D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

So wait. The Core is setting agnostic, but the default is the Realms, because you can't play the core without a setting... and all settings are homebrew, except the core, which defaults to a homebrew setting...

And this is supposed to make sense?

Probably not, since you appear to have gone out of your way not to understand.

I'm sorry, isn't one of the big things the gods do is fight each other over getting more portfolios? Why would there be easily accessed new portfolios? Wouldn't those have been snapped up?

Apparently not, and no, they really don't go around fighting each other for portfolios. It's rare for gods to go against one another. It upsets the balance. An attempt at upsetting the balance is what caused the Time of Troubles.

And, what was Vecna's Portfolio? "Evil and Destructive Secrets" which... is part of the knowledge portfolio, right? Maybe magic as well? He does get Domains of Magic and Knowledge, so these would have logically been part of the Portfolio's of Boccob (Magic, Arcane Knowledge, Balance, Foresight ), Wee Jas (Death, Magic, Vanity (Love), Law) and others.

Domains are not portfolios.

And elves and orcs came from spilled blood. We still say they were created by Corellon and Gruumsh respectively.

No. If you want to see what it's like to actually create a race, read the Silmarillion. Aule created the dwarves, even though he was incapable of giving them true life since he was only as powerful as an Archfiend and not a god. Eru had to give them true life.

Which then bred true and remained a race of monsters. He doesn't make a new one when old ones die, they breed and lay eggs. That is literally a definition of a "created race".

Please. Any old 17th+ level wizard can do that with a Wish spell. Wish can change a human into anything the wizard can imagine and have it breed true. Heck, my granny can do it with a Ring of 3 Wishes.

And I literally pointed out why this has nothing to do with them being a creation of Orcus, even referencing the fact that you were going to try this exact tactic. Could you bother to read my posts at least?

Since you pointed out the fatal flaw, I'm not sure why you included an example that wasn't an example.

 

[Mirtek]

It should be noted that there was another gnoll god, Gorellik, who has since vanished into the ether (or, well, the Astral). From what I can tell, he also didn't create gnolls but thought they looked like him. Maybe Yeenoghu ate Gorellik and took his backstory.

Not just one, but a whole pantheon. At least two were named (Gorellik and Refnara Moon-Biter).

As of 3e Gorellik was still alive, but losing almost all worshippers reduced him to demigod status. He had given up any hopes of re-gaining his former glory vs. Yeenoghu and simply wandered the lower planes as a giant hyaenodon and frequently came to the river Styx to drink so that he would lose the painful memories of his past. Being a deity this amnesia would never last long though.

Which reads to me like 4e made a massive improvement, because Primordials are an amazing concept.

They're just deities by another name

 

[Scribe]

They're just deities by another name

I was looking into those earlier today, just based on the wiki's unfortunately as I skipped that era, but it didnt look too bad, but yes, just elemental 'gods' essentially?

 

[pemerton]

It was not the FR version. If was the one and only D&D version back in 2nd Edition when all settings were part of the one and only shared multiverse.

Some 2nd ed AD&D products assert that all settings are part of the one and only shared multiverse - eg Planescape.

But others are written completely independently of any such conceit - eg The City of GH boxed set.

That's 4e who just started to disregard all shared D&D lore that came before, threw it on the garbage heap and re-wrote everything.

This is not true. 4e D&D's treatment of demons and devils, for instance, in the sidebars in its MM, doesn't throw the AD&D treatment in its MMs "under a garbage heap". I had not trouble reconciling my AD&D knowledge and familiarity with D&D story elements with the core 4e setting.

 

[pemerton]

The case with Tiamat in early 3e vs. late 3e is more about the deity rules of 3e not being done when they first printed Tiamat and Bahamut in the MotP as opposed to a deliberate attempt to revoke and later restore their divinity.

She was not in the PHB because almost no deity was in the PHB. Greyhawk as the chosen default setting had ~ 120 deities and they just printed a dozend that was seens as relevant for character creation. Just because something was not yet mentioned was not mean to imply it ceased to exist between 2e and 3e

You seem to be talking about "in fiction" truths, and trying to integrate them all into some single unified conception.

I'm talking about what is actually in the published texts. Tiamat was, in AD&D, a really powerful dragon who lives on the first layer of the Nine Hells. She is presented similarly in MotP. But this doesn't stop anyone treating her as a being with clerics and worshippers in the Bastion of Broken Souls module.

Which is consistent with the broader point I and @Chaosmancer have made: taken as a whole, the body of D&D texts doesn't draw any consistent contrast between evil gods and archdevils.

 

[pemerton]

DMG 1ed P.38. A clarification in the L&L 1ed p.9
Some of the fiends, as an option can be considered lesser deities. P.105. The conditionnal is used though...
It says: "These "should" be considered."
This is leaving the choice opened for each individual DMs. If it would have been written: "The following are now considered lesser deities" would have leave no choice at all.

As a matter of ordinary English usage, what you say here is not correct. Should is not a "conditional" - as per the OED, it is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness.

The actual wording used is "The following beings from the MONSTER MANUAL and FIEND FOLIO should be treated as lesser gods". These should be treated as is not a synonym for these may be treated as. There is no suggestion that it is an "option". The words used would be synonymous with One ought to treat these as. The reason for saying these should be treated as rather than these are is to signal that this is a change or correction to how these have hitherto been understood.

Subsequently to this being published in DDG, there was a slightly different approach in the MotP.

 

[pemerton]

Only if one assumes that Gruumsh is setting-tied. I make no such assumption with deities like him; as his portfolio is the same race on all worlds he can be considered as a universal default to all settings unless homebrewed out. Yeenoghu is another such; Moradin another, one could argue Corellon is another, and so forth.

This is bonkers. People can use whatever fiction they like! I had worlds with Orcs in them before I ever encountered Roger E Moore's Orcish gods.

 

[pemerton]

@Scribe

Primordials, in 4e, are roughly analogous to Titans in Greek Myth. They are very closely connected to matter. Gods, in 4e, are the source of spirit and form. The framing is a fairly familiar one of order vs chaos.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm talking about what is actually in the published texts. Tiamat was, in AD&D, a really powerful dragon who lives on the first layer of the Nine Hells. She is presented similarly in MotP. But this doesn't stop anyone treating her as a being with clerics and worshippers in the Bastion of Broken Souls module.

The same section of the 1e Deities & Demigods which says that the Demon Lords and Archdevils are lesser gods also says that Bahamut and Tiamat are lesser gods.

 

[Maxperson]

Primordials, in 4e, are roughly analogous to Titans in Greek Myth. They are very closely connected to matter. Gods, in 4e, are the source of spirit and form. The framing is a fairly familiar one of order vs chaos.

From the little I've heard and their name, that's the impression I've always had of them.