log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

pemerton

Legend
Some of those prior online lists of Greyhawk gods for instance have the tons of expansions of gods from 3e and 3.5 sourcebooks.
That's why when I want lists of GH gods I use GH materials - the boxed set, From the Ashes, the later 90s stuff, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.

They aren't derived from Greyhawk. They ARE Greyhawk. Greyhawk is the default setting, which is why it was used for the Living Greyhawk games.
I think the reason that Greyhawk was used for the Living Greyhawk game is because otherwise it would be very poorly named!

I believe the word Greyhawk does not appear anywhere in the 3E PHB. It just presents the world of Dungeons & Dragons. As I've posted, when I want to understand how Boccob relates to worshippers I refer to my GH materials, not the irrelevant sideshow of the 3E DDG. (Which also does not contain the word Greyhawk.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lyxen

Great Old One
That's why when I want lists of GH gods I use GH materials - the boxed set, From the Ashes, the later 90s stuff, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.

Then you get the list of gods for the periods of history covered by these supplements. But gods rise, evolve and die, in Greyhawk. I am like you in that I love that boxed set and I had the marvelous map on the wall of my room for ages. But if I want to look at later periods, just as for the maps, I look for the gods in the supplement corresponding to that period.

I believe the word Greyhawk does not appear anywhere in the 3E PHB. It just presents the world of Dungeons & Dragons. As I've posted, when I want to understand how Boccob relates to worshippers I refer to my GH materials, not the irrelevant sideshow of the 3E DDG. (Which also does not contain the word Greyhawk.)

You're right, I never realised that Greyhawk did not appear in those books.
 

Voadam

Legend
I believe the word Greyhawk does not appear anywhere in the 3E PHB. It just presents the world of Dungeons & Dragons.
The 3.0 and 3.5 PH do not use the word Greyhawk. They just present Greyhawk setting elements as setting elements of the world of 3e Dungeons and Dragons and no D&D World setting elements that are not Greyhawk. And then there is the 3.0 Dungeons and Dragon Gazetteer that does not use the word Greyhawk in its title either but says "Welcome to the world of the D&D game!".

Are there any Greyhawk/3e World of D&D elements in the PH or 3e DDG that you feel are inconsistent with GH?

The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer for instance on page 171 mentions Heironeous as recently promoting longswords even though he himself uses an axe: "Known for his great magic battleaxe, he recently has been promoting usage of the longsword in order to appeal to common soldiers as well as paladins and leaders."
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The 3.0 and 3.5 PH do not use the word Greyhawk. They just present Greyhawk setting elements as setting elements of the world of 3e Dungeons and Dragons and no D&D World setting elements that are not Greyhawk. And then there is the 3.0 Dungeons and Dragon Gazetteer that does not use the word Greyhawk in its title either but says "Welcome to the world of the D&D game!".
Might this be due to the word "Greyhawk" somehow still being - or being perceived to be - legally tied to Gygax at the time in some way, meaning WotC felt they couldn't use the name but could use the underlying features? (legitimate question, I've no idea as to the answer)

Otherwise it makes no sense to use so many elements of a specific setting as examples without once naming the setting.
 

Campbell

Legend
Might this be due to the word "Greyhawk" somehow still being - or being perceived to be - legally tied to Gygax at the time in some way, meaning WotC felt they couldn't use the name but could use the underlying features? (legitimate question, I've no idea as to the answer)

Otherwise it makes no sense to use so many elements of a specific setting as examples without once naming the setting.

The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was an official release that coincided with the release of 3e. They mostly left Greyhawk to the RPGA Living Campaign to manage.

 

Voadam

Legend
Might this be due to the word "Greyhawk" somehow still being - or being perceived to be - legally tied to Gygax at the time in some way, meaning WotC felt they couldn't use the name but could use the underlying features? (legitimate question, I've no idea as to the answer)

Otherwise it makes no sense to use so many elements of a specific setting as examples without once naming the setting.
No, WotC ran a whole Greyhawk line of 2e products immediately before 3e, and as Campbell noted, they also published the 192 page 3.0 Living Greyhawk Gazetteer shortly after the 32 page 3.0 Gazetteer.

If you go to Alzrius's link on "Who is Erik Mona?" you can see WotC was internally divided on Greyhawk and the D&D world, with people who wanted 3e to be Greyhawk elements adapted to be generic D&D and people who wanted 3e default D&D world Greyhawk to be Greyhawk so you get a hidden default of not naming but using elements of Greyhawk as the D&D world straight out of the continuity of GH at the end of 2e. There are small differences like Heironeous's axe and Cuthbert's characterization/portfolio with his traditional LG castigation of backsliders turning into LN retribution.

Mostly these default D&D world setting elements were not big in the PH, mostly a selection of Greyhawk gods and the planar setup. No countries or NPCs (outside of the named spells that reference Greyhawk NPCs).

In things like Sword and Fist you get organizations like the Knight Protectors of the Great Kingdom that make more overt GH political element references including specific Greyhawk kingdom references.

Page 46:
1634069540252.png
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That's why when I want lists of GH gods I use GH materials - the boxed set, From the Ashes, the later 90s stuff, and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer.


I think the reason that Greyhawk was used for the Living Greyhawk game is because otherwise it would be very poorly named!

I believe the word Greyhawk does not appear anywhere in the 3E PHB. It just presents the world of Dungeons & Dragons. As I've posted, when I want to understand how Boccob relates to worshippers I refer to my GH materials, not the irrelevant sideshow of the 3E DDG. (Which also does not contain the word Greyhawk.)
It doesn't matter if they use the name in the PHB or not. The default setting for 3e is Greyhawk which is why Living Greyhawk exists and not some other setting. But hey, I can't make you see it if you don't want to. 🤷
 

pemerton

Legend
Might this be due to the word "Greyhawk" somehow still being - or being perceived to be - legally tied to Gygax at the time in some way, meaning WotC felt they couldn't use the name but could use the underlying features? (legitimate question, I've no idea as to the answer)
No.
 

pemerton

Legend
Are there any Greyhawk/3e World of D&D elements in the PH or 3e DDG that you feel are inconsistent with GH?
Well, there are the ones that Erik Mona pointed out. (And as you have pointed to, the slightly awkward reconciliation of Heironeous's longsword in the LGG.) I'd have to go back and review further to see if there's anything else.

My assertion, though, is not that there is inconsistency. It's about the direction of causation and hence interpretation.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It wouldn't have to be a rise. Demigod and god in 5e simply means different things than the meant pre-5e. Simple as that. It's not Iuz's power that waxed or waned, the term 5e uses to describe this level of power is just not the same as it was before
I don't think it has changed, though. We know that Appendix B has quasi-deities on it. RAW says so. They aren't defined, though, and not one of the listed gods in Appendix B fits any of the 3 quasi-deity categories. That means that the list is non-exhaustive, even though it's written as exhaustive, the definitions are incomplete, even though they are written as complete, or both.

Knowing that the listed quasi-deity categories as written are not complete, it's perfectly reasonable to think that demigod still includes weak gods like Iuz.
 

Mirtek

Hero
I don't think it has changed, though. We know that Appendix B has quasi-deities on it. RAW says so. They aren't defined, though, and not one of the listed gods in Appendix B fits any of the 3 quasi-deity categories. That means that the list is non-exhaustive, even though it's written as exhaustive, the definitions are incomplete, even though they are written as complete, or both.

Knowing that the listed quasi-deity categories as written are not complete, it's perfectly reasonable to think that demigod still includes weak gods like Iuz.
Iuz hears prayers and grants spells, which quasi-deities no longer can do in 5e. And demigods are even described as the weakest quasi deities.

3e quasi deities were defined (as one possible origin) as being born from the union of a deity and a mortal. Now 5e lists being born from the union of a deity and a mortal as the origin of demigods.

Quasi deities could not hear prayers or grant spells. Demigods could do both. Now in 5e demigods can not hear prayers or grant spells.

Cleary 5e shifted the terms and simply uses the term demigod for the class of beings that were previously called quasi gods (probably to finally agree with the colloquial understanding of this term). And quasi deity has become the name for new category including (the new) demigod and others
 

Faolyn

Hero
I don't think it has changed, though. We know that Appendix B has quasi-deities on it. RAW says so. They aren't defined, though, and not one of the listed gods in Appendix B fits any of the 3 quasi-deity categories. That means that the list is non-exhaustive, even though it's written as exhaustive, the definitions are incomplete, even though they are written as complete, or both.

Knowing that the listed quasi-deity categories as written are not complete, it's perfectly reasonable to think that demigod still includes weak gods like Iuz.
At this point, it's probably more reasonable to assume that Iuz is a lesser god, since in 5e that term means that a full god with a physical form that can (possibly) be killed, as opposed to greater god, which can't be killed, or a demigod, which is specifically half-god-half-human (which he's not, since his dad was a demon prince, not a god). In fact, I think it's fair to assume that the majority of gods in D&D right now are lesser gods.

Note that 5e DMG specifically calls out Lurue as a lesser god--and she was a demigod in 2e and 3e and an exarch in 4e (although that being said, she doesn't have a write-up in 5e yet so it's unclear what domains she grants, if any; I'd guess Life and Nature myself).
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Iuz hears prayers and grants spells, which quasi-deities no longer can do in 5e. And demigods are even described as the weakest quasi deities.
5e doesn't say that I don't think, unless it's in a module.
3e quasi deities were defined (as one possible origin) as being born from the union of a deity and a mortal. Now 5e lists being born from the union of a deity and a mortal as the origin of demigods.
Again, that definition is incomplete. We know from the acolyte background which explicitly says that there are quasi-deities in Appendix B, despite not one of those on any list being in one of the three categories listed in the DMG.
Quasi deities could not hear prayers or grant spells. Demigods could do both. Now in 5e demigods can not hear prayers or grant spells.
Yes I know.
Cleary 5e shifted the terms and simply uses the term demigod for the class of beings that were previously called quasi gods (probably to finally agree with the colloquial understanding of this term). And quasi deity has become the name for new category including (the new) demigod and others
Not so clearly, since the definitions in the DMG are incomplete, which means that it's reasonable to conclude that there are the old type of demigods as well.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
At this point, it's probably more reasonable to assume that Iuz is a lesser god, since in 5e that term means that a full god with a physical form that can (possibly) be killed, as opposed to greater god, which can't be killed, or a demigod, which is specifically half-god-half-human (which he's not, since his dad was a demon prince, not a god). In fact, I think it's fair to assume that the majority of gods in D&D right now are lesser gods.
The bolded part is the problem. We know for a fact that the definitions in the DMG are incomplete, despite sounding complete. That means that we don't know for sure that demigods are only half-god and half-human.
Note that 5e DMG specifically calls out Lurue as a lesser god--and she was a demigod in 2e and 3e and an exarch in 4e (although that being said, she doesn't have a write-up in 5e yet so it's unclear what domains she grants, if any; I'd guess Life and Nature myself).
Iuz is not called out that way, though. And one instance of a demigod becoming a lesser god doesn't mean that they all did.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer for instance on page 171 mentions Heironeous as recently promoting longswords even though he himself uses an axe: "Known for his great magic battleaxe, he recently has been promoting usage of the longsword in order to appeal to common soldiers as well as paladins and leaders."

Tangent note? That is a bizarre and oddly corporate sounding detail. It sounds like a parody.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Iuz hears prayers and grants spells, which quasi-deities no longer can do in 5e. And demigods are even described as the weakest quasi deities.

3e quasi deities were defined (as one possible origin) as being born from the union of a deity and a mortal. Now 5e lists being born from the union of a deity and a mortal as the origin of demigods.

Quasi deities could not hear prayers or grant spells. Demigods could do both. Now in 5e demigods can not hear prayers or grant spells.

Cleary 5e shifted the terms and simply uses the term demigod for the class of beings that were previously called quasi gods (probably to finally agree with the colloquial understanding of this term). And quasi deity has become the name for new category including (the new) demigod and others

Exactly. And we can easily assume that the "quasi-deities" remark that Maxperson is referencing from the Acolyte background is one of multiple other things.

1) There did used to be quasi-deities, perhaps vestiges in Appendix B and were cut, without the text changing.
2) It is meant to reference the Non-God options from Eberron
3) They didn't list any Quasi-Deities, instead just adding it the list to cover people who wanted to be acoyltes of beings not in Appendix B, and they just wrote it very poorly and without giving much thought to the fact that Appendix B didn't contain those beings.

There are a lot of other explanations than "secretly some of these gods are actually Quasi-Deities, but we have no way of knowing whom"
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Exactly. And we can easily assume that the "quasi-deities" remark that Maxperson is referencing from the Acolyte background is one of multiple other things.

1) There did used to be quasi-deities, perhaps vestiges in Appendix B and were cut, without the text changing.
Requires assuming the designers are too stupid to realize they cut out all of quasi-deities.
2) It is meant to reference the Non-God options from Eberron
Requires assuming that the designers are too stupid to realize that those Eberron options don't fit into any of the three categories of quasi-deities.
3) They didn't list any Quasi-Deities, instead just adding it the list to cover people who wanted to be acoyltes of beings not in Appendix B, and they just wrote it very poorly and without giving much thought to the fact that Appendix B didn't contain those beings.
Requires the designers to just be stupid in general.

I prefer not to assume that the designers are stupid. The most likely option is that they just assume the DM will pick some to be quasi-deities.
 

pemerton

Legend
Quasi deities could not hear prayers or grant spells.
Can Kelanen The Prince of Swords grant spells?

As I think @Voadam already noted upthread, the GH Boxed Set Glossography includes him in the chapter dealing with "Personages and Quasi-Deities".

Page 33 says "Throughout the world of Greyhawk are quite a number of characters that have risen above the status of heroes, but who are not quite demi-gods. These personages are 'quasi-deities'." There is then a list of them, which includes Kelanen. Then on page 36 we have Kelanen's entry, which says he "is one of the very poewrful individuals who might, or might not, be a true deity. Thus he is known as a 'Hero Deity,' and some who live by the sword pay him homage." And his DDG-style entry says "Worshippers's Alignment: Any" which contrasts with the N/A of the other three detailed quasi-deities (Heward, Murlynd and Kheoghtom).

Kelanen does not appear in the deity list in the LLG, but worship of Kelanen is mentioned in the Sea Princes entry (pp 100-102) as one of the religions of that area.

The list of quasi-deities on p 33 also includes Daern, who is described as a Hero Deity in the LGG (P 169): "It is rumored that Delleb sponsored Daern, hero-goddess of defenses and fortifications, to her present position." Does Daern have clerics? I don't know.

On the whole I think it's all a bit ambiguous. I assume this is deliberate. I don't see that having a cleric of Daern or Kelanen show up would do any harm to anyone's game!
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top