D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

So I'm going to do something that you do not do and own my mistake. Reading twilight domain closer, it does say the following,

"The darkness can also bring terrors, but the gods of twilight guard against the horrors of the night."

So there is some measure of vigilance in there. I don't think every god of vigilance is a god of twilight, but I was wrong. That leaves us with the rest not being on that list because the list is necessarily incomplete. Get the DM to add twilight to your vigilance god if you want to pick it.

Thank you for saying you were wrong. Didn't need the insult along with it, but hey, progress.

Now, let me just run something past you. I go to my DM and I say "Hey, I'm running a Elven Twilight Cleric of Angharradh who is a folk hero of his village for helping them survive a season of goblin raids." How am I doing anything wrong?

Helm is expressly a human god(not being a non-human god). He does have worshippers of all races, but very few as those races tend to worship their own gods.

Alright, find me a quote calling him a human god. To be EXPRESSLY a human god, then it has to be EXPRESSED, AKA said directly. So, find me a place where it says "Helm, the human god" or "The Human God, Helm," or anything like that.

Because not being a expressly non-human god doesn't make you an expressly human god.

Because they don't have to state the obvious. He is not a non-human god, therefore......................human god.

I agree this is a logical conclusion, that's why I homebrewed many of these beings to be Human Gods in my homebrew setting. But, they are not expressly human gods.

Let's try this though, I know we can find non-human worshipers of Helm. You know we can too. So, let's inverse this. Find me a non-elf (including non-half elf) worshiper of Corellon. Because I think you'll find that there are basically never if not actually zero non-elf worshipers of the Elven Pantheon. But, there are explicitly canonical non-human worshipers of the "generic gods" For example, I'm sure that Mystra has worshipers of all races, but she isn't listed as a non-human goddess, so by your logic she is a human goddess. Despite that flying in the face of the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Because he is not a god of nature. You just have to suck it up and accept that his domain is not trees and tweeting birdies.

I don't want trees and tweeting birds, I want the ability to cow and command beasts, the ability to summon a thorny vine to rip and tear my enemies. Ect. You are putting forth a barrier that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was about to reply to your other post but I saw this one and it now dawns on me.
The problem we have is that you have a totally different play style from the average.

You seem to expect that a player has total freedom in creating a character and that the DM is under the obligation to accept the what the player made as long as the player has some good background/justifications.

From what I read of @Maxperson posts history, we play a lot like the old school that 5ed is trying to emulate.
1) A DM is the sole authority on his world campaign.
2) A player has total freedom on his character creation as long as they are within the campaign's world parameters.
3) No deviation from 1 or 2 is acceptable unless the DM approves it.
4) Stuff from other books is not immediately integrated. Only parts of them are integrated if the DM deems it ok.
5) A player can try to change something in the game world if the DM approves it for story reason. These are rare, but still possible. But they will never be imposed on the DM.

There are more differences but that should be it for character creation.

And this is what is tainting your argumentation. At least, this is what I believe. You fail to acknowledge that your playstyle is not ours (and in my area, you would be the only one doing this in about 50 other tables that I am aware of...) This means that a lot of what you consider normal and desirable at your table is outlandish and alien to us. This taint so much your argumentation that you can't see that, tough it can work from your perspective, it would not from ours.

Yes some table will offer more leeways in character creation, but they're as RAW as you might think. I usually go for a strict interpretation of the rules and stay as close as RAW as possible because I do a lot of live play in our Fridaynight Dungeon (about once or twice a month depending on my work schedule). This means that I am used to be watch by quite a few people and If I do not stick to RAW, I have to explain why I do such and such at the end of the session. This taints my arguments as I try to stick to core books for argumentation simply because not everyone have the other books. This is helpful in reducing the learning curve to a more managable form as I have young DM in my area (12 is the youngest, but I have heard of a few of 11 now...) but since my Fridaynight Dungeon is usually ending around 10 pm, it does not leave time to discuss a lot beyound the rulings I made and a few rules in the core. Adding more than the core would be a nightmare. And this is tainting my way of discussing rules. We are probably victims of our playstyles contaminating our arguments.

So, do you provide a list of every cult of every god in your setting? Do you provide lists of every noble family? Are the sheriffs of every village already pre-planned?

This is my problem with point #3. I'd bet fairly heavily that you don't. I'm not saying that I allow players to do whatever they please without restraint. But I don't demand they get my approval before even coming up with a concept. And I don't shoot down their concept unless I actually have a good reason for it.

If your "old school" style is that the only reason you need is "I am the DM" then yeah, I don't accept that. I prefer having a reason beyond "I have the authority to say no, so I said no". The god of the sun can't be the god of darkness because that is nonsensical? Okay, I can see it. That's an actual reason. But you haven't been providing actual reasons, you've been saying "You can only do that with permission".

Well, like I said, if you take the extreme view I know Max does, then you need permission to do literally anything in DnD. You need permission to be human. You need permission to play a cleric. You need permission to use the PHB. You need permission to prepare your spells. You need permission for literally anything and everything. So, if your entire point is "I believe you need the DM's permission" ok, well, that's a pretty low bar to clear. You need the DMs permission to play DnD at all. So, if that is your only rebuttal then we are done here, because it isn't a rebuttal.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, let me just run something past you. I go to my DM and I say "Hey, I'm running a Elven Twilight Cleric of Angharradh who is a folk hero of his village for helping them survive a season of goblin raids." How am I doing anything wrong?

I can't really answer that without knowing what the DM has said in the past. If your DM has said, "Go hog wild making characters. Feel free to add or change things," then that's fine. If not, you are stepping on his toes because it's up to him to decide which gods are in the world and what domains they have if he's not using the PHB default.

Alright, find me a quote calling him a human god. To be EXPRESSLY a human god, then it has to be EXPRESSED, AKA said directly. So, find me a place where it says "Helm, the human god" or "The Human God, Helm," or anything like that.

Meh. It's not worth the effort. If you want to believe that there are non-human gods, and gods that aren't non-human, but also aren't human, then go for it. I can't stop you.

Let's try this though, I know we can find non-human worshipers of Helm. You know we can too. So, let's inverse this. Find me a non-elf (including non-half elf) worshiper of Corellon. Because I think you'll find that there are basically never if not actually zero non-elf worshipers of the Elven Pantheon. But, there are explicitly canonical non-human worshipers of the "generic gods" For example, I'm sure that Mystra has worshipers of all races, but she isn't listed as a non-human goddess, so by your logic she is a human goddess. Despite that flying in the face of the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

I don't know if there are official examples, but I know I did it once. I remember it being an elven god, but heck if I can remember which one.

Edit: I found a section in the 2e Monster Mythology for priests of different races. It didn't name humans by name, but it was for races outside of the non-human ones the deity governs, so humans would be included.

I don't want trees and tweeting birds, I want the ability to cow and command beasts, the ability to summon a thorny vine to rip and tear my enemies. Ect. You are putting forth a barrier that doesn't actually exist.

Something else also doesn't exist. Vecna as a god of nature with the nature domain.

 

[Helldritch]

So, do you provide a list of every cult of every god in your setting? Do you provide lists of every noble family? Are the sheriffs of every village already pre-planned?

1) Yes
2) Depends on which campaign world and region. In a few the answer is yes.
3) Depends again. For a 1st level party the answer is definitively yes. For a higher level start. Probably not.

This is my problem with point #3. I'd bet fairly heavily that you don't. I'm not saying that I allow players to do whatever they please without restraint. But I don't demand they get my approval before even coming up with a concept. And I don't shoot down their concept unless I actually have a good reason for it.

And here you go again. You assume the worst possible outcome. I did say that I would not allow ludicrous choices but not that I would shut down a player for the fun of it.

If your "old school" style is that the only reason you need is "I am the DM" then yeah, I don't accept that. I prefer having a reason beyond "I have the authority to say no, so I said no". The god of the sun can't be the god of darkness because that is nonsensical? Okay, I can see it. That's an actual reason. But you haven't been providing actual reasons, you've been saying "You can only do that with permission".

Here you go again. But I do not need to explain everything to players as we have already voted on session zero what direction and campaign type we will go. If you want to change your approach, you will have to get not only my approval, but that of the other players. As I said, your own experience taints your views and you seems unable to assume good faith.

Well, like I said, if you take the extreme view I know Max does, then you need permission to do literally anything in DnD. You need permission to be human. You need permission to play a cleric. You need permission to use the PHB. You need permission to prepare your spells. You need permission for literally anything and everything. So, if your entire point is "I believe you need the DM's permission" ok, well, that's a pretty low bar to clear. You need the DMs permission to play DnD at all. So, if that is your only rebuttal then we are done here, because it isn't a rebuttal.

No, never did that. You did. You assumed. And you ignore evidence to the contrary because you assume the worst and not the best.

D&D and RPGs are cooperative games where the players and the GM are trying to build something together. If someone would come at my table and force upon me ludicrous ideas as what you have proposed or hinted at (or at least implied that you would do) then that player is breaking not only the fun of the DM that worked hard to create a game for the players, but the fun of the other players that are abiding by the table contract.

A player as no right to impose his view onto other players and to the DM. All your arguement tells me that you would might allow that if the player had a "good enough" reason.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can't really answer that without knowing what the DM has said in the past. If your DM has said, "Go hog wild making characters. Feel free to add or change things," then that's fine. If not, you are stepping on his toes because it's up to him to decide which gods are in the world and what domains they have if he's not using the PHB default.

So, before I am allowed to make a character, I need to seek DM permission on what types of characters are allowed. I need permission to know that nobility exist, that soldiers exist, that merchants exist, that fighters exist, that clerics exist, that druids exist.

Which, hey, you'll probably say that "well you can always just assume the default" but then we get into some weird territory. For example, if I wanted to play a Dwarven Cleric... I can only play a knowledge cleric, under your model. Unless I worship a human god for some reason (again, using your model where ever deity not specifically called out to be non-human is human).

So, personally, I just don't see the point in this. What is the point of erecting these barriers whose sole purpose seem to be giving excuses for DMs to control these aspects of your character creation process? If the DM has a problem with my character, they can ask me about it. I don't see the point in going hat in hand to the DM to get permission first. That seems like wasting both of our times.

I don't know if there are official examples, but I know I did it once. I remember it being an elven god, but heck if I can remember which one.

Edit: I found a section in the 2e Monster Mythology for priests of different races. It didn't name humans by name, but it was for races outside of the non-human ones the deity governs, so humans would be included.

So, the best you could do is an acknowledgement in 2e that other races might worship a god of a different race. Which would likely include humans, who were not mentioned by name. Meanwhile, we have explicit examples of non-human worshipers of the generic FR deities, who are common enough that it is widely accepted that they exist. From as recent as 5e.

I think that rather summarily shows the point I was making about how WoTC intends deities like Helm.

Something else also doesn't exist. Vecna as a god of nature with the nature domain.

Of course he isn't a god of nature. He is a god of secrets. But secrets include secrets about nature, and that could allow a cult to form around the nature domain.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1) Yes
2) Depends on which campaign world and region. In a few the answer is yes.
3) Depends again. For a 1st level party the answer is definitively yes. For a higher level start. Probably not.

I'm a little confused, how is a 1st level party defintively getting a list of every sheriff in every village in the entire world, but a higher level one isn't? Do you make different types of worlds?

Or, were you misreading my question and only assuming sherrifs for like one or two villages?

In fact, looking at your answer to #2 it seems very likely that's exactly what you did. Because "region" shouldn't matter. Every noble family is every noble family. The ones who lost their fortune and have been forgotten, the ones three kingdoms over, ALL of them. After all, the DM has total and complete control over world-building and I must ask permission to use anything they have built and build nothing myself. So, if I want to play a Noble character, who could be of any race or level of wealth, then you need to have created them.

I mean, let's take the cults just super fast. I'm going to make a lot of assumptions, but using only the core books. For cults we can have 11 demonic cults for named demon Lords, 15 for Archdevils, we'll say one each for the four elements, 6 for the fey, 5 for the Great Old Ones, and then at least one cult each for each domain if we have a 1 domain per god set up, which is another 8. Which means at a bare minimum you would have to provide your player with a list of 49 cult organizations let's round up to 50 because Medusa form cults before they are created, and at least eight churches. Likely more, because there is rarely a single schism in religious organizations.

So, JUST for the acolyte you would need around 58 organizations made ahead of time. That seems unreasonable to me, but you said "Yes, I do that" so you have created everything that can exist, according to the core book, for any player to play... and after making that much you are going to find a player who has an idea they are excited about that you didn't think of. Because of course you are.

And here you go again. You assume the worst possible outcome. I did say that I would not allow ludicrous choices but not that I would shut down a player for the fun of it.

And yet you refuse to give reasons. You actively push back and have based your entire defense on "because I'm the DM" and seem almost offended at times when I say "being the DM isn't a reason."

If you have a reason, let's discuss that. If your entire point is that you MIGHT have a reason to deny their character... well, duh. Of course there is always a theoretical reason to deny something. But generally denying it isn't the only solution. Of course, pushing for something other than "I'm the DM and I said" generally gets me labeled as entitled, because I advocate for things I want and don't just kowtow to "Because I said" as a reason.

Here you go again. But I do not need to explain everything to players as we have already voted on session zero what direction and campaign type we will go. If you want to change your approach, you will have to get not only my approval, but that of the other players. As I said, your own experience taints your views and you seems unable to assume good faith.

How is this about "changing the approach" or the campaign type? IF we all agree to play a thieve's guild, then is myself playing a trickery cleric somehow breaking that agreement? He's still part of the thieves guild, and we didn't say we were all playing rogues.

And, if we are all playing rogues... I can still be an acolyte who was raised in a splinter cult and turned to a life of crime. That doesn't impact the agreement either.

And if we are at the point where the entire part gets to vote on my race, class and background... why does that need to be a group decision? It isn't that I'm not assuming good faith, it just seems to me that what you are demanding goes so far beyond normal play that I'm left scratching my head.

No, never did that. You did. You assumed. And you ignore evidence to the contrary because you assume the worst and not the best.

D&D and RPGs are cooperative games where the players and the GM are trying to build something together. If someone would come at my table and force upon me ludicrous ideas as what you have proposed or hinted at (or at least implied that you would do) then that player is breaking not only the fun of the DM that worked hard to create a game for the players, but the fun of the other players that are abiding by the table contract.

A player as no right to impose his view onto other players and to the DM. All your arguement tells me that you would might allow that if the player had a "good enough" reason.

Well, other than an example that I never gave, you have not once talked about what ideas I've had that you find "ludicrous". How am I supposed to assume good faith on your part when you just keep making blanket accusations, then when I pull one of those "ludicrous" ideas out... you accuse me of bait and switching you because that idea is actually reasonable, unlike all my others... which included that idea.

Sure, maybe the vecna idea is unreasonable, but the point of that discussion is that the only argument Max can muster against it is "that isn't how the game works" which is a pretty weak argument. It isn't like how or who the character worships isn't just fluff. There are no mechanics involved in it. But most of the rest of my proposals you've dismissed out of hand with no reasoning that makes any sense.

 

[Helldritch]

@Chaosmancer
1) A first level party will be limited to a small region with may two or three villages. Important NPCs will be automatically defined. The rest? Who sincerely cares? The group might not even leave their first village if we go dungeon delving...

2) I did not ignored your ludicrous question. Thr whole world of 1st level characters is their small region. No one absolutely no one would ever do that which you implied. Just asking such a non sense shows that all you want is to "win" and not debate.

3) For the cults, yes, those religions allowed to the players will be fully described. And I mean fully. But those that are not, will simply not be available. Reasons? Continuity, believability and a certain sense of logic. Demonic cults described for the players to play one? No F****** way. No evil PCs ever. Been there, done that. No thx.

4) For my base campaign, I need exactly 9 churches. Not one more. In my second world of Dunadoria, I need exactly one. Well two, but the second is only for evil.... But if I needed the 58 that you claim, it would take me about three hours to make them. About a paragraph each and if one is chosen by the player, I would add more description asap.

5) I gave more than "reasons" and "I am the DM". These thing are defined with all the players at session zero and I do introduce players to the game world with what is allowed or not. I was pretty clear on that. If you would come at my table, been briefed on the world and still try to impose a Vecna worshipper with the nature domain, you would simply receive a big "NO!" as an answer.

For the thieves guild and whatever...
I really fail to see the logic behind your point. You will at session zero be briefed on the world and orientation of the game. Why on earth would you against what you agreed on with everyone at the table? The goal is not to make one player not have fun, biy to make everyone have fun.

And where did you assumed that the group would force you to play anything and you would have no say on the matter? You are inventing problems which I have never seen.

And for the ludicrous examples you never gave... You deny having given any and yet, you admit that your nature Vecna is unreasonable.... I read posts you write to @Maxperson too you know?

And for a part of the the post where you answered to @Maxperson,

If it means that a dwarven cleric of Moradin only gets knowledge as a domain, yes, it means that your dwarven cleric, if Moradin is the only god giving available to dwarves, will have the knowledge domain. Either take an other god or comply with the world's narrative.

You focus so much on what you want as a player that you ignored the continuity of the group's narrative to the point of simply saying I have the right to do whatever I please. Comply with me or your a bad group...

Sorry man, but when you get into a group, you do not impose your views. You try to convince with discussion and openness. I have never had such an extreme case in 38 years as a DM. Yes sometimes I have had to veto on an aspect of a character (like an evil character, no way) but never to the extent of what you are describing. The no, no can't do would be for the extreme behavior you are describing. For your dwarven cleric, I would present/remind you of the possibilities your dwarven cleric would have in this or that particular world. Limitless choice isn't in every campaign world.

 

[Maxperson]

So, before I am allowed to make a character, I need to seek DM permission on what types of characters are allowed. I need permission to know that nobility exist, that soldiers exist, that merchants exist, that fighters exist, that clerics exist, that druids exist.

Yes. That's what the PHB tells you, and the DMG confirms with respect to which deities are available and what domains they have.

What is the point of erecting these barriers whose sole purpose seem to be giving excuses for DMs to control these aspects of your character creation process?

Ask Crawford. He made the PHB rules that tell you to ask the DM which things are available for making characters, and the DMG rules giving the DM all of the authority over which gods are present and with which domains.

If the DM has a problem with my character, they can ask me about it. I don't see the point in going hat in hand to the DM to get permission first. That seems like wasting both of our times.

Up to your DM. If you came to me with a nature cleric of Vecna, though, I'd tell you to pick a nature god or go with knowledge/trickery.

So, the best you could do is an acknowledgement in 2e that other races might worship a god of a different race. Which would likely include humans, who were not mentioned by name. Meanwhile, we have explicit examples of non-human worshipers of the generic FR deities, who are common enough that it is widely accepted that they exist. From as recent as 5e.

We know that the number of non-human worshippers of HUMAN gods is very small. The vast majority worship their own gods. That is written in various editions.

I think that rather summarily shows the point I was making about how WoTC intends deities like Helm.

It intends them to be human gods, yes.

Of course he isn't a god of nature. He is a god of secrets. But secrets include secrets about nature, and that could allow a cult to form around the nature domain.

Since by RAW portfolio=domain, without being a god of nature, Vecna cannot have the nature domain.

 

[Voadam]

Up to your DM. If you came to me with a nature cleric of Vecna, though, I'd tell you to pick a nature god or go with knowledge/trickery.

So I convinced you on the appropriateness of 5e Trickery domain for Vecna, the continuous continuity Greyhawk god with the 3e portfolio of Secrets and Intrigue!

 

[Maxperson]

So I convinced you on the appropriateness of 5e Trickery domain for Vecna, the continuous continuity Greyhawk god with the 3e portfolio of Secrets and Intrigue!

I had forgotten about that. I'd add it in for sure to 5e, though I doubt I'll ever have a player want to play a Vecna worshipper.

Like you I like to preserve continuity as best I can. There are exceptions, though. I hated the idea of the Sundering and the Spellplague, so guess what never happened in my Forgotten Realms game