D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

I responded to certain things, none of which were "every setting is homebrew." THAT portion was just you and him and shouldn't have been brought up with me, since my response had nothing to do with that aspect.

I would apologize then, but since I discussed that aspect with you for days before you decided to correct me, you can understand my confusion at the sudden shift.

And that's one reason you things wrong so often. You cannot assume any optional rule is in play. Rules discussions are about the default rules, not optional rules. Unless the discussing is specifically about a specific optional rule OR optional rules in general.

and I repeat myself. And you repeat yourself, and I repeat myself. And on and on and on.

No. They use the cleric list. They are explicitly do not have character classes, being an NPC using the Monster Block(per DMG page 92) method of creation and not the Adventuring NPC method.

Discussed in a different post, but "they only have cleric spells" is pretty telling since the main way to determine if someone is a cleric is to see if they have clerical spells.

Good God. That's a tortured reading. This should help clear that up.

"Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects. The gods don't grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling."

It's the god's power and they grant it.

Not a tortured reading of the quote you originally provided.

 

[Maxperson]

So I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to the quote from the DMG saying fiends can have clerics.

That was not intentional. There's been a lot going on and I'm getting to these posts in-between life stuff. Would you please quote it again?

This does not mean they are redundant with evil gods however. They still have a different role in the multiverse.

Agreed.

They use enough from the classes that they can be considered to be that class. And some of them specifically say they are members of the class. Acolytes are called junior clergy--clergy, like cleric. Veterans are professional fighters. There's a druid NPC statblock. They aren't built using PC rules, but they are close enough that they can be considered part of the class.

This I don't agree with. Veterans are warriors, but not fighters. The last time I was a player, I was a wizard with the Acolyte background and was also a priest of my god as a result. You can be a member of the clergy(little c) without being a Cleric(big C). It's like the Big E little e, evil argument going on. The druid NPC is not the PC class and while I personally would consider it a druid, if I wanted a real druid NPC I'd build one with PC rules.

This is one of the things I didn't like about 4e and 5e. Building NPCs with these different rules causes a mixing of terms. Little c clergy and big C clerics. PC Druids and NPC little d druids. They aren't the same, even if they use similar or even the same name.

Look, a necklace of prayer beads, among many other magic items requires attunement by a cleric. Are you actually saying that no NPC could ever attune to it? That PCs are literally the only people who can attune to items that have class-based restrictions?

I would let any divine individual attune to it, including paladins who also pray. NPCs also use different rules than PCs, so there's no reason to assume that those different rules wouldn't include the ability to attune magic items that way.

Because if so, that's ridiculous. Right now, going through a list of adventure NPCs, I find Arkhan the Cruel, from Avernus, described as a champion of Tiamat, who wields a named battleaxe, Fane Eater, that requires attunement by an evil cleric or paladin. He has no class-based spellcasting, but he has a paladin-like Aura. Avarice from Rime of the Frostmaiden has wizard spells and wields a staff of frost (darnit, we were literally 2 hit points away from killing her, too), which requires attunement by a wizard. Dragonbait in Tomb of Anhiliation has a holy avenger longsword, which requires attunement by a paladin.

See above.

 

[Maxperson]

I would apologize then, but since I discussed that aspect with you for days before you decided to correct me, you can understand my confusion at the sudden shift.

I didn't respond to that portion and I kept cutting it out of my responses to you(not sure if I did that in all of the responses, though).

and I repeat myself. And you repeat yourself, and I repeat myself. And on and on and on.

Either way, optional rules cannot be considered when discussing the default portion of the game.

Discussed in a different post, but "they only have cleric spells" is pretty telling since the main way to determine if someone is a cleric is to see if they have clerical spells.

The main way to see if someone is a cleric is to check if they have the cleric class. The class spell list can be used by non-clerics.

 

[pemerton]

D3 didn't need to say it. They meet her in Q1.

That's not correct. The encounter with Lolth in D3 happens, by default, in room 5 of the Dungeon Level of the Great Fane of Lolth.

You keep making assertions about these early works that are just false, in order (it seems) to shore up a claim that is likewise false, namely, that in these early works some sort of systematic distinction was being drawn between gods and (inter alia) demon lords. It just wasn't!

As well as the D-series, which is full of clerics with a full range of spells up to the 6th level (because none of them is above 14th level), there is T1 with Lareth the Beautiful.

And the clerics of Zuggtmoy in T1-4. (Also "approved" by Gygax. I don't know exactly what role Gygax was playing, but I don't know of any evidence that he was "approving" based on a detailed consideration of how these modules treated the worshippers of demon lords.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Cultists get no cleric spells. They simply use the cleric list. If there was a cultist list, they would use that instead. Using the cleric list =/= cleric class. You're free to consider them clerics for your game, but RAW does not have them as clerics. They're cultists.

Inflict Wounds is a Cleric Spell. Spiritual Weapon is a Cleric Spell. Sacred Flame is a Cleric Spell. Thaumaturgy is a Cleric Spell.

There are no "cultist spells". That isn't a thing that exists, so, yes, they have cleric spells.

No basis other than RAW anyway.

"When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the NPC a class and levels. The latter two options require a bit of explanation."

Note how it says monster block OR NPC class and levels. Now let's look at monster block.

"Appendix B of the Monster Manual contains statistics for many generic NPCs that you can customize as you see fit, and chapter 9 of this book offers guidelines on adjusting their statistics and creating a new stat block."

Appendix B, which you are using to get cultists and priests, by RAW use monster blocks, not the "or class levels."

To get an NPC with a class you either need to give them PC class levels or use the adventurer PC rules. The MM does not use either one of those.

And, again, they are spell casters with clerical spells. There is no other way to describe them other than clerics, whether or not they use the PC class or not.

I explicitly said otherwise in my response to both you and @Faolyn. I really hate in when you accuse my of saying the opposite of what I just told you.

I did not say that only PCs can be clerics. I said that the MM does not use the rules that would allow them to be clerics.


And this would now be a Strawman, as you twisted what I said to be the complete opposite and have now argued against your own fictional creation.

So, what, only if they are listed to have cleric levels... which has never happened in the entirety of 5e. So, you are making a claim that has little basis in anything except splitting hairs.

 

[Maxperson]

Inflict Wounds is a Cleric Spell. Spiritual Weapon is a Cleric Spell. Sacred Flame is a Cleric Spell. Thaumaturgy is a Cleric Spell.

Those are divine spells on the cleric list, yes. Non-clerics can in fact use them. There are tons of monster who are not clerics that can cast spells from that list.

So, what, only if they are listed to have cleric levels... which has never happened in the entirety of 5e. So, you are making a claim that has little basis in anything except splitting hairs.

It has happened, just not in an official product which uses the monster block method. The rules for it are in the DMG for DMs who wish to use them.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not correct. The encounter with Lolth in D3 happens, by default, in room 5 of the Dungeon Level of the Great Fane of Lolth.

I didn't remember that, but that just means that it was an oversight not to include her stats in D3 with the same language.

As well as the D-series, which is full of clerics with a full range of spells up to the 6th level (because none of them is above 14th level), there is T1 with Lareth the Beautiful.

Okay. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying Lolth is a goddess who can grant spells as Q1 shows to be true(you have to opt out of her getting her goddess abilities).

 

[Faolyn]

Not when the discussion is about what the books tell us is the case.

Since the books actively encourage us to make stuff up, it's relevant.

They do, they just don't succeed. That's because a God succeeding is usually a major adventure or "world-shaking event".

Evidence, please.

Didn't I just do that? What makes you so willing to dismiss what I just showed you?

If you showed it to someone else, I didn't see it. If you showed it to me, then no, you didn't prove anything. "It stands to reason" is not evidence.

Wouldn't that be better directed to Maxperson who made that claim?

You are claiming that the creation of a new god would disrupt the balance. Show us that is the case. I'm sure that if it happened, it would be in an adventure or novel or even a splatbook somewhere, meaning that some online wiki has to have info on it. Google it.

Hey, you know who would be a great person to address those concerns to? Maxperson. The guy who made the original claim. He seems like a great guy to address these concerns to, since he is the one who was must concerned with the cosmic balance and how the Portfolio's going to the wrong beings would be met with an overgod reversing that so that the Cosmic balance is maintained.

I'm sure I'll get around to it. But you're claiming that the creation of a new god would disrupt the balance.

I just showed you that it very likely wouldn't.

That's what you were talking about? I thought you were talking about how to have the discussion we are having about the role and purpose of Evil Gods in DnD.

I don't care how you go about creating gods. What does that process have to do with anything we are actually discussing?

Please show me the RAW about how to create a god.

If there aren't any such rules, then talking about how to create gods is entirely relevant.

No, the bit I misunderstood was thinking you had any interest in participating in the discussion. Yes, I personally find their redundancy undesirable, but I'm not pushing my preference on anyone.

Except when you told me I was doing it wrong in how I created gods. This means that you are pushing your preference on me.

Because that's what Maxperson did. But, here's a funny question, how are the rule's text I've quoted and Pemerton quoted not supporting us? And, why do they need textual support if, as you claimed, they were only caring about their preferences.

"So if Maxperson jumped off a cliff, would you?" --somebody's mother.

Permerton's rules, from what I've seen of them (which isn't every post), don't really support your assertion. And you haven't provided any facts that I've seen.

And before Vecna existed, who stepped in to do that?

Nobody. There was no god of magical secrets before that. He managed to invent his own job. According to Wikipedia, his history just says that, after getting killed by Kas, he rose as the demigod of magic and secrets and only became a greater god after eating Iuz. The FR Wiki says that he became a demigod after centuries of worship by his followers.

You still seem to think that there's a limited number of portfolios going around. This isn't the case.

so, one of the points of difference claimed is that the Gods can grant spells and the Archfiends can't. We've quoted sources from 1e, 2e, 3.X, 4e and 5e showing spells being granted by archfiends. That is slightly different than what you seem to think we've demonstrated.

Since I'm one of the people who has pointed out that 5e archfiends can grant spells, no, that's not different at all.

But the fact bot arch-things and gods can grant spells doesn't make them redundant. (You never did address my point about sylvan gods being redundant with arch-fey.)

Because we are discussing what the canon is. And you keep yelling at me because I'm telling him his preference is wrong. Make up your mind, is he arguing canon, or is he arguing personal preference. Am I allowed to discuss canon?

As soon as you want to start doing so, go ahead.

Huh, I didn't know that. Was Heironeous extant in Gygax's game before Cuthbert's Apotheosis?

According to Wikipedia, the first two gods Gygax made were Cuthbert and Pholtus. It seems other gods were made up for the Greyhawk Folio in '83, I believe.

Then you can provide me a food that has literally no calories, in any way shape or form?

33 Foods That Are Very Low in Calories

If you want to moderate your calorie intake, pairing low calorie foods with higher calorie foods is a great place to start. Here are 33 foods with almost zero calories.

www.healthline.com

They're not entirely zero-calorie, but they're the type of food where you burn more calories eating them then they produce, so they kinda are.

Huh, I thought he came from Greyhawk.

He's the patron saint of Northumbria.

So, let me ask you this. What is the purpose of declaring that I can't continue the discussions that we have been having? Why should I discuss with you how we design gods for pantheons in this thread, when that isn't what the discussions centered on?

I haven't said that you can't continue. I've asked you why you want to continue. In this thread, and in others I've seen you in, you belabor the point, move goalposts, and ignore or dismiss every shred of evidence or opinion that doesn't match yours, and you either accidentally or purposely misread people's comments in the most hostile manner possible. You seem to only care about "winning" the argument. That's why I want to know what your endgame is.

If that's not what you actually want, then you need to alter your writing style because it certainly looks like it is.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't remember that, but that just means that it was an oversight not to include her stats in D3 with the same language.

It's not an oversight - DDG hadn't been written yet! In 1979, when D3 was published, the game-rule concept of "lesser god" hadn't been invented yet. Lolth was presented as a Demon Queen with clerical worshippers.

 

[Minigiant]

But what if next week or in two month they have a neat idea for an adventure that would not work with the consistent nailed down background? Can't have themselves tie their hands like that. no no no

Well like I said...

You really can't sell vague. Not 5-6 years in on a edition. Or 50 years on the game system.

You can't sell a villainous evil god that is no different than a generic arch devil. I'm not buying that book.