principle as with the polytheistic worlds. Just different words.

But yes, your assessment is correct.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. That statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what I am saying.

I said that vigilance is an important part of the Twilight domain. You have said no, vigilance is just a part of the twilight domain in this one instance, Twilight isn't the vigilance domain. That really does seem to be a distinction with no purpose beyond obfuscation.

All the human gods are written expressly as human gods. That's why the Non-Human gods exist as a different category of god. If you aren't a non-human god, you are a human god. This is basic stuff.

And where is that stated? Because there are non-human worshipers of Helm, and he is worshiped by "Guards and Paladins" nothing being stated about him being human only.

Look, I get that in practice Helm should be a human god, but AS WRITTEN that is not how he is presented. None of them are. This is one of the issues I have with the religions presented in Core DnD, there are basically no expressly stated human gods in the major lists of popular gods.

Look at your own list. See if you can see a pattern.

I did see a pattern. Gods of vigilance not getting a domain associated with gods of vigiliance. You are the one who tried to make this about darkvision. Because, last I check, Halflings don't have Darkvision, yet I included Arvoreen - Halfling Goddess of Vigilance on the list. Additionally, this isn't "the Domain of Darkvision" it is the Twilight domain, and it has more involved with it than darkvision.

A god of the stars should have that domain. As to why that god is not on the list? Because it's EXAMPLES. They expect the DM(not player) to use his brains and give it to him. Community gods wouldn't have it, and dwarven gods probably never. Not much twilight underground.

Because they are examples for the DM. They aren't going to be complete lists. If you think a god should have a domain not listed, ask your DM.

And here we get to the ACTUAL point. The reason that these gods I listed don't get that domain is because the list is only examples, only suggestions. They expect people to be able to put the domains where they make the most sense.

Though, if you actually pay attention to the given list, you'd find that you are... sadly off-base about who would and wouldn't get the domain. For example, You say "not much twilight underground" to dismiss the dwarves getting the Twilight domain. I've never seen the twilight domain as "any non-dwarf cleric" so I'm pretty sure that has no basis in the rules, but you know what else doesn't tend to happen underground? Light or Storms. There are two dwarven gods of Light and a Dwarven God of Storms, with the Light and Tempest domains respectively. You know, those famous underground thunderstorms.

Additionally, you would say no community gods get Twilight? Yet I've repeatedly mentioned Boldrei who gets the Twilight domain. Mishakal the goddess of Healing gets it too. As does Yondalla the general Halfling Goddess.


But, you don't really care about that stuff, because you've planted your flag. This is the DM's decision. All the stuff we are talking about is actually reasonable and allowed and expected... but it is the DMs decision to create these connections. But, let me ask you this Max... why does the DM get say in how my character worships? Beyond that, what possible reason would they have to tell someone "your religious idea isn't good enough for my table, I reject it" We've somehow circled right into a claim that the DM gets to decide everything, and therefore the player can't do anything without express permission. Which is a rather bizarre thing to run into AGAIN on a topic that really has little to do with the DM.

If you want nature, pick a nature god. A god of secrets/knowledge isn't going to have nature.

But how am I supposed to represent an evil cleric who has stolen secrets of nature for a foul purpose by worshipping a nature god? Then I didn't actually steal any secrets. It sinks the entire concept, for no reason other than you want these loosely defined domains to be strict laws.

 

[Maxperson]

I said that vigilance is an important part of the Twilight domain.

Correct.

You have said no, vigilance is just a part of the twilight domain in this one instance, Twilight isn't the vigilance domain.

Incorrect! Yet another up is down declaration by you. I never once, in any capacity, said that vigilance was ever a part of twilight and in fact said the exact opposite.

What I said was, and please follow it this time, that once twilight was a part of a single god of vigilance. Like sugar(twilight) is a part of cake(vigilance), but cake(vigilance) is not a part of sugar(twilight).

That really does seem to be a distinction with no purpose beyond obfuscation.

Only because you intentionally refuse to understand, like you do with any point that refutes you.

And where is that stated? Because there are non-human worshipers of Helm, and he is worshiped by "Guards and Paladins" nothing being stated about him being human only.

Look, I get that in practice Helm should be a human god, but AS WRITTEN that is not how he is presented. None of them are. This is one of the issues I have with the religions presented in Core DnD, there are basically no expressly stated human gods in the major lists of popular gods.

Riiiiiiight, Helm is a non-human god and is on that list.

But how am I supposed to represent an evil cleric who has stolen secrets of nature for a foul purpose by worshipping a nature god? Then I didn't actually steal any secrets. It sinks the entire concept, for no reason other than you want these loosely defined domains to be strict laws.

Stealing a secret doesn't mean that you can use the secret. If you want to be a cleric of nature, worship a nature god. If you want to be a cleric of a god of secrets, you get knowledge or maybe trickery.

 

[pemerton]

This argument seems very strange. We have rules which refer to "suggested" domains, and "examples" of domains for particular gods; and @Maxperson and @Helldritch assert that the meaning of those words is that certain domains are mandated and that the lists of gods and domains are exhaustive.

Bizarre.

 

[Maxperson]

This argument seems very strange. We have rules which refer to "suggested" domains, and "examples" of domains for particular gods; and @Maxperson and @Helldritch assert that the meaning of those words is that certain domains are mandated and that the lists of gods and domains are exhaustive.

That isn't what we have argued. The rules say to pick from the suggested domains. It's mandated that the player choose from the available suggested domains. The DM is the only one who has the power to add a domain to a god(suggested/examples), so if the player feels that a god who is not one of the examples should have a domain that isn't on the suggested list, he can make his case to the DM. He cannot just choose that domain for that god without that DM approval.

 

[Helldritch]

This argument seems very strange. We have rules which refer to "suggested" domains, and "examples" of domains for particular gods; and @Maxperson and @Helldritch assert that the meaning of those words is that certain domains are mandated and that the lists of gods and domains are exhaustive.

Bizarre.

That isn't what we have argued. The rules say to pick from the suggested domains. It's mandated that the player choose from the available suggested domains. The DM is the only one who has the power to add a domain to a god(suggested/examples), so if the player feels that a god who is not one of the examples should have a domain that isn't on the suggested list, he can make his case to the DM. He cannot just choose that domain for that god without that DM approval.

@Maxperson and me think alike on that one.
We never said a player could not make an appeal to a DM's logic and fairness. We just say that a player can not impose his non conventional choice of domain and god to the DM. Vecna is not a life domain god nor is Pelor a god of Death and Twilight. These choices would be ludicrous at best and would break versimilitude in the world.

And even if the choice could make sense. Like Hel or Anubis suddenly giving access to the "grave" domain, it should still be with DM's approval.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And you should. If you want to argue about the cleric, do it from the core perspective. Otherwise one that does not have that book can not argue with you, understand your point of view or simply constest it.

Unless you believe I am lying about the list of Gods presented for Tasha's Twilight Cleric, I don't see the point you are trying to make. I provided you with the information I was working from, cited my source, and even if you personally do not have the book, not only would I likely be called out by others but the various wiki's and digital tools can be checked to show that, for example, Helm does have the Twilight Domain in 5e and that Arvoreen does not.

So, actually, someone without the book still could discuss the facts, because this information is easily found online and anyone who is debating me on a digital forum has access to the internet.

Well, they are quite ok from the PHB and DMG. It does say that when you build your pantheon, you should have only one god of each domain. Ease of use? Ease of building? Ease for the players? Who cares? One is more than enough and if you are not happy with that, homebrew time!

And this "one deity per domain" is... fairly immediately destroyed simply by the PHB lists. Let us take the generic setting of the Forgotten Realms. Even not counting the racial pantheons (which do count) we have: Five gods of Nature, Three gods of Tempest, Eight Gods of Knowledge, Four gods of War, Seven gods of Trickery, Eight gods of Life, Six gods of Death and four Gods of Light.

Now, sure, one deity per domain is "enough" but we aren't speaking about "enough" we are speaking about if a god can have more than one domain (they can) and whether or not the list in the PHB is exhaustive (it isn't). Actually, there is not a single pantheon in the PHB that is one deity per one domain. So, not only is this clearly just basic advice for building a pantheon quickly and easily, and has no relevance on the topic, but it can't even be thought of as a standard for 5e, because none of the example pantheons follow this example.

Nope. World building and the choice related to it are solely on the DM's hands. And this is a firm control. What the player has control over is which domain he can take and which god related to "x" domain he will pick (if more than one).

So the game expects the DM to build out every single possible detail of the world, and players aren't expected to make any decisions? When you pick the Noble background you are just handed a list of every single noble family in the world to pick which one you are from?

Obviously not. There has to be some communication between the DM and the player, there has to be some give and take. So, we can move past the "DM can veto anything just because they stubbed their toe this morning" and actually discuss this as though the player is more than a spectator in the DMs stage play. The game doesn't list splinter sects for the gods, they barely give information on the gods, so this is an area that the player can write in, and there is no reason to assume that the list of domains and deties in the PHB is exhaustive and prevents domains from being mix and matched.

That is what you would like. Not what you get in the PHB. Not happy? Change it. But core, this is what you get.
Me too find that some choices were not... optimal? But I am not the designer. If you want to keep it raw, you got no say. If you want to homebrew, feel free.

And under what possible reading of 5e do we think that the suggested domains are locked in steel and unalterable? Not even in your interpretation, because you say "change it" but like Max you seem to think that player's are powerless to put forth these changes and must appeal to the only person with any power to make any decision.

You understand that it was a rough comparison? Gods have ways that only the designers know (or claim to know). And maybe there is an evil god of community somewhere... Or a god of community that is much more interested in war? I do not claim to know all the gods in all the setting. But at some point, you need to have a clear design choice. You may not agree with their choice, that is good (I don't either on many of their decision). But if you want to keep it raw, tough luck. You're stuck.

It wasn't even a rough comparison. It was a flat out red herring. And considering the design we see includes gods of Poetry and Song having the Light Domain, we can say that the clear design choice was... just make some things up that make some sort of sense. But, considering that epic poetry and song were sources of history, then I don't see why I can't make a follower of the god of Poetry who has the knowledge domain and an intense interest in history , instead of casting scorching ray and fireball while letting of blasts of burning light

Me neither. But in the previous post you mentioned Tasha's... So...

So... I can talk about more than one example at a time? I can reference more than one book per post? I'm not limited to only one DnD nook in my entire library?

I didn't think that I had call out the domain of light and a greek goddess as being from the PHB, and I didn't realize that I was somehow only limited to talking about a single book per post.

Yep. She is allowed only one domain. Though luck for her. Maybe she should try to be a stronger god?

Where is this stated? Where does it say that Mystra the Goddess of Magic and one of the most powerful gods of Faerun is WEAK. Or Bane. Or Chauntea. Or Kelemvor.

This concept of "only strong deities have more than one domain" is not only unsupported by anything in the books anywhere, but is blatantly false.

Nah... light is not fire. But fire can create light. Not the same thing.

Then why is the Light domain given fire spells? They are the only cleric that has fireball to my knowledge. And if fire creates light, then why can't a god of Fire have the Light Domain? It makes more sense than gods of poetry and gods of protection having the light domain.

See, this is the problem I keep having with this discussion. You make claims, when I ask you to support these claims because they contradict something that makes a lot of sense... you just restate your claim and shrug like there is no possible explanation for it, and therefore you don't have to support it.

If you conclude that the post is only saying:"reasons" then you clearly do not understand or simply do not want to understand.
Everything has to do with power and designer's decision. You can contest their decisions, but not what is written. Hey I would have kept stats penalties for all races if I had been a designer. But they're not in this edition. So I have no stat penalties because I try to play as close to RAW and RAI as possible. Nothing forces you to comply and fully aligned with the rules. But the rules are clear. Choose a domain, pick a god with that domain. End of choice. A player might say yes but... Then the DM is perfectly entitled to say: "Yes but that is the rule"

And if a table is not happy with some of the designers' choices, nothing, absolutely nothing prevents that table to change it. But then, they are no longer RAW nor RAI.

Maybe you don't understand my argument then.

My argument is that the designers gave suggestion, but that the design decision was to allow more freedom of choice. They didn't want to limit people into only having the single choice... and so they didn't. While at the same time giving a few examples for the people who don't have a strong concept of what they want to do.

But, you have claimed that these suggestions are rules, and that therefor things can be denied because they aren't explicitly written in the book, when the book isn't written to have roleplaying decisions locked into a set number of rules that cannot be broken.