D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Voadam]

I posted classic D&D clerics of Lolth (a Demon Queen as per D3 and FF - when republished in DDG she was relabelled as a lesser god, along with all the other archdevils and demon lords).

In D3 she is referred to only as a demon and has high level spellcasting clerics.

In FF it says specifically she is both a Demon Queen and a lesser goddess.

In the later 1e DDG it says she and the elemental princes of evil and the two Slaad lords are to be treated as lesser gods. The elemental princes and the Slaadi do not have the explicit lesser god references in FF that Lolth's FF entry does.

 

[pemerton]

Evil gods are part of the cosmic order. They run part of the setting's rules. They are only the winning side of the pantheon wars. They are legit.

Evil devils, demons, great ones, vestiges, primordials, titans, yokai, fey, and elementals don't run the show. They can only dream to.

This is something D&D often forget.

Fiendish cults and mystery cults are supposed to stay hidden cults at the periphery of civilized society.

A devil who isn't a god getting a legitimized church or formal standing in a city is supposed to be a big deal and should send crusader a-smiting.

They are trapped in Hell or the Abyss for a reason. The gods, including the evil ones, will it

This seems like a fine set-up for a FRPG.

D&D 4e approximates it, but doesn't fully agree with it. Devils are trapped in the Nine Hells but are part of the cosmic order and play a crucial role in that respect (because of their war upon the Abyss).

GH somewhat approximates it - Iuz, the Horned Society, the Temple of Elemental Evil are all big deals that send crusaders smiting. But in GH this is equally true of evil gods, who are not, in general, important parts of the cosmic order who helped trap the devils and demons. They are more likely to be collaborators with them (eg Incabulos summons fiends, from memory demodands but maybe daemons? I don't recall Hextor being an enemy of devils; etc).

Which again reinforces that there is no robust textual support for a claim that D&D mandates a strong contrast between evil gods and demons/devils. They have frequently been treated as equivalent in their functions both in world-building and in scenarios.

since we have shown quite a lot of evidence that they aren't the only source of clerics, that even the rules that state Demon Lords and Archdevils can't grant spells are caveated with "unless you want them to", and that they aren't necessarily more powerful... the conclusion seems to be that they are fairly redundant with Archfiends. And therefore their role can be handled just as easily by Archfiends.

Keep Evil Gods if you want, make archfiends evil gods, make evil gods Archfiends, I don't particularly care, but the point has been to drill down for the difference, and it seems that the difference really hasn't been found.

<snip>

I am trying to show that the category of "Evil Gods" lacks something defining compared to "Archfiends" across editions. What you do with that information is your business.

My position in this discussion is the same as what I've quoted here. Which is that, over the corpus of published material, including some of the best-known material (modules D3 and T1; the module Dead Gods; the AD&D DDG; the WoG; MMs from both AD&D and 4e), there has been no systematic distinction drawn between evil gods, archdevils and demon lords in terms of their capacity to have clerics, or their role in the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I consider that many showed you the exact opposite of what you "showed" us. The evil gods are in fact, far more meaningful than archdevils and demons as the later can grant spells only if optional rules are used. As soon as you use an optional rule, you homebrew.

What edition are you talking about? Who are you supposing gets to decide whether or not an optional rule in 3E is used? What is your measure of "meaningful"?

I can tell you that in my play of AD&D I did not regard evil gods as more, or less, meaningful than Archdevils. As a GM I would use NPCs who were priests of evil gods. And I would use NPCs who were priests of archdevils and demon lords. Their role and purpose was much the same.

No doubt it is possible to do what you and @Maxperson seem to have done, which is to imagine worlds for D&D play where the difference between "archfiends" and evil gods goes very deep. But the D&D rules, and the D&D published materials, have never mandated that D&D worlds be like that. And neither FR nor GH were like that in the 1980s (see, again, Dragon 91 for FR, and module T1 and the City of GH boxed set for GH).

Problem is that godhood can change from world to world and even editions to edition.

This is a "problem" only for those who want to assert that clerics of devils and demons have never been typical! It's not a problem for me.

When I use Erythnul the Many, or Vaprak the Destroyer, as figures of worship in my games, I don't worry about where they sit on some metaphysical scale of godhood as compared to Demogorgon and Orcus; doubly not as far as a scale that was not invented until the 3E DDG was published, given that my use of these beings in my game predates that publication by nearly two decades.

Orcus was a mortal man once, so was Kelemvor. Both are now far more powerful than that. But the difference between what they became doesn't seem to exist unless you homebrew it to exist.

So Orcus was a primordial at some point.. When he died, he became Tenebrous as of 4ed and got reinstated as Orcus...
In 1ed he was just a demon prince and it was just assumed that demons would just spring into existence in the abyss. At some point, there were only 6 Demon type VI in exsitence (Balor etc...) MM1 1ed, p19.

In the Realms, Orcus started as mortal. In any other setting, he sprang into existence in the abyss. Spontaneously existing or, in 4ed, is a corrupted primordials.

It's more likely he started out as a mortal who died and became a larva (since that's assumed to be true for all evil mortals) than just appearing fully-formed one day.

In 2e there was just one Orcus and he was the same for all D&D settings, every entity was.

This is the first time I've learned that the FR version of Orcus has him beginning life as a mortal.

In the AD&D MM Orcus is presented as a demon prince, but nothing is said of his origin. (There is no "assumption" that demons would just spring into existence in the Abyss. Ed Greenwood was not going against any such assumption if/when he wrote up the mortal origin for Orcus in the FR.)

In AD&D it's also not true that all evil mortals become larva. From the MM (pp 17, 23, 59):

Those dead which go to the 666 layers of the demonic abyss become manes.

The lemures are the form which the dead whom inhabit the Nine Hells are put in.

The larvae are the most selfishly evil of all souls who sink to lower planes after death. They abide in the gloom of Hades, controlled by the night hags.​

Does this mean that the souls of devout worshippers of Asmodeus who are also among the most selfishly evil pass, upon death to Hades to be controlled by night hags as larvae? Or are those souls an exception to the proposition stated on p 59? There is no canonical answer to this in the AD&D MM; nor can one be found in the DDG or (as best I recall) in the MotP. Maybe Planescape tried to clean all this up in some systematic fashion - I don't know - but that doesn't change what was the case in these earlier works.

It's the same thing when trying to argue that, because some 2nd ed materials like Planescape or Spelljammer assert that every entity is the same across the multiverse, that Asmodeus as presented in the Greyhawk City boxed set scenario To Slay a Hierarch must have all the same attributes as Asmodeus presented in some 2nd ed-era FR source that I've never heard of. Namely, it's just not true! Or rather - anyone can imagine that if they want, when they read those sources and use them in play. But it is not dictated by the sources themselves. Greyhawk City is an early 2nd ed AD&D product, produced before Planescape or Spelljammer. When it refers to Asmodeus I think it is clear that it is not picking up any baggage beyond the entry in the AD&D MM, which has him as ruler of the Nine Hells, and the descriptions in the published WoG material of the Horned Society as built around devil worship.

The general point is that later works don't change the facts about what is to be found in earlier texts.

 

[Minigiant]

This seems like a fine set-up for a FRPG.

If I ever do a Greek themed game, it's how I'd do it.

The Olympians and Underworld gods would run the setting.

The Abyss and Hell would be corruptions created by Uranos and Kronos were dethroned.
Mystery cults to the fiends would be hunted by even the followers of evil gods like Ares and Kratos.

D&D 4e approximates it, but doesn't fully agree with it. Devils are trapped in the Nine Hells but are part of the cosmic order and play a crucial role in that respect (because of their war upon the Abyss).

Yeah, but 4e elevates Asmodues, the leader of the devils, to a god. This legitimizes devils and delegitimizes demons even more.

GH somewhat approximates it - Iuz, the Horned Society, the Temple of Elemental Evil are all big deals that send crusaders smiting. But in GH this is equally true of evil gods, who are not, in general, important parts of the cosmic order who helped trap the devils and demons. They are more likely to be collaborators with them (eg Incabulos summons fiends, from memory demodands but maybe daemons? I don't recall Hextor being an enemy of devils; etc).

Which again reinforces that there is no robust textual support for a claim that D&D mandates a strong contrast between evil gods and demons/devils. They have frequently been treated as equivalent in their functions both in world-building and in scenarios.

Which is part of the problem.

Fiends are supposed to be opposition of the gods, even if they are tools or allied with them.

This goes back to the whole thing of D&D constantly adding things out of coolness but not trying to fit it all in coherently.

 

[pemerton]

Agreed. But what purpose are left for the clerics if everyone can heal? This is where I am starting to wonder the "relevance" of the cleric class. If evil gods can be so easily discarded, why not discard all gods...

Eberron basically does this, doesn't it?

Or you can turn the fiends into gods - in Dragonlance the god Chemosh fills the Orcus role, and Tiamat, once a friend of archdevils ruling the first layer of the Nine Hells (in the AD&D MMs) is repurposed as the ruler of the evil gods.

Or you can systematise the cosmology as 4e does.

Or you can use them all willy-nilly, which is my default when playing AD&D-style fantasy.

In my personal experience, it's never been the case that clerics have no purpose but to fulfil the function of healer. My longest-running campaign set in the WoG used RM as the mechanical chassis, and RM has Lay Healers who are better healers than Clerics. That didn't make the gods or their priests redundant in that game . . .

 

[Helldritch]

I posted classic D&D clerics of Lolth (a Demon Queen as per D3 and FF - when republished in DDG she was relabelled as a lesser god, along with all the other archdevils and demon lords).

I posted references to devil worshippers, with priest and clerics, in WoG and the MM (Sahuagin) and in Dragon 91 - that last one coming from Ed Greenwood, and therefore describing his conception of the Forgotten Realms c 1984.

I posted references to clerics of Demogorgon (in DDG). I posted 2nd ed AD&D clerics of Orcus and of Asmodeus.

I posted material from 3E - the BoVD and the DDG - that expressly contemplates clerics of archdevils and demon lords.

I posted references to 4e cultists of Orcus, Demorgoron and Yeenoghu who look just like clerics.

You and @Helldritch seem to be either ignorant of, or deliberately ignoring, all this material in order to assert a uniformity that is simply not there in the actual published material.

I don't understand what "norm" you are referring to. Or what "rule" these are exceptions to.

I found the examples I've posted in a few minutes of looking through my shelves for stuff that I remembered. Lareth the Beautiful, for instance, is one of the most famous NPCs in the history of D&D; and the Horned Society and its Hierarchs is hardly an obscure Greyhawk reference. Sahuagin, the "devil worshippers" in the MM with their clerics who are in no way confined to low-level spells are also not obscure.

These published examples are not rare. They are a dime-a-dozen! You may not have followed the lead of the published material in your own play, but that doesn't establish any facts about the material itself.

You did. And remember the word "should" does not mean must. A conditional is implied. Again, this is up to the individual DM to decide.
So before calling me ignorant, ask first. An option is exactly that, an option.
I never ever said that exceptions could not be made. In fact, I did say that I was all for it but that it bugged me to no end that a supposedly lesser god could grant 7th level spells where only a Greater god could do it.

Also, I did say that clerics could get spells of up to 2nd level by sheer knowledge and faith. What was reprinted in the L&L was exactly this. And this is in the DMG P.38. So yep, clerics of non deity could, even then, get 1st and 2nd level spells but nothing more. That the L&L gave the option of giving deity level to some archdevils and demon prince is irrelevant.

You and @Helldritch
I'm also having trouble following your attitude towards the relationship between what is published and how the game is played. Upthread you were contrasting D&D with some unnamed games, on the basis that in D&D "not everything is set in stone". But now you're describing D&D as "do as I say, not as I do". I don't exactly what you think it is is being said - given how typical these clerics/priests of demons and devils are in the published material - but I also don't understand why you now seem to be lauding conformity to some notional norm or rule rather than things not being set in stone.

My attitude has nothing new nor is it hard to follow. I use the three core books. That is PHB, DMG and MM (not even MM2 or FF) as the basis as no other books are mendatory to play the game. This is not the first time that someone brought example of a "setting" doing things differently than the core book. To which I can bring other material that do something entirely different, identical or any mix in between.

From my point of view, the bottom line is that the D&D materials, for most of the life of the game, have been replete with clerics who worship devils and demons, and have access to a full suite of spells. Some of the earliest published examples are Lolth clerics (Lareth, the many Drow in G3, D1, D2 and D3) but there are many others and they are found across editions.

Does anyone know whether T1-4 has clerics of Zuggtmoy? I don't have a copy; but I wouldn't be surprised if it does.

Yes, and no. There were exceptions all the time. Which is unfortunate. Again, we have to take into account that a setting is pretty much homebrew and even if printed as an official book, it can be contradicted by an other setting. And it is even said that NPC are not supposed to follow the same rules as the players... I always wonder if it was to keep a polish of respectability to avoid accusations of "demonic worship" (which failed miserably) with the general population.

As for T1-4, clerics in there worship the 4 elements, Iuz, Lolth and though none are "officially" clerics of Zuggtmoy, all the clerics of the elements are following her teaching. It could be argued that they get their spell from Iuz himself as a boon for his plans for the temple. (In later products and editions, we learn that they get their spells from Tharizdun). So yes, a god can answer prayers adressed to an other entity. For reasons only a god can fathom...

 

[pemerton]

Which is part of the problem.

Fiends are supposed to be opposition of the gods, even if they are tools or allied with them.

This goes back to the whole thing of D&D constantly adding things out of coolness but not trying to fit it all in coherently.

If the goal of play is for the players, via their PCs, to engage and perhaps transform the cosmology, then I think coherence matters. 4e does a good job in this respect (in my view, at least).

But if the purpose of the cosmology is to be a source of colour for antagonism, as - eg - in REH's Conan, then I don't think coherence matters much at all. I've twice run games (one AD&D, one Burning Wheel) in which the Keep of B2 is found in GH - in the 1980s in the Shield Lands, in the 2010s west of the Abor-Alz. Both times I had the evil priest in the keep be a Chemosh worshipper. Neither time did I worry what Chemosh's nature is in relation to Orcus, Nerrul etc. It's just a label I like for an undead-creating, demon-worshipping evil cult leader.

Also, if fiends are supposed to be in opposition to the gods, then there are beings who historically have been labelled gods but shouldn't be - in DDG the obvious ones are Sekolah (should be a devil based on alignment but a demon based on actual nature), Druaga (should be a devil), Vaprak (should be a demon), Laogzed (should be a demon), and Lu Yueh (should be a demon). Perhaps also some of the Nehwon deities like Hate, the Rat God and the Spider God (all candidate demons). Some entities presented as "monsters" should also be demons (eg Ma Yuan, Apep).

Trying to retrospectively rationalise all this seems to me both pointless and hopeless. You either clean it all up, 4e style, or pick and choose, or just go full REH.

 

[pemerton]

There were exceptions all the time. Which is unfortunate.

Exceptions? To what? A relatively obscure part of the DMG, about the granting of cleric spells, which no other published source ever seems to have conformed to?

And why is it "unfortunate"? How would the published corpus of D&D material be better without all those drow clerics in D3? Or without Lareth the Beautiful? Or without the Hierarch antagonist in that mini-scenario in the City of Greyhawk boxed set?

As for T1-4, clerics in there worship the 4 elements, Iuz, Lolth and though none are "officially" clerics of Zuggtmoy, all the clerics of the elements are following her teaching. It could be argued that they get their spell from Iuz himself as a boon for his plans for the temple. (In later products and editions, we learn that they get their spells from Tharizdun).

Those later products don't have any bearing on an investigation into the textual realities of AD&D.

 

[pemerton]

In D3 she is referred to only as a demon and has high level spellcasting clerics.

In FF it says specifically she is both a Demon Queen and a lesser goddess.

Interesting, and good pick-up!

The foreword for FF is dated Aug 1979, and that for DDG is dated May 1980. My copies are copyrighted 1981 for FF and 1980 for DDG. I don't know how they overlapped in terms of preparation for publishing, especially as FF was being led from the UK.

Summon @Doug McCrae!

 

[pemerton]

My attitude has nothing new nor is it hard to follow. I use the three core books. That is PHB, DMG and MM (not even MM2 or FF) as the basis as no other books are mendatory to play the game.

The evil gods are in fact, far more meaningful than archdevils and demons as the later can grant spells only if optional rules are used.

Both the rule and the optional rule that you refer to in the second quote are not found in the PHB, DMG or MM of any edition, are they? You're referring to an optional rule in the 3E BoVD and DDG.