D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Lanefan]

My question is actually about gamer culture, mostly DnD games but I can think of at least one other where DFC (For an acronym I'm gonna go with DFC over GOO) are a thing. Not just a thing, but the thing. The big bad of all the big bads.

Why the hell are DFC necessary? What do they do that's different to a demon prince?

If nothing else it's a very easy connection to make the GOO (a.k.a. DFC) the deities of various outsiders starting with Mind Flayers; thus in effect making them outsiders at the divine level much like Mind Flayers are outsiders at the mortal level.

But I really am thinking about gamer culture rather than any in-game reasons. Why do so many gamers (and I guess game designers) feel the need for DFC at all? Why do we need another layer of "supreme evil?" How many superlatives is enough? Is this in some way an expression of nerdy one upmanship? "You think your supreme evil thing is evil? Wait til you see how supremely evil my supreme evil is!" Cos this is what it feels like.

There's always a bigger fish.

 

[pemerton]

I think that Evil Gods exist in DnD historically for two reasons. 1) To give us evil clerics 2) Because people were throwing all sorts of ideas at the wall to see what sticks. That's why we have dozens of overlapping deities, because people just made up a new force for their adventures constantly.

<snip>

However, in DnD, "gods" are the highest tier of beings and far more powerful than the demons and devils

<snip>

Which rounds us back to the point that has been brought up a few times. Other than "because the game was built with this fact" what value do we get from "God" being a more powerful and higher order of being?

I feel that you are straddling editions here.

In classic D&D (ie OD&D, early AD&D), and in 4e, there is no difference in power between gods and demon princes/archdevils. And both have clerics.

Lolth is a demon queen (see eg module D3, and the original FF) who is also a god of the Drow, with plenty of clerics. In DDG she is repurposed as a Lesser God, but as you noted upthread, and as I have noted upthread, in DDG all the demon princes and archdevils were repurposes in this way. Here is the opening of the Lolth entry in DDG (revised version (ie no Elric or Cthulhu), p 92):

The dark elves worship demon lords from the Abyss. The best know example is the worship of the Demon Queen Lolth.​

Module T1 The Village of Hommlet has as its final villain Lareth the Beautiful, a 5th level clric of "the Demoness Lolth". And (contra @Helldritch) Lareth has a full suite of spells, not just 1st and 2nd level ones.

I don't have as much familiarity with a range of 2nd ed AD&D materials, but to me it doesn't seem to wildly depart from earlier AD&D: the module Dead Gods has a priest of Orcus, the half-ogre Quah-Nomag (who gets a full suite of spells up to 5th level). I'm not the biggest fan of Planescape, but it is evidence of what was accepted in 2nd ed AD&D.

Then in 4e, Demogorgon (a demon prince) is the same level as Torog (an evil god): both are 34th. Lolth and Vecna (two evils gods, in 4e) are both 35th. Imix, a Prince of Elemental Evil, is 32nd. There is no wild disparity of power here.

In the Forgotten Realms Bane is a mortal who ascended and became a greater god. In core 4e and 5e's Exandria he was a core and non-ascended god.

Asmodeus has been at various times an archdevil which gave him the powers of a lesser god when on his own plane (1e Manual of Planes), a greater god (2e Book of Hell), an angel who became a god (4e).

In DDG Asmodeus is said to be a Lesser God with no "on his own plane" limitation.

In core 4e, Bane is (perhaps) a mortal who ascended:

Bane was either a mortal hero or a demigod who slew Tuern, the previous (and less disciplined) god of war . . . (The Plane Above, p 51)​

I know that Dragon 372 says something a bit different, but that is consistent with the general approach in 4e of presenting its mythology in multiple overlapping but non-definitive versions.

Fiends don't get clerics in base lore.... ever.

As has already been posted, this isn't accurate. In AD&D there are clerics of fiends, as I've shown above. In 4e there are clerics of devils but not of demons, reflecting the particular cosmology of that setting. There is also at least one "paladin" of Asmodeus, namely, the Duergar Murkelmor (in module H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth).

But Yeenoghu, Demogorgon, Orcus et al all have cultist followers who are functionally clerics and serve the same role in the fiction as the Gygax-era anti-clerics and evil high priests (eg the Deathpriest of Orcus in the MM; the Berserker Prelate of Demogorgon in the MM2; Zaiden, Yeenoghu's cult leader, in Dragon 364; in H2, Maldrick Scarmaker is statted as a warlock, although there is no provision for a PC warlock to be a warlock of a demon lord).

If written today many of the clerics of fiends would be warlocks. Clerics of fiends and celestials more or less disappeared within the reinvention of warlocks

I don't agree, based on the examples I've given in the previous paragraph.

Yes they had these clerics even in 1ed. But remember that these clerics only had access to 1st and 2nd level spells top. It was only through the introduction of Banak that they finally got "full power " clerics. I bet that if warlock existed then, that these clerics would not even have seen the day...

<snip>

And no they did not have clerics but they did have cultists. And the few true clerics they had, were stuck with 1st and 2nd level spells...

This isn't accurate, as per the earlier parts of this post.

No, they were never intended to be gods in their own rights. That is why they fight the gods because they want the power that the gods have. They will tempt, trick and fool mortals into believing that they are as strong as the gods, but they are not. But they certainly want you to believe it. That is canon.

This isn't accurate either. In AD&D, as soon as the concept of a "god" came to matter (ie in DDG), the archdevils and demon princes were declared to be gods.

An evil paladin used to be an Antipaladin. He was a paladin corrupted by evil, usually demogorgon as only him had the full power of the Abyss as the "Prince" of all demons... Yes, canon there are antipaladins of other demons such as Orcus.

There are no canonical anti-paladins in 1st ed AD&D (unless you count Death Knights, whom the Fiend Folio (p 23) conjectures are created by Demogorgon), and I don't know of them in 2nd ed AD&D either. 4e D&D has a discussion of paladins of evil gods in its DMG (p 163).

There is a fan-authored anti-paladin in Dragon 39, but it is not especially connected to Demogorgon.

You can run a true neutral cleric of Nerull.

While I can see your rules argument in 3E terms, I agree with @Maxperson and @Chaosmancer that this is not really consistent with the established fiction for Nerull.

if we look to the time period when many of these Demon Lords and Archdevils were created, them being equivalent for the most part to the gods... is exactly what was intended. Sure, they didn't have cavaliers and paladins, but they did have clerics and secret temples. So, we really are losing nothing by going back towards that model that I can find.

Agreed.

 

[pemerton]

I really don't like the way D&D does deities. Historically, priests worshipped pantheons, not individual deities.

From the 4e DMG (p-p 155-56):

Though the worship of the pantheon of gods is universal, there are no worldwide hierarchies devoted to these gods. A temple to Bahamut in one city is unconnected to a Bahamut's temple in the next city, with each having different rites and differently nuanced interpretations of the god's commands.

Most temples are dedicated to more than one deity, and a temple where Bahamut's altar is next to Moradin's might paint a different picture of the Platinum Dragon than a temple where he's worshipped alongside Erathis. . . .

A temple in the D&D world doesn't hold scheduled worship services. Rather, the temple is always open and constantly busy. Priests perform the daily rites the gods require, each at a separate altar.​

I think that is a fairly coherent amalgam of historical realities and D&D's tradition of single-god clerics.

 

[pemerton]

Bane and Asmodeus are not in direct competition for the same portfolio in any "official" setting. On FR Bane is Tyranny and Asmodeus is Indulgence. On Nerath, Bane is War and Asmodeus is Tyranny.

Here is the opening sentence of the second paragraph in the article on Bane in Dragon 372 (which is about the core 4e god of that name):

That Bane is a god of darkest ambition, tyrannical and cruel, none can doubt.​

The DMG (p 162) tells us that Asmodeus is the god of power, domination and tyranny, while Bane is the god of war and conquest. What is the meaningful difference between exercising tyrannical power and conquering? I don't think any 4e book ever tackled that philosophical question!

On the same page we are told that

Asmodeus . . . rules the Nine Hells with an iron fist and a silver tongue. . . His rules are strict and his punishments harsh:

• Seek power over others, that you might rule with strength as the Lord of Hell does.
• Repay evil with evil. If others are kind to you, exploit their weakness for your own gain.
• Show neither pity nor mercy to those who are caught underfoot as you climb your way to power. The weak do not deserve compassion.

And also that

Bane is the evil god of war and conquest. Militaristic nations of humans and goblins serve him and conquer in his name. . . . He commands his worshipers to:

• Never allow your fear to gain mastery over you, but drive it into the hearts of your foes.
• Punish insubordination and disorder.
• Hone your combat skills to perfection, whether you are a mighty general or a lone mercenary.

What is the difference between ruling with might and punishing insubordination and disorder? I can't see it. The difference I see is that Asmodeus is more vicious (repay evil with evil; exploit the weakness of those who are kind to you) whereas Bane only drives fear into the hearts of foes but doesn't necessarily use it as a ubiquitous tool of interaction; and Bane is also more concerned with warfare and military endeavour. But those differences don't go to tyranny as a mode of government. And nothing suggests that Bane is more inclined than Asmodeus to show pity or mercy.

This is not a criticism of the 4e setting: I've used it extensively, and the relationship between Bane and various devils was a part of my campaign (and I think at least some of that was influenced by published material, though some I made up myself). But I think @Chaosmancer is correct to see Bane and Asmodeus as treading on one another's toes!

 

[pemerton]

@DrunkonDuty

As conceived of by HPL, the Cthulhu-esque entities/GOOs are conceived of as anti-gods. He is making fun of religious belief and mystical/supernatural traditions. (At least some of the time. Something like the Dunwich Horror is closer to an ordinary horror story.)

So mixing them into a fictional setting in which there are also real gods is already a bit incoherent. I think this is one of the weaker aspects of the 4e cosmology: what does the Far Realm add to the Abyss and creatures like Dagon, Obox-ob and the Queen of Chaos? In my 4e game I tended to envisage the Far Realm as the bottom of the Abyss, but never really engaged with it in any detail because of the problems of fit and coherence.

There's no reason for GOOs to be tougher than entities like Dagon or Demogorgon. Though if the Far Realms is going to be included in the cosmology, it might make sense to suppose that the gods, and even the demon princes who have cast in their lot with the material side of things, have little power or influence there. In 4e this would fit with the idea that the Elemental Chaos is matter while the gods are spirit/form. The Far Realms is then nothingness/dissolution, where spirit and form have no purchase.

 

[Minigiant]

As has already been posted, this isn't accurate. In AD&D there are clerics of fiends, as I've shown above. In 4e there are clerics of devils but not of demons, reflecting the particular cosmology of that setting. There is also at least one "paladin" of Asmodeus, namely, the Duergar Murkelmor (in module H2 Thunderspire Labyrinth).

But Yeenoghu, Demogorgon, Orcus et al all have cultist followers who are functionally clerics and serve the same role in the fiction as the Gygax-era anti-clerics and evil high priests (eg the Deathpriest of Orcus in the MM; the Berserker Prelate of Demogorgon in the MM2; Zaiden, Yeenoghu's cult leader, in Dragon 364; in H2, Maldrick Scarmaker is statted as a warlock, although there is no provision for a PC warlock to be a warlock of a demon lord).

I already stated.

AD&D didn't have "warlocks". If AD&D had 4e/5e warlocks, that evil priests and vile clerics would be warlocks.

I don't agree, based on the examples I've given in the previous paragraph.

It didn't explain much. The Gygax Era's retinue of classes had to make due with what it had. As classes like warlock, binder, sorcerer, and artificer were creates, concepts were stripped from the cleric and the wizard.

If the pact and patron warlock existed in 1979, 99% of those clerics of demons and devils would be warlocks not clerics.
If the bloodline and origin sorcerer existed in 1981, 99% of those dragonblood prodigies and wild mages would be sorcerers not wizards.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the opening sentence of the second paragraph in the article on Bane in Dragon 372 (which is about the core 4e god of that name):

That Bane is a god of darkest ambition, tyrannical and cruel, none can doubt.

Bane is tyrannical and cruel. He isn't the god of it.
He's the god of a war. However because of his personality, his leadership style and rulership is not nice.

The DMG (p 162) tells us that Asmodeus is the god of power, domination and tyranny, while Bane is the god of war and conquest. What is the meaningful difference between exercising tyrannical power and conquering? I don't think any 4e book ever tackled that philosophical question!

On the same page we are told that

Asmodeus . . . rules the Nine Hells with an iron fist and a silver tongue. . . His rules are strict and his punishments harsh:

• Seek power over others, that you might rule with strength as the Lord of Hell does.
• Repay evil with evil. If others are kind to you, exploit their weakness for your own gain.
• Show neither pity nor mercy to those who are caught underfoot as you climb your way to power. The weak do not deserve compassion.

And also that

Bane is the evil god of war and conquest. Militaristic nations of humans and goblins serve him and conquer in his name. . . . He commands his worshipers to:

• Never allow your fear to gain mastery over you, but drive it into the hearts of your foes.
• Punish insubordination and disorder.
• Hone your combat skills to perfection, whether you are a mighty general or a lone mercenary.

What is the difference between ruling with might and punishing insubordination and disorder? I can't see it. The difference I see is that Asmodeus is more vicious (repay evil with evil; exploit the weakness of those who are kind to you) whereas Bane only drives fear into the hearts of foes but doesn't necessarily use it as a ubiquitous tool of interaction; and Bane is also more concerned with warfare and military endeavour. But those differences don't go to tyranny as a mode of government. And nothing suggests that Bane is more inclined than Asmodeus to show pity or mercy.

I can see the difference. It's big.

Bane is the evil general.
Asmodeus is the evil king.

However the evil general has to lead their armies and their conquered lands. And this one is a tyrant when he does so.
The evil king has to lead armies sometimes. And he is an evil general when he does so.

Bane cares about the conquering. Asmodues care most about his conquered. Asmodeus is often happy at his throne not actively attacking anyone. Bane literally cannot sit still and much keep going so he stomps on the occupied and is brutal to insubordinate warriors tokeep himself looking forward.

It's1 leading to 2 vs 2 leading to 1.

This is not a criticism of the 4e setting: I've used it extensively, and the relationship between Bane and various devils was a part of my campaign (and I think at least some of that was influenced by published material, though some I made up myself). But I think @Chaosmancer is correct to see Bane and Asmodeus as treading on one another's toes!

Bane and Asmodeus look similiar at first glance. That's because they have the same personality at different intensities. However if you look at them directly you see difference in images, goals, and which parts of society they focus on.

Bane would not tolerate the open and frequent rebellion plots by the Archdevils against him like Asmodeus.
And Asmodeus halted the Blood War once. Peace isn't a nonsense word to him.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Bane is a more powerful god that Asmodeus is. And Asmodeus can't bring his "infinite resources" to bear on a prime plane or it would have been overrun by him thousands of years ago.

Why not? Or is this a case of "obviously he can't because he hasn't" Which means that he absolutely could, and might be doing so on other Primes?

Also, looking at Helldritch's immortals rulebook as a baseline measuring, he said that PP (I'm assuming power points) allowed Immortals to act in a location. Therefore, the more places you can act, the more PP you would have. If Asmodeus is acting in a near-infinite number of places, then his PP must be astronomical, if not near infinite. Under this model, if we accept it, how could Bane possibly be more powerful? He may be more powerful in Faerun, where he has invested his power, but that is only because, in your argument, Asmodeus isn't trying to invest a sizable portion of his power there.

No I haven't. I never once said or implies that he wasn't a god.

Then instead of arguing the value of evil gods (which is the discussion I thought we were having) you are arguing about which god is bigger and scarier. Not the point.

Though, I suppose if Archdevils and Demon Lords are already gods, then the question is answered. Because if they are all gods, then the real question is why we have evil gods that aren't fiends.

There are thousands of gods who are all as smart as he is and don't want him to win. One god has no chance to conquer everything and he's smart enough to know that. Instead influence is the way to go. A small slice of infinite planes is better than no slice of anything while your body rots on the Astral Plane, because a ton of gods have offed you for being an idiot.

His stated goals are the subjugation of reality. If you want to change that, go ahead, but at this point you are rewriting Asmodeus to fit your model, instead of looking at the protrayed substance.

How is indulgence a threat to Bane's tyrannical rule?

How is the Tyrannical Lord of the Nine Hells, the embodiment of Lawful Evil, all about indulgence?

Probably because you are arguing against things I haven't said again.

Likely because I thought you were engaging in a good faith discussion on the issue of evil gods vs archdevils and Demon Lords, not engaging in a discussion of evil gods versus evil gods, which was not what this discussion was about.

Asmodeus was not being considered a god in these discussions, and so I did not assume that made that assumption. If I had realized that, I would have corrected course and made sure we were actually discussing the topic of the thread.

He very likely understood that being a god of indulgence on Toril gave him more power than being an archdevil of tyranny with no chance of godhood due to Bane having an iron fist around that portfolio.

So a near infinite being of Tyranny... gave up? When Bane died, why didn't he just snap up that portfolio then?

And frankly, if his power is nearly infinite as an Archdevil, why does he care about achieving minor godhood in Faerun? It is a single continent on a single planet in a single reality, that is nothing compared with his influence across an infinite number of planes.

What is so special about godhood that he would seek it out in this context?

 

[Maxperson]

But I think @Chaosmancer is correct to see Bane and Asmodeus as treading on one another's toes!

Why? Is it because you believe that's just what evil does? Or do you believe that indulgence and tyranny are in competition?

Bane: "Eat all your pastries or face the executioners!"

I'm not seeing why the 5e versions would be treading on each other.

 

[Maxperson]

Why not? Or is this a case of "obviously he can't because he hasn't" Which means that he absolutely could, and might be doing so on other Primes?

Well, ignoring that prior editions literally forbid it from happening, if it could have happened it already would have. There have been multiple instances in the Forgotten Realms were lots of devils tried to take over and were stopped. If he had infinite resources to bring to bear, they would have been unstoppable.

Also, looking at Helldritch's immortals rulebook as a baseline measuring, he said that PP (I'm assuming power points) allowed Immortals to act in a location. Therefore, the more places you can act, the more PP you would have. If Asmodeus is acting in a near-infinite number of places, then his PP must be astronomical, if not near infinite. Under this model, if we accept it, how could Bane possibly be more powerful? He may be more powerful in Faerun, where he has invested his power, but that is only because, in your argument, Asmodeus isn't trying to invest a sizable portion of his power there.

That's not even close how the Immortals set works.

Then instead of arguing the value of evil gods (which is the discussion I thought we were having) you are arguing about which god is bigger and scarier. Not the point.

Then maybe YOU shouldn't have taken the conversation to which one would beat the other. All I was arguing was that the focus of Asmodeus is big picture and Bane is local, which allows them to exist outside of competition. I hadn't even realized at the time that they were gods with completely different portfolios and you were inventing a problem that didn't exist by claiming overlap.

Though, I suppose if Archdevils and Demon Lords are already gods, then the question is answered. Because if they are all gods, then the real question is why we have evil gods that aren't fiends.

How did you go from me literally saying that they are not gods(except Asmodeus), which I said in multiple posts, to all of them being gods?

His stated goals are the subjugation of reality.

Through pastries and good times? He's the god of indulgence on Toril. Nothing else.

How is the Tyrannical Lord of the Nine Hells, the embodiment of Lawful Evil, all about indulgence?

He isn't about tyranny on Toril. In D&D gods can be about different things and even have different power levels, depending on the setting.

Asmodeus was not being considered a god in these discussions, and so I did not assume that made that assumption. If I had realized that, I would have corrected course and made sure we were actually discussing the topic of the thread.

You weren't considering him to be a god in a setting where he is explicitly a god? And you accuse me of bad faith.

So a near infinite being of Tyranny... gave up? When Bane died, why didn't he just snap up that portfolio then?

Even if he was capable of taking it, it wasn't available. Cyric had it given to him by Ao.

And frankly, if his power is nearly infinite as an Archdevil,

It's not. Archdevils are far weaker than gods. They can't achieve godhood through power to order other devils around. They need many mortal worshippers and not a lot of mortals are dumb enough to worship beings of embodied evil.