D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[pemerton]

Since you like to cite DDG, which you keep insisting on since it allows fiends to lesser gods, then read the specifications in there. 5th levels spells are only granted by demi gods or higher.

This is not correct. @Voadam just upthread quotes it accurately. It preserves the DMG rule but adds a twist: a demi-god has no suitable spell-granting minions and so has to grant 3rd to 5th level spells directly, and can't grant spells of higher level; and a lesser god can't grant 7th level spells.

So if you add, the DDG I can opt not to consider the archfiends to be gods as the wording say and 5th level spells are distinct in acquisition as per both DMG and DDG.

If (say) Orcus is treated as a lesser god, this means clerics of Orcus can have up to 6th level spells. I don't know if there's an example of this in print. I've already pointed to the example, in an early 2nd ed source (City of GH boxed set) of a cleric of Asmodeus with 7th level spell ability.

You claimed that this is my imagination for Hextor, but his alliance with devil is well know and right there in his description. If you add the From the Ashes box set and the Ivid the Undying reference book, it is confirmed even more.

Nothing in any book says, or even implies, that he is the source of spells for clerics of devils. You're just making that up! Which as I say is fine from the point of view of playing the game; but doesn't tell us anything about the content or interpretation of the actually published works.

As for Lolth, why do you think I considered her a goddess? It was written in her description right from the beginning.

Again, this isn't right. The only mention of being a goddess in FF is at the top of her entry, as @Voadam pointed out upthread. The text opens "The demoness Lolth is a very powerful and feared demon lord" (p 24) and says nothing about her being a god. In T1, in the description of the cleric Lareth the Beautiful, Lolth is described as a "Demoness" with no reference to her being a god. In D3 the text is the same as FF but without the parenthetical "Lesser God". In Q1 the parenthetical reference likewise is missing, and the text again is the same, but at the end of the entry (on p 32) there is a heading "Optional Abilities" which opens "As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings" and goes on to plug DDG before setting out some of the DDG information - her stats (with mechanical explanations) and the rules from that book for running deities.

The fact that the deification of some Archdevils and some other fiends was viewed as optional by a lot explains the clarification made in the DDG.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

As has already been explained upthread (by me and @Voadam), should be treated as (the DDG wording) does not mean may be treated as, should one be so inclined. This is not an optional rule: it's an instruction. And as far as clerics are concerned, a superfluous one. Materials were being published in which Lolth has clerics before the DDG was published. T1 is 1979 (and that suggests that Gygax already had the idea for The Temple of Elemental Evil by that time - and it seems at least probable that he was including clerics of Zuggtmoy). D1-3 are 1978.

Plenty of people may have ignored the DDG instruction, and prior to that may have not had clerics of devils and demons - I really have no idea about that. But these classic D&D texts do not draw any contrast between evil gods, devils and demons in respect of having clerics, nor more generally in respect of their place and role in the game's cosmology. Something like that does being in MotP but is not consistently adhered to thereafter (see, again, City of GH boxed set; and Dead Gods).

 

[Maxperson]

And if you re-read what I have written, you will see that I did not contest the devil worshipping stuff. In fact, these can access 4th level spells with the "interpretation " that I wrote that goes exactly in the way you are describing. So even if Sahuagins worship devils and ixixcha... ixixtcha... the devil manta rays worship demongorgon they can still cast spells of 4th level or less which is in accordance to their entry in the MM.

In 2e the Demogorgon is listed as a lesser god in the Monster Mythology, so spells for the Ixitxachitl are explained that way.

 

[Voadam]

You claimed that this is my imagination for Hextor, but his alliance with devil is well know and right there in his description. If you add the From the Ashes box set and the Ivid the Undying reference book, it is confirmed even more.

I don't see it in the 1e Greyhawk materials or in his god entry in From the Ashes or the 3e Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. He is LE and has a title of the Herald of Hell, but that seems to be it, and he is actually a god from Acheron.

Pulling up Ivid the Undying on page 23 I get:

"Baatezu and the Priesthood of Hextor

The priesthood of Hextor is the pre-eminent Lawful Evil one in Aerdy, and one might expect that they would be involved in many dealings with the equally Lawful Evil baatezu. However, matters are not so simple. Hextor himself has his own dwelling on Acheron, not in the Nine Hells. Further, priests of Hextor cannot use the gate spell. Thus, the alliance is not so firm.
Indeed, there is sometimes a rivalry between the two—and sometimes an alliance. Matters can depend upon the attitude of the patriarch-general of the time, and the baatezu being dealt with. A senior priest of Hextor might deal amicably enough with a lesser baatezu, but if confronted by an arrogant pit fiend the priest could have an entirely different view.
The one instance of real note in which Hextor's priesthood and the baatezu have co-operated is in the creation of animuses; see the following chapter on Rauxes."​

 

[Maxperson]

In Q1 the parenthetical reference likewise is missing, and the text again is the same, but at the end of the entry (on p 32) there is a heading "Optional Abilities" which opens "As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings" and goes on to plug DDG before setting out some of the DDG information - her stats (with mechanical explanations) and the rules from that book for running deities.

In Q1 the lesser god abilities were optional, yes. As in the DM had the option to EXCLUDE them.

"As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings. The DM may choose not to use these in this module, since a properly-played Lolth will easily destroy most invaders."

 

[Maxperson]

A senior priest of Hextor might deal amicably enough with a lesser baatezu, but if confronted by an arrogant pit fiend the priest could have an entirely different view.

Hah! If that high priest is confronted by an arrogant pit fiend, that "entirely different view" is likely to be from inside its stomach.

 

[Helldritch]

I don't see it in the 1e Greyhawk materials or in his god entry in From the Ashes or the 3e Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. He is LE and has a title of the Herald of Hell, but that seems to be it, and he is actually a god from Acheron.

Pulling up Ivid the Undying on page 23 I get:

"Baatezu and the Priesthood of Hextor

The priesthood of Hextor is the pre-eminent Lawful Evil one in Aerdy, and one might expect that they would be involved in many dealings with the equally Lawful Evil baatezu. However, matters are not so simple. Hextor himself has his own dwelling on Acheron, not in the Nine Hells. Further, priests of Hextor cannot use the gate spell. Thus, the alliance is not so firm.
Indeed, there is sometimes a rivalry between the two—and sometimes an alliance. Matters can depend upon the attitude of the patriarch-general of the time, and the baatezu being dealt with. A senior priest of Hextor might deal amicably enough with a lesser baatezu, but if confronted by an arrogant pit fiend the priest could have an entirely different view.
The one instance of real note in which Hextor's priesthood and the baatezu have co-operated is in the creation of animuses; see the following chapter on Rauxes."​

To which I will reply:" Is any evil alliance ever firm?" You know the answer as well as I. But the alliance is there nonetheless.

 

[Voadam]

As has already been explained upthread (by me and @Voadam), should be treated as (the DDG wording) does not mean may be treated as, should one be so inclined. This is not an optional rule: it's an instruction.

Linguistically I'd have to say not quite.

Should is stronger than can or may, but it is not must or are required to.

"Stick to your diet" is an instruction. "You should stick to your diet" is advice to stick to a diet. "You can stick to your diet" is simply presenting options.

So 1e DDG "The following beings from the MONSTER MANUAL and FIEND FOLIO should be treated as lesser gods, though they very rarely hove human worshipers:"

The 1e Manual of the Planes is both stronger and more limited than the 1e DDG language. For archdevils on page 110 it says "The arch-devils are a group of powerful devils (treat as lesser gods in their home plane) dedicated to the defeat of good and their own supremacy over all the known planes of existence."

There is no should, just do it. But it is also limited to in their home plane.

 

[Helldritch]

In Q1 the lesser god abilities were optional, yes. As in the DM had the option to EXCLUDE them.

"As a lesser goddess, Lolth has certain attributes common to all divine beings. The DM may choose not to use these in this module, since a properly-played Lolth will easily destroy most invaders."

I concur with that. Only two or three group ever beat Lolth with her goddess powers in my games. And those that did, succeeded by the skin of their teeth...

 

[Helldritch]

Linguistically I'd have to say not quite.

Should is stronger than can or may, but it is not must or are required to.

"Stick to your diet" is an instruction. "You should stick to your diet" is advice to stick to a diet. "You can stick to your diet" is simply presenting options.

So 1e DDG "The following beings from the MONSTER MANUAL and FIEND FOLIO should be treated as lesser gods, though they very rarely hove human worshipers:"

The 1e Manual of the Planes is both stronger and more limited than the 1e DDG language. For archdevils on page 110 it says "The arch-devils are a group of powerful devils (treat as lesser gods in their home plane) dedicated to the defeat of good and their own supremacy over all the known planes of existence."

There is no should, just do it. But it is also limited to in their home plane.

Isn't it in that book that they say that gods can be treated one category higher on their homeplane?That would explain Iuz's priesthood able to get 6th level spells as Iuz's homepage is the prime....

 

[Faolyn]

The rule did exist in 2e, though. So if you're playing 1e or 4e, the rule is absent. If you are playing 2e, 3e or 5e, there is a hard rule that exists that says archfiends cannot cast spells. To have them cast spells you have to invoke the optional rules presented, but the default says no.

In Explorer's Guide to Wildmount, there is a list of "Lesser Idols" who grant have a list of suggested cleric domains and warlock pacts. For example, Desirat is described as the companion and mount of Asmodeus, and she offers the Light and Trickery domains and The Fiend and The Undying pacts. Desirat is likely not an archfiend (she's described as a "dark phoenix" (no, not that one)).

I should also point out that the Cult Fanatic in the MM is a 4th-level cleric, and the Diabolical Cults section of Mordenkainen says "Each description also includes a list of signature spells associated with the cult. If a cult member can cast spells, you can replace any of those spells with spells from that list, as long as the new spell is of the same level as the spell it replaces." Now admittedly, the description for the Cult Fanatic doesn't say that they get those spells from the arch-fiend they worship (because it's such a generic statblock it can be used for any sort of cultist), but I think it's strongly enough implied.

So, this is really another case of D&D not keeping canon straight even within a single edition. Pretty typical of it.