D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

It's that very reason why you yourself would never join one, but I can honestly think of a few people I know personally that actually would join said religion and not as a joke.

I worry for you for knowing people who would join a religion about causing pain and suffering and do so willingly and perhaps even eagerly. I would hope that it is a small number of people, and I would recommend avoiding them as they seem like they would be very dangerous individuals.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet you talked as though they weren't different, as though it were universal.

But hey, cool. In the Forgotten Realms Yeenoghu doesn't have the AO "I like you, you are a god now" stamp of approval which all gods need and which is the only thing that seems to define them.

Yes he does. All gods must have it to be gods. Yeenoghu is only a god in the Realms because Ao has approved it.

Yeenoghu and gnolls ALSO exist in Greyhawk, so... what's going on there?

I don't know, what? It's not as if that matters. Gods can have different strengths in different settings. There might be a setting out there where Yeenoghu is a greater god. Doesn't make a lick of difference to what I said.

 

[Maxperson]

And why Myrkul, Bane, Umberlee, Erythnul, Nerull, Tharizdun, Incabulos, Hextor and others are gods, because they are so nice and warm and fluffy.

Well, all the Realms gods have Ao's stamp of approval, so you can just remove those from that list.

Oh, by the by, when looking to see the list of Greyhawk evil gods, do you know what I saw for 5e?

"Iuz, god of pain and oppression CE Death" He must have had a really major religious awakening in the expansion for Greyhawk that was never released.

Maybe. The 5e PHB doesn't list strengths, so he's probably a demigod twerp there, too.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Call them a god, sure. Are they actually a god? Not necessarily. Archthings can give warlocks power--and archthings include undead creatures. There's no "arch-undead," so theoretically any old vampire or lich can give out power.

And, for Lolth and Thasmudyan, why would you assume that "archfiend" is nothing more than a title? Why not assume that those two have god-powers and archfiend-powers?

Because there have not been listed any canonical "arch-fiend" powers or "god-powers" that are any different. The best I have seen is that many "god-powers" seem to be bigger versions of the same. And yes, I'm sure that you can make up some powers that gods get, but that doesn't exactly mean much because I can just make up those same powers going to Archfiends.

As for the warlock powers, I was referring to cultists getting clerical powers, as discussed involving the MM, and the additional powers they get in Mordenkainen's. Undead creatures can't give those powers, and if they can... well then, wouldn't they be gods as well?

Neither do I, because I never said that at all.

Gloopy is the god of snails. He pretends to be Pistil, the goddess of flowers, even though snails and flowers are mortal enemies (this is a known proven fact). Eventually, enough people worship Gloopy-as-Pistil (in addition to, or instead of, his aspect as god of snails) to the point that he becomes the god of both snails and flowers. Which is great for Gloopy; he now has two parts to his portfolio! Well, other than that he's his own mortal enemy (maybe the dichotomy will make him go crazy), but details, details.

This also assumes that Gloopy doesn't become the god of flowers and stop being the god of snails. Which is less good for him. More of a sideways promotion.

Okay, stop here for a second. Why is he pretending to be Pistil? And how are people worshiping "Gloopy-as-Pistil"? This is the point where you are losing me, because this process matters. Did he pretend to be Pistil to be worshiped twice over? Did he pretend to be Pistil to prevent her from being worshiped properly? These are different goals.

And if everyone is directing prayers to Pistil, but they are just warped, how does this end up affecting Gloopy? He isn't being prayed towards, she is.

Now imagine that Pistil is an actual god. If Gloopy pretends to be Pistil, then any energy a god gets from prayer is split between him and Pistil, because he's leeching off of her. Also, at some point, Pistil is going to notice, and flowers or not, she's going to be pissed. She's going to spray pollen all up in his nose. Maybe Pistil's boyfriend, Spike, the god of thorns, will beat Gloopy up for this and get himself a new snailhide jacket in the process.

How is it being split? There are no prayers going to Gloopy, they are going to Pistil, they are just warped because he is teaching the followers the wrong rituals. Now, if we want to say that the rituals matter... then we have a bit of a problem, because that means that every god/goddess has specific rituals that must be performed to worship them, but that isn't how DnD has portrayed these things. DnD has long had splinter groups within a religion and other things that would make this not true.

But now imagine that Gloopy was careful and clever enough so that Pistil never noticed, or was never able to figure out he was the one who was leeching off her. He manages to steal her portfolio and Pistil dies from lack of faith, Gloopy is now the god of snails and flowers, and Spike is his boyfriend now.

Now all the gods have noticed this. One of their own weakening and dying? Of course they'd see it. And at least one of them is going to be angry at this affront--and is likely to be a lot more powerful than either Pistil or Spike are. Meaning that, as clever as Gloopy was in stealing the portfolio from another god, he was also stupid because he didn't realize there would be ramifications from gods more powerful than him.

But all of this is assuming that this process even works, and I don't understand how it would work. And, I don't see how a more powerful god is going to be able to do anything. Assuming that this all worked as you explained, then to any observer Pistil's worship never ceased, and she just died for no reason. Maybe they investigate, but since you said "spike is his boyfriend now" then the other gods are not going to see anything wrong, because the universe rewrote itself.

And at worst, you have him getting the stink-eye, but you can't just smite a god for being clever. Other gods are going to rally and defend him and his methods, which may lead to drafting of rules to prevent this.

See the problems here?

I see a lot of problems, mostly in the assumption that Worshiping Pistil somehow leads to worshiping Gloopy, but no explanation for why that is the case. Or, if this is something that warps gods, why does it kill Pistil to be worshiped in a new way instead of warping her?

And finally... you just told a really good and interesting story using this method and gods... proving exactly what I said, that you can do this with gods. The fact that their are ramifications doesn't change that, besides a god killing a god is somewhat expected in certain corners, an Archfiend doing it is going to get a different reaction. Or not, maybe they will react the exact same way.

Right, which is bad writing on the part of those settings.

I won't argue that, but "bad writing" on their part doesn't mean Eberron is doing something fundamentally different. It just means they are doing "good writing"

I accept that you believe that gods and archfiends are redundant with each other. I have always accepted that. What I don't accept is the fact that no matter what anyone says or does, you refuse to acknowledge that they have a point--which you can do without even changing your own beliefs on the matter. I don't accept that you have told me that I do gods wrong. I don't accept that you are telling me that having both gods and fiends is "too hard" and will make things "muddled." I don't accept that only having one of those things makes for better stories. I

I never said "you do gods wrong"

I don't care if you accept having both evil gods and archfiends of similar concepts is more difficult to write well. It is true. Just like I'll say that writing a fantasy world is harder than writing for the "real world" because there are fewer things you have to explain. I also don't understand why you are so offended that I'm saying something is hard to do well. If you've been doing it well... isn't that a compliment to you? Carving an ice sculpture is hard to do well, does that mean there are not absolutely gorgeous ice sculptures made by people with high levels of skill in that field? No. It means I'm really frickin' impressed when I see those sculptures, because that isn't easy to do.

I never said that having only one makes for "better stories." I said it is easier to write better stories with only one. It is, to give another example, incredibly hard to write a compelling story with multiple POV characters. One of the reasons authors who do so get respect is because of the difficulty. It is easier to write good stories with only a single POV character. Does that mean that only good stories come from a single POV character? Obviously not. One is just easier to do well compared to the other.

Sure, why not? Beauty and grace are subjective, and I'm one of those people who want female dwarfs to have beards. Can dwarfs dance, sure? It's probably not going to be ballet, but they can dance just fine. A jig, a morrus dance, even the watusi (which also a type of cow, which was confusing when I decided to look it up). I'd bet they can even tap dance. They have the stamina for it. Dwarfs likely wouldn't use bows because of arm length, but crossbows, yeah. OK, crossbows aren't as "romantic" as a longbow, but hey.

I hear a lot of "well, I could do something similar", but it seems that it is much harder to actually find or write dwarves to emulate elves.

I looked up Rise of Tiamat and it has this line in the introduction: "Calling upon ancient magic and a host of draconic allies, the Cult of the Dragon seeks to unleash Tiamat from her prison in the Nine Hells. By bringing the Queen of Dragons bodily into the world, the cult plans to scour away their foes and usher in a new age of draconic dominance."

So here we learn two things: that Tiamat is imprisoned (she's not in the Nine Hells willingly and can't willingly leave) and the cult wants to bring her "bodily" into the Prime. As in, not her avatar, but her. Can you see how this is a bit different than Yeenoghu being unable to send an avatar without mortal help.

So, if you look up her history, it is FAR more complicated than that. She was able to leave until... 5e maybe 4e. According to her history she was only "imprisoned" after betraying Bane (she was forced to serve him in 4e) to Asmodeus, but when she offered to be his Champion instead of the Lord of the First, she was bound to serve Bel, the Lord of the First and be imprisoned in her divine domain.

But, when you fight Tiamat at the end of that adventure... you fight an avatar, not her full bodily self. At least, that is what has always been described to me. So, the ritual wasn't pulling her through bodily like it claims as far as I have ever been told. And looking at her statblock in the adventure, she is listed as a fiend.

So, no, I really don't see the difference. Tiamat doesn't send an avatar after all to defend the ritual site or really to do anything. She seems to need the ritual to get out of her agreement with Asmodeus to act without restraint on the material world. Something that every Demon Lord needs as well.

He has as much structure as I choose for there to be. And starting from "he isn't a god" isn't working in reverse (and here you are again, telling me I'm doing it wrong). It's taking what we know--that's he's a demon prince--and working from there. You would have to ignore everything that says he's a demon prince, including the site you linked, to claim he's a god.

Literally the only reason to claim he's a god and work from there is if you believe that gods and archfiends are the same.

Okay, I'll own up to it, this time I am telling you you are doing it wrong. You want to prove he isn't a god, and you start with the claim "he isn't a god" then defend that claim using evidence based on the fact that he isn't a god, and follow that up by removing the structures that exist because you have decided that he isn't a god, and therefore can't have the structures that he actually does have.

Yes, this is entirely backwards, and you could literally prove anything if you start from the assumption that you are right and change evidence to support that assumption.

Instead, don't claim that he is a god or not a god. Look at the evidence. Does he have a coherent religion around him, similiar to known and accepted CE gods? Yes. Does he have clerics and other faithful who he has granted powers? Yes. Does he answer prayers? Yes. These all point to him being a god.

I don't need "proof." You asked me how I would run him. That's how, by saying that his shrines corrupt the area around them. I do not say that temples to gods alter their surroundings because then I can't imagine any temple being allowed within city walls--unless I wanted the city to be a theocracy with only a single religion in it. Which I could definitely do, but I'd rather not, because I dislike theocracies.

Why do I do it this way? Because fiends, regardless of type, are a destructive, cancerous force. Their presence on the Prime begins to erode it. Left unchecked, it would eventually break that Prime world into bits and suck it into the lower planes. Gods, even weak, evil gods, can control their world-building natures if they want to do. A god can live on a world for millennia and never affect it unless they chose to. A fiend can't. Fiends are, effectively, not housebroken, and they piddle corrosive evil all over the place.

I don't need "proof" of any of this. I don't need validation from the books. This is one of the ways I differentiate gods and fiends.

And it is in no way compelling, because you are literally just making it up. You can't say "Yeenoghu isn't a god in DnD because I made up rules that for my home campaign he can't be a god". I can literally do the exact same thing for the accepted gods and make them all "not gods" as well.

So, yes, if you want me to accept that Yeenoghu can't be a god, because his temples corrupt the land and god temples don't do that, then you need proof. If it is just you making it up then I'm going to continue running his temples and shrines as not corrupting the lands, because there is no proof that they do.

No, because there is no problem. You're seeing a problem because, for some reason, you don't want to pick what option to take. You seem to want to have only one option available, instead of several. Too bad. There is more than one option, and that's a feature, not a bug. Pick the one you like.

You seem to have a fundamental disconnect about the nature of this discussion. If every option is valid, then you can't say the rules prevent you from having Archfiends and Evil Gods being the same. They don't, every option is valid. You know what you can say if every option is valid? That they are interchangeable. Because every option is valid, and therefore they can be interchanged or not interchanged as per your choice of option.

If you want to make up rules to make them not interchangeable, that is fine, but as soon as you stop using made-up rules that only apply to your own table, then they are back to being interchangeable.

FYI: the difference between a cupcake and a muffin is that cupcake batter is beaten longer to produce a lighter crumb and smoother texture. By beating the muffin batter less, it remains lumpier and grainier. Also, cupcakes (being cakes) generally rely on cake flour (or sifted AP flour) where muffins (being quick breads) use AP or self-rising flour, or even things like wheat flour or almond flour, and you can eat a muffin hot or cold whereas it would be really weird to eat a hot cupcake.

So there are, in fact, legitimate differences between cupcakes and muffins, just like there are legitimate differences between god and archthings. The only difference here is that bakers can't just decide that all cupcakes are muffins.

Thank you for the baking lessen, but as someone who doesn't know any of that information, those differences don't really play into my viewpoint. Learning more, I could learn those differences.

But, countering that with the gods and archfiends, the more you learn, THE FEWER DIFFERENCES THERE ARE. Because everything a god can do, an archfiend has done, at some point. The distinction seems to exist just to exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes he does. All gods must have it to be gods. Yeenoghu is only a god in the Realms because Ao has approved it.

So the only difference between gods and Archfiends in FR is how much AO likes them. Compelling.

I don't know, what? It's not as if that matters. Gods can have different strengths in different settings. There might be a setting out there where Yeenoghu is a greater god. Doesn't make a lick of difference to what I said.

But you've said, repeatedly, that he isn't a god. That means he isn't a god in FR and that he isn't a god in Greyhawk.

You've said he isn't a god in FR because AO doesn't like him enough (which has nothing to do with any of the reasons you gave before these last two posts) . So why isn't he a god in Greyhawk? Just because he isn't?

Well, all the Realms gods have Ao's stamp of approval, so you can just remove those from that list.

Ah, sorry, I forgot you have trouble differentiating. That would leave Erythnul, Nerull, Tharizdun, Incabulos, Hextor and others. So, are they just so nice to people that they end up with worshipers who truly believe in their messages of hate, pain, disease, destruction of all life, death of all hope, ect?

Maybe. The 5e PHB doesn't list strengths, so he's probably a demigod twerp there, too.

Then why call him a god if he is a demigod? It isn't like 5e doesn't have that distinction, they absolutely do.

 

[Maxperson]

So the only difference between gods and Archfiends in FR is how much AO likes them. Compelling.

Or not. That counter above is......................compelling! Approval doesn't mean like or dislike. Stop assuming.

But you've said, repeatedly, that he isn't a god. That means he isn't a god in FR and that he isn't a god in Greyhawk.

No. I said at this point he's barely more than a suped up hyena. If he's a god, he's most likely a demigod.

You've said he isn't a god in FR because AO doesn't like him enough

Never said that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Ah, sorry, I forgot you have trouble differentiating. That would leave Erythnul, Nerull, Tharizdun, Incabulos, Hextor and others. So, are they just so nice to people that they end up with worshipers who truly believe in their messages of hate, pain, disease, destruction of all life, death of all hope, ect?

Nice has nothing to do with forces of the universe.

Then why call him a god if he is a demigod? It isn't like 5e doesn't have that distinction, they absolutely do.

Um. First, and this is blatantly obvious, because a demigod is still a god. It's in the name which I went ahead and bolded for you. Second, and this is still obvious, but less obvious, they don't differentiate ANY OF THEM. The PHB doesn't care about power level. It's just letting the player know names, portfolios and domains.

 

[Faolyn]

Because there have not been listed any canonical "arch-fiend" powers or "god-powers" that are any different. The best I have seen is that many "god-powers" seem to be bigger versions of the same. And yes, I'm sure that you can make up some powers that gods get, but that doesn't exactly mean much because I can just make up those same powers going to Archfiends.

As for the warlock powers, I was referring to cultists getting clerical powers, as discussed involving the MM, and the additional powers they get in Mordenkainen's. Undead creatures can't give those powers, and if they can... well then, wouldn't they be gods as well?

If the only definition of "god" you have is "gives other people powers," then sure. Everything's a god.

If there are other abilities that one group has that the other doesn't... it still wouldn't actually matter to you, because you're convinced they're the same because you can just make stuff up. It's strange. You demand that I stick to canon, but you feel free to make up whatever you want.

Okay, stop here for a second. Why is he pretending to be Pistil? And how are people worshiping "Gloopy-as-Pistil"? This is the point where you are losing me, because this process matters. Did he pretend to be Pistil to be worshiped twice over? Did he pretend to be Pistil to prevent her from being worshiped properly? These are different goals.

And if everyone is directing prayers to Pistil, but they are just warped, how does this end up affecting Gloopy? He isn't being prayed towards, she is.

You're the one convinced that one god can pretend to be another one to gain power or to corrupt a church. That archfiends weren't alone in being willing to do that. So you tell me.

I'll get you started. Gloopy appears in the dreams of a high-ranking priest and dictates new holy writ, or begins to seed the church with his own followers. This allows Gloopy to subtly rewrite holy writ to include phrases that would send prayer-energy Gloopy's way, or to create fictional saints or angels that you can pray to as an intermediary, but the prayers would go to Gloopy instead of Pistil. You do this slowly over the course of decades or centuries, each time altering Pistil's religion a little bit more, and Gloopy can eventually just claim the whole thing for himself.

How is it being split? There are no prayers going to Gloopy, they are going to Pistil, they are just warped because he is teaching the followers the wrong rituals. Now, if we want to say that the rituals matter... then we have a bit of a problem, because that means that every god/goddess has specific rituals that must be performed to worship them, but that isn't how DnD has portrayed these things. DnD has long had splinter groups within a religion and other things that would make this not true.

First off, yes, every god has had specific rituals. At least, every god that's had detailed info written on it has, and it was always assumed that your cleric would be performing these rituals. Do you really think that every cleric says the same prayers and makes the same motions, regardless of the god they worship?

Also, how many of these splinter groups are sects where each sect worships the same god in a different manner, and how many are actually formed around different beings?

But all of this is assuming that this process even works, and I don't understand how it would work. And, I don't see how a more powerful god is going to be able to do anything. Assuming that this all worked as you explained, then to any observer Pistil's worship never ceased, and she just died for no reason. Maybe they investigate, but since you said "spike is his boyfriend now" then the other gods are not going to see anything wrong, because the universe rewrote itself.

Sigh. The universe didn't rewrite itself. Nothing I wrote implied that. A greater deity would be able to tell something is up. Is there a god of truth or reality or vision? They'd see through it. Does Pistil--or Gloopy--have a superior? That god would be likely be able to see through it. Gloopy's superior would also likely not be happy, because this could mean that Gloopy is coming after them next.

And at worst, you have him getting the stink-eye, but you can't just smite a god for being clever. Other gods are going to rally and defend him and his methods, which may lead to drafting of rules to prevent this.

You really think gods won't punish Gloopy retroactively? Won't be angry that Gloopy tried to get too big for his britches and think above his station? That he killed another god? There is absolutely zero reason to think that the gods of any D&D world care one iota abut Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course they'd punish Gloopy, and probably stick his head on the wall of the divine conference room as a warning to the other gods. Or to laugh at his audacity.

And if Gloopy is an evil god, or at least hangs out with them a lot? Evil guys are always killing lessers who think themselves too clever. Evil gods are the same. I'm sure that's one of things on the Evil Overlord list.

Edit: I'm going to add this bit--while it's not RAW, it's often assumed that the gods have some sort of treaty with each other. They won't mess with each other's worshipers or territory directly; they can maybe send clerics, but can't actually do anything on their own. So here, Gloopy would be in violation of a major godly edict. Order of the Stick uses this idea (and does so in a serious manner). But it's also assumed that archthings aren't bound by this sort of treaty.

The problem, I think, is you're looking for mechanical differences only, even though most of the really important differences aren't mechanical at all.

I never said "you do gods wrong"

Sigh. Actually, you have, multiple times. Including in this post.

I don't care if you accept having both evil gods and archfiends of similar concepts is more difficult to write well. It is true.

Prove it. Prove that it's more difficult for everyone to write. We know it's more difficult for you to write, you've said so. But for me? For other people? Prove it. In fact, prove there's a universal definition of "write well" while you're at it.

It's not true. It's your opinion. Opinions are not facts.

I hear a lot of "well, I could do something similar", but it seems that it is much harder to actually find or write dwarves to emulate elves.

Again, harder for you.

So, if you look up her history, it is FAR more complicated than that. She was able to leave until... 5e maybe 4e. According to her history she was only "imprisoned" after betraying Bane (she was forced to serve him in 4e) to Asmodeus, but when she offered to be his Champion instead of the Lord of the First, she was bound to serve Bel, the Lord of the First and be imprisoned in her divine domain.

So? None of this changes the fact that she was imprisoned in the 5e adventure and her cultists wanted to bring her bodily into the Prime.

But, when you fight Tiamat at the end of that adventure... you fight an avatar, not her full bodily self. At least, that is what has always been described to me. So, the ritual wasn't pulling her through bodily like it claims as far as I have ever been told. And looking at her statblock in the adventure, she is listed as a fiend.

You fight her. In the adventure, her statblock is labled "Tiamat." Not "avatar of" or "aspect of." Her. The adventure repeatedly says that the Red Wizards are bringing her into the Prime. One sentence says "As should be clear from her statistics in appendix d, Tiamat is a god." A quick search of the adventure shows no instances of the word "avatar."

Yes, she's listed as a fiend because they don't have a monster type for "god" and it was either that or celestial (empyreans are also listed as celestials, even though they're at least quasi-gods).

Okay, I'll own up to it, this time I am telling you you are doing it wrong. You want to prove he isn't a god, and you start with the claim "he isn't a god" then defend that claim using evidence based on the fact that he isn't a god, and follow that up by removing the structures that exist because you have decided that he isn't a god, and therefore can't have the structures that he actually does have.

OK, here goes: He isn't a god.

The end.

I don't need to defend how I would run a demon prince in one of my games. Why would you insist on that? Do you go around insisting everyone defend every choice they make when they run a game?

Also, every single places he's described calls him a demon prince: that 4e page you linked, the FR wiki, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, on WotC's own website... In every single book but one, he's listed as a demon prince. At this point, if you think he's a god, you need to support your claim. Hell, according to the site you linked, Yeenoghu doesn't even grant spells--Erythnul does it for him!

Yes, this is entirely backwards, and you could literally prove anything if you start from the assumption that you are right and change evidence to support that assumption.

You mean like you do with everything, when you have made the assumption that evil gods and fiends are the same and have changed the evidence to support that?

Also, no, I'm not doing anything backwards because it's a game. I can do anything I want with these fictional characters in any way I wanted to. If I wanted to make Yeenoghu into some sort of super-deformed chibi who's actually a girl who rides a rainbow unicorn, I could. I don't need proof of anything for my game.

Instead, don't claim that he is a god or not a god. Look at the evidence. Does he have a coherent religion around him, similiar to known and accepted CE gods? Yes. Does he have clerics and other faithful who he has granted powers? Yes. Does he answer prayers? Yes. These all point to him being a god.

Nope. They point to him being an entity that can grant spellcasting abilities. Unless, again, you assume anything that can grant spellcasting abilities is a god. In which case... you've started at that assumption. Now provide evidence.

You seem to have a fundamental disconnect about the nature of this discussion. If every option is valid, then you can't say the rules prevent you from having Archfiends and Evil Gods being the same. They don't, every option is valid. You know what you can say if every option is valid? That they are interchangeable. Because every option is valid, and therefore they can be interchanged or not interchanged as per your choice of option.

You are trying to force other people, including me, into accepting your opinion as fact. If you stated that, in your opinion, gods and archthings were redundant, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead, you're demanding that I provide proof before I can run my game the way I want to.

Who does that? Are... are you a that guy? Do you get annoyed when the DM decides that goblins have 12 hit points and not 7?

Thank you for the baking lessen, but as someone who doesn't know any of that information, those differences don't really play into my viewpoint. Learning more, I could learn those differences.

But, countering that with the gods and archfiends, the more you learn, THE FEWER DIFFERENCES THERE ARE. Because everything a god can do, an archfiend has done, at some point. The distinction seems to exist just to exist.

Sigh. Again, people in this thread have posted many, many differences between gods and archthings. Since you refuse to believe that they are different things, you refuse to accept the differences. The differences exist whether you like it or not.

 

[Lanefan]

Gloopy is the god of snails. He pretends to be Pistil, the goddess of flowers, even though snails and flowers are mortal enemies (this is a known proven fact). Eventually, enough people worship Gloopy-as-Pistil (in addition to, or instead of, his aspect as god of snails) to the point that he becomes the god of both snails and flowers. Which is great for Gloopy; he now has two parts to his portfolio! Well, other than that he's his own mortal enemy (maybe the dichotomy will make him go crazy), but details, details.

This also assumes that Gloopy doesn't become the god of flowers and stop being the god of snails. Which is less good for him. More of a sideways promotion.

Now imagine that Pistil is an actual god. If Gloopy pretends to be Pistil, then any energy a god gets from prayer is split between him and Pistil, because he's leeching off of her. Also, at some point, Pistil is going to notice, and flowers or not, she's going to be pissed. She's going to spray pollen all up in his nose. Maybe Pistil's boyfriend, Spike, the god of thorns, will beat Gloopy up for this and get himself a new snailhide jacket in the process.

But now imagine that Gloopy was careful and clever enough so that Pistil never noticed, or was never able to figure out he was the one who was leeching off her. He manages to steal her portfolio and Pistil dies from lack of faith, Gloopy is now the god of snails and flowers, and Spike is his boyfriend now.

Now all the gods have noticed this. One of their own weakening and dying? Of course they'd see it. And at least one of them is going to be angry at this affront--and is likely to be a lot more powerful than either Pistil or Spike are. Meaning that, as clever as Gloopy was in stealing the portfolio from another god, he was also stupid because he didn't realize there would be ramifications from gods more powerful than him.

See the problems here?

On the cosmic level, perhaps: you end up with a bench-clearing brawl among the deities*.

On the day-to-day level of a typical campaign, however? Really not so much.

Why's that, you ask? Because while that brawl between Gloopy and Pistil might develop quickly in deity time and just as quickly draw others into it, deity time isn't mortal time. In mortal time this might take centuries if not millennia - or more! - to develop; meaning that you-as-DM could time your campaign (which, if typical, will only cover a decade of mortal time at most) to occur at any point along that divine story arc, and then have said divine story arc somehow affect the campaign if you wanted.

* - which, now I think about it, sounds like fun!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or not. That counter above is......................compelling! Approval doesn't mean like or dislike. Stop assuming.

I'm not assuming, I'm being sarcastic. You've basically boiled down any discussion of FR on this matter into "Because AO says" which is rather boring and pointless.

No. I said at this point he's barely more than a suped up hyena. If he's a god, he's most likely a demigod.

You know what a suped up hyena is? A Dire Hyena. Yeenoghu is clearly more powerful than that, so I haven't really been paying attention to your blatant dismissal.

Also, he can't be a Demigod. Demigod's can't hear prayers or grant cleric spells, and Yeenoghu can do both.

Nice has nothing to do with forces of the universe.

But it does have something to do with being a god, and those are all gods. Gods who are worshiped and therefore are gods. Iuz isn't nice, but he is worshiped. So, why are those gods actually gods, despite being just as terrible as Iuz, who you say isn't a god, because he is so terrible that he isn't worshiped "properly"

Um. First, and this is blatantly obvious, because a demigod is still a god. It's in the name which I went ahead and bolded for you. Second, and this is still obvious, but less obvious, they don't differentiate ANY OF THEM. The PHB doesn't care about power level. It's just letting the player know names, portfolios and domains.

So, I didn't think I'd have to be the one to tell you this Max, but a Demigod is not a god. That's why they are called DEMIgods. Because they are not gods. If they were gods, they'd be called gods.

And to your second point, you are trying to tell me that they just literally didn't care and mislabeled him for the lulz? Because that is a mislabeling then, and a rather blatant one. And a quick glance doesn't show me any other Demigods listed as gods for the DnD pantheons. I know you are likely to bring up Hercules, but in some versions of his mythos, he ascends to being a full god alongside Zeus after he burns himself alive for killing his wife and children, and he was worshiped as a full god by the greeks and romans, so that has the support of history and the mythos behind it, not just a blatant "we don't care" from the designers.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Reading the back and forth here, I'd lean on agreeing that there doesn't seem to be any concrete difference between the archfiends and evil gods.

Personally, I'd say "god" at least sounds more legitimate than "demon lord" or "arch devil", so you could play it as the last two trying to become gods just because of better PR, could be fun enough.