D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

Where in D&D are they not considered gods or able to grant spells? Every reference I have seen is them granting cleric spells.

In AD&D they were generally not able to grant the highest level cleric spells, but they were still granting cleric spells.

5e changes that in the DMG. It lists demigods in the quasidiety category and says that they cannot grant spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Or, instead of assuming, you could ask. Because I'm not just thinking of "gives other people powers".

Gods can see within X miles of their worshipers and sacred sites. Archfiends can do the same thing. Gods can create things. Archfiends can do the same. Gods can give birth to powerful children. Archfiends can do the same (and one of those children seems to have become a god). Gods are immune to non-magical weapons. So are Archfiends. Gods can cure diseases and ailments and can revive the dead. So can Archfiends (how else are they capable of fulfilling warlock pacts that require saving the life or restoring to life a loved one).

This goes beyond what you assumed, I have literally never heard of a power a god has that an Archfiend has not also demonstrated in the canon.

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.

Corrupting a church =/= stealing faith energy.

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.

Okay, there are a few things going on here. First, DnD rarely if ever shows prayers going to intermediaries, but lets say that Gloopy does make up some Angel. Heck, Gloopy literally creates an angel, he is a god, he can do that. the prayers are going to that angel... not Gloopy. Now, it is possible that the angel could funnel that power to Gloopy, but that is still creating an intermediary. It is certainly possible, but it is quite different from what you originally proposed.

To the other point though, again, I find myself confused. "Phrases" shouldn't be enough to redirect any amount of prayer energy. Because I can easily imagine a prayer sent to "protect me from the devil's and their hellfire" and the majority of that is about devils and hellfire, but I wouldn't imagine that prayer granting any power to devils. If it did, then praying for protection or deliverance empowers your enemy. Which is bizarre to say the least.


I'm not saying I disagree that he can warp the faith, I'm just disagreeing that he is getting a direct funnel of energy from doing so. That doesn't seem to be how prayers work. Now, maybe there is something else going on here that I'm not getting, maybe your examples make more sense in a fuller context, but from what you have given me so far, it doesn't support your claim.

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?

Yes, I know gods have some specific rituals. But, how much difference does it make if you worship at noon with your right hand, compared to evening with your left? To me it always seemed much more about intent. That's why laypeople who aren't trained priest who have been taught the specific words and rituals can still pray to the gods and be answered, because it isn't about getting the rituals exactly right, which seems to be your interpretation.

Case in point, yes, many of these splinter groups are sects, who are worshiping the same god in a different manner. But, according to your example, this should have killed that god and spawned multiple different beings. That hasn't actually happened though. Which is why I've brought the concerns I've brought about your example, it seems that Gloopy would have created a sect, maybe shifted Pistil's being, but not done what you said.

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.

Nothing you wrote implied that? How about Thorny becoming Gloopy's boyfriend as Gloopy takes over Pistil's domain. That certainly implies it. And considering the fact that Thorny would have hated Gloopy, that implies it even more heavily.

So, I'd say this is clearly a murky area. If the people directly involved have had their relationships fundamentally changed

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.

How was Mask punished for killing Bhaal and Leira? Cyric also snapped Mask's sword form, stealing a portfolio from him, was he punished for that act?

Multiple evil gods went to try and kill Corellon under the scheme of Lolth, including Gruumsh, Malar (who she sent after seeing Malar kill an Orc God named Herne), Ghaundar and several others.

Hextor and Heironous try and kill each other all the time.

So, again, no, there is no reason that DnD gives us to assume that attacking and killing another god is some taboo that that would get them punished by the other gods. That simply isn't how it works in most settings.

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

No, most of the post you were responding to was "wait, why are you making these assumptions? Where are these rules coming from?" I'm not saying you are doing it wrong, if that's how you want to do it for your own games, then that's fine. However, without some basis for where these assumptions are coming from, you can't assume other people are following the same ideas.

And, if your entire point is "this is how I would do it", well, if I do it differently, then we are going to get different results, right?

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.

Prove that juggling five balls is harder than juggling three. It is the exact same thing. Do you actually believe there is someone who would say that five is easier than three and ten is easier than five? I didn't realize it was so controversial to say "doing more things is harder than doing fewer things" that I would need to draft a scientific proof of the matter.

As for "write well", I'm going to go forward under the assumption that you've never taken a writing class. A few universal things about writing well. Don't make spelling mistakes or grammatical mistakes. This doesn't mean you can't misspell words or use poor grammar, they just shouldn't be mistakes. Write coherent characters. Write coherent plots. I have, in many years of studying the art of writing, never seen someone compliment the fact that they had no idea what was going on and couldn't follow the plot, that is generally and I'd dare say universally seen as a sign of poor writing.

Now, if you want to say that actually you love it when you can't follow a story because it is written incoherently, then I'm happy for you, I'm sure those authors appreciate having an audience that likes their work.

And, combining the two things, the more plots and characters you add, the harder it gets to keep things coherent. Just like juggling balls and not dropping them. Now, if you are claiming that you can easily do this and keep the same high standard that you would have with fewer plots and characters, CONGRATULATIONS, I am truly happy for you. You have done a thing that is difficult so easily that you didn't even realize that it is hard for some people to do the same thing.

Again, harder for you.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the lack of stories about dwarves where they do the same things as elves, and are portrayed in a nearly identical manner, that I'm not the only one who finds that concept difficult.

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.

It adds some context, especially about the fact that she is imprisoned by BEL of all beings.

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).

Wouldn't celestial make more sense? I mean, by this we can't look at the statblocks of the Demon Lords and Archdevils and say they aren't gods, because they could be and just labeled as Fiends because we don't have "god" as a monster-type.

But again, I've heard repeatedly from multiple different people that you fought an avatar. And frankly, if those are the stats of a god, I'm disappointed. Nothing there raises her above the level of Archfiend.

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!


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.

And if you were only making a claim about your game, then I wouldn't be asking for evidence, now would I?

Fine, you don't want to defend the fact that he isn't a god in your game? Don't. But then don't expect me to say that he isn't a god, because all the evidence I provided in the next part points to the fact that he is a god.

You really have a bad habit of switching without warning from talking about the game in general, to your game in specific. Then yelling at me for responding to the game in general with strident demands to know where I get off telling you how to run your game. Do me a favor? Just start prefacing all the parts of your post that are specific to your game only, with "In my game". I will then respond with "well, that isn't true in my game, nor does it seem to be true in the game as a whole" and we can stop with this endless cycle of you yelling at me for trying to discuss THE game instead of YOUR game.

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.

How is answering prayers not evidence that he is a god? The DMG lists that as a thing only lesser and greater gods can do. Do you have all beings regardless of status able to answer prayers?

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?

You can run your game anyway you please, but if you have zero interest in discussing things beyond your table, stop responding. Seriously, just stop. I'm getting sick and tired of trying to discuss with you the game in general and you screaming me down about how I'm trying to control how you run your game.

I run Yeenoghu as he is presented in the core books. He can answer prayers, he can make clerics, he can grant powers. All of this is 100% supported by the core books, I have homebrewed and made up nothing. According to the Core Books, only gods can answer prayers. So, Yeenoghu is a god. This is fairly iron-clad per the RAW of the core books. No homebrewing on my part. If you want to say "but you are homebrewing him to be a god, and I don't do that" and your defense of that claim is just... saying he isn't a god because he isn't a god, then you have said nothing to dispute any of the evidence that he is a god. And me pointing that out isn't me telling you you are running him wrong and should run him "my way". I'm just pointing out you have provided no evidence that would make me consider I'm wrong or that I'm homebrewing anything.

Now, if you want to point to "but the books don't call him a god", then sure, that is true. But then they give him the abilities of a god. So, is God just a title, divorced from any actual abilities? Is Yeenoghu somehow special in that he has abilities beyond what he should? I don't think it is the second, because other Demon Lords and Archdevils can, according to the Core Books, do many of the same things. Levistus for example is being punished by being forced to answer prayers. Again, according to the DMG, only Gods can answer prayers. And again, according to the MM the Cult Fanatic has clerical abilities granted by these beings. Are there other abilities that they are supposed to have, according to the books, that makes this difference? I don't know. You don't seem to know either, because whenever the question comes up, you just blatantly make up things. Which, while you can do that for your game, doesn't prove me wrong in my reading of the books because, shockingly, things you make up don't appear in the books.

And no, I'm not "that guy" I homebrew and encourage others to homebrew. But, when discussing "this is what the books say" The books do not include your homebrew. Which seems obvious, but somehow I seem to need to keep repeating it.

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.

People have posted false things. People have posted things they make up. People have posted things that were at one point true but that are counter-acted by things that were also true at a different point in time. And, if that was a purely linear process, then that would be fine "this was true, but then later this new thing was true" but as we have shown, it isn't linear, it is a more like a wave form. They have been true and not true in the same edition for multiple editions.

So, yes, I'm continual unimpressed with false facts, wrong facts, made-up facts, and things with multiple interpretations. Does this mean you can't run your home game like you want, which you are going to accuse me of saying YET AGAIN? No. No. No no no no no nononononononono. I can keep saying no as many times as you like, but I am beginning to suspect it is meaningless, because you want to feel attacked by me, so no matter how many times I say that isn't what I am doing, you are going to keep accusing me of it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

See my post, above.

In D&D, demigods are very much gods - albeit ones of the lowest rank. If you read the flavour text of just about every entry of entities who are classified as demigod in the 1E DDg, it includes "[so-and-so] is the god of [such-and-such]."

I had not seen this usage before, usually I have seen "[so-and-so] is a demigod with access to [such-and-such]" Which is why seeing Iuz listed as a god, and not a demigod caught my eye

 

[Mirtek]

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!

Which actually proved how interchangeable even WotC sees them.

He was a deity until 3e just out of the blue decided that he no longer was a deity. 4e than made him a primoridal which is just a deity by another name and then 5e once again decided that he's not a deity.

6e (or 5.5e for what it's worth) might decide otherwise again.

 

[Faolyn]

Which actually proved how interchangeable even WotC sees them.

Or, that Yeenoghu was seen as interchangeble.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Facts are pointless now?

I didn't say that, but I do find "because AO" to be perhaps one of the most boring and most pointless ways to differentiate between a god and something else.

Then a suped up dire hyena

Demigods have been able to grant spells since 1e when they came into existence, until 4e(maybe) and 5e. 5e apparently changes demigods, so maybe they promoted Yeenhoghu. Or maybe his clerics just get their spells from faith and not him.

You can continue to dismiss how powerful Yeenoghu is, you aren't hurting anyone's feelings. But he is clearly a massively powerful figure.

Secondly, you would be right about Yeenoghu getting promoted, especially since you are ignoring one of the things I keep saying. According to the DMG Demigods are Quasi-Deities and "Quasi-deities have a divine origin, but they don’t hear or answer prayers, grant spells to clerics, or control aspects of mortal life."

I keep mentioning figures like Yeenoghu and Levistus hearing prayers for a reason. According to the 5e DMG, they would all be at least Lesser Dieties because they can do this.

He's not worshipped by very many, though. Being forced into churches and to go through the motions does not equate to worship. He can cause capitulation, but not worship. And being raised in a tyrannical environment doesn't alter that.

So, why is the Incabulos the god of disease and death, who wants people to suffer horrible deaths via disease, and encourages his clergy to travel for the sole purpose of spreading diseases to people, a god? He can't be worshipped by many, in fact, it literally says he has a small following.

And why is capitulation in a church, performing the correct rituals, not enough to count as worship? Many, many evil gods have churches that work in the same manner.

And, after nearly 100 years... why do you think they are just going through the motions instead of actually worshiping? You know child indoctronation is a thing, and he clearly is willing to do that and has had the time to do that.

So in D&D they are gods dude. They are by RAW(in all editions that have them) the lowest rank of god.

I am aware they are a rank of god. I am also aware that they are not a god. The problem of using the same term for two different purposes.

No. I'm telling you what I'm telling you. I said to stop putting words into my mouth. No label for any god of any power is not "mislabeling" any of them. The PHB lists all gods from demigods up to greater just as gods. It doesn't care about power level.

The word you are looking for is Strawman, not mislabeling. And yes, yes what you said is a blatant Strawman.

Really. So, who is another Demigod who is listed in the PHB as a god? Can you prove to me that they did this with other demigods?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where in D&D are they not considered gods or able to grant spells? Every reference I have seen is them granting cleric spells.

In AD&D they were generally not able to grant the highest level cleric spells, but they were still granting cleric spells.

5e DMG "Quasi-deities have a divine origin, but they don’t hear or answer prayers, grant spells to clerics, or control aspects of mortal life." Demi-gods are listed as one of the three types of Quasi-Deities in the DMG,

 

[Maxperson]

Secondly, you would be right about Yeenoghu getting promoted, especially since you are ignoring one of the things I keep saying. According to the DMG Demigods are Quasi-Deities and "Quasi-deities have a divine origin, but they don’t hear or answer prayers, grant spells to clerics, or control aspects of mortal life."

I keep mentioning figures like Yeenoghu and Levistus hearing prayers for a reason. According to the 5e DMG, they would all be at least Lesser Dieties because they can do this.

What module has worshippers of Yeenoghu casting spells? It's not in the MM under gnolls(despite 3 kinds of gnolls), it's not in Volo's(despite 4 kinds of gnolls), and it's not in Mordenkainen's under Yeenoghu. It does mention a cult in Mordenkainen's, but you can be a cultist and not be able to cast spells.

This has been a long thread, so where in 5e are there explicit spellcasting followers of Yeenoghu that use the cleric list?

So, why is the Incabulos the god of disease and death, who wants people to suffer horrible deaths via disease, and encourages his clergy to travel for the sole purpose of spreading diseases to people, a god? He can't be worshipped by many, in fact, it literally says he has a small following.

Because diseases are a very large part of medieval life, as is death. If he has a small following, he's probably a lesser god.

And why is capitulation in a church, performing the correct rituals, not enough to count as worship? Many, many evil gods have churches that work in the same manner.

Because they don't believe in him(in a religious sense). Fear =/= being a true believer.

And, after nearly 100 years... why do you think they are just going through the motions instead of actually worshiping? You know child indoctronation is a thing, and he clearly is willing to do that and has had the time to do that.

Indoctrination only takes people so far. They don't stop being human(or elven, or halfling...) just because someone has been terrorizing them for a long time. And then there are the multiple times during that period that Iuz has had his ass handed to him and lost control, been imprisoned, or been killed by a lich. It's hard to be viewed as this huge, big bad being when you lose so much.

Really. So, who is another Demigod who is listed in the PHB as a god? Can you prove to me that they did this with other demigods?

The Sword Coast uses the same format as the PHB and doesn't include deity power level. However, since the PHB default is the Realms, The Sword Coast is directly applicable. From the list in The Sword Coast the demigods are...

Gwaeron Windstrom
Hoar
Jergal
The Red Knight
Savras
and Valkur

There's 6 demigods listed on the god list. Now perhaps all of them got promotions, but nothing exists(outside of maybe a 5e adventure path) to indicate that they, Iuz or Yeenoghu are different.

 

[Faolyn]

Or, instead of assuming, you could ask. Because I'm not just thinking of "gives other people powers".

Because I've posited this same thing to you before, or very similar things, and gotten the same result. I feel very safe in assuming your answer, because most times my assumption has been correct.

Gods can see within X miles of their worshipers and sacred sites. Archfiends can do the same thing. Gods can create things. Archfiends can do the same.

Can they? Show me what archfiends have actually created ex nihilo?

Actually, since at least some gods are more powerful than archfiends, are you surprised that they can do all the things that an archfiend can do? And there are plenty of of things that gods can do that archfiends can't. As was pointed out on the site you linked, it's not uncommon for fiends to make deals with gods wherein the god grants the spells for the fiend. That was the answer in Planescape, although it took me a while to find it (Faces of Evil).

Gods can give birth to powerful children. Archfiends can do the same (and one of those children seems to have become a god).

Demigods and cambions are not the same thing. And since some creatures, including mortal humans, can become gods, it's not surprising a cambion could also become a god.

Gods are immune to non-magical weapons. So are Archfiends.

So are golems and lycanthropes. So what?

Gods can cure diseases and ailments and can revive the dead. So can Archfiends (how else are they capable of fulfilling warlock pacts that require saving the life or restoring to life a loved one).

Using magic items and spells, not innate powers. I just checked: not a single archfiend from MtF has any healing magic, not even fallen angel Zariel. Unless you count animate dead.

Corrupting a church =/= stealing faith energy.

You claimed they could do both. Were you wrong?

Okay, there are a few things going on here. First, DnD rarely if ever shows prayers going to intermediaries, but lets say that Gloopy does make up some Angel. Heck, Gloopy literally creates an angel, he is a god, he can do that. the prayers are going to that angel... not Gloopy.

No they don't. That's not how intermediaries work.

To the other point though, again, I find myself confused. "Phrases" shouldn't be enough to redirect any amount of prayer energy. Because I can easily imagine a prayer sent to "protect me from the devil's and their hellfire" and the majority of that is about devils and hellfire, but I wouldn't imagine that prayer granting any power to devils. If it did, then praying for protection or deliverance empowers your enemy. Which is bizarre to say the least.

OK, you clearly don't know what phrases means. So, homework time for you. Pick a real-world religion. Now look up some of the prayers in that religion.

Heck, I'll pick a simple one: "our father, who art in heaven." Now imagine changing "heaven" to some other location. Or changing "father" to "mother" or "brother." Imagine multiple changes made over decades or centuries or millennia.

Yes, I know gods have some specific rituals. But, how much difference does it make if you worship at noon with your right hand, compared to evening with your left?

You're thinking very small here. Imagine a culture--like some real world cultures--that divides right (dexter) and left (sinister) and decides that means anything done with the left hand is bad or tainted. If your ritual involves using your right hand and you change it to your left, you have tainted the entire ritual. The ritual is either perverted or, depending on the mythology, is now aimed at a different power.

But in most cases, the rituals are going to be bigger, more important. Imagine a literal baptism by fire, such as if the ritual involves branding every baby or child when they reach the right age. New iconography can be inserted, new rituals or prayers or songs added. Imagine inserting new taboos or even minor demands, or removing such things.

Case in point, yes, many of these splinter groups are sects, who are worshiping the same god in a different manner. But, according to your example, this should have killed that god and spawned multiple different beings. That hasn't actually happened though. Which is why I've brought the concerns I've brought about your example, it seems that Gloopy would have created a sect, maybe shifted Pistil's being, but not done what you said.

No, having sects shouldn't automatically kill the god, because all the prayer is going to the same god. At most, it would cause the god to have "multiple personalities" if the sects had very different interpretations--like one said the god was a peace god and the other said it was a war god. But that's less likely to happen.

Nothing you wrote implied that? How about Thorny becoming Gloopy's boyfriend as Gloopy takes over Pistil's domain. That certainly implies it. And considering the fact that Thorny would have hated Gloopy, that implies it even more heavily.

Since that was a completely fictional example, I could also rewrite that and say that Spike didn't become Gloopy's boyfriend. I'm willing to rewrite.

How was Mask punished for killing Bhaal and Leira? Cyric also snapped Mask's sword form, stealing a portfolio from him, was he punished for that act?

Don't know, don't care.

Multiple evil gods went to try and kill Corellon under the scheme of Lolth, including Gruumsh, Malar (who she sent after seeing Malar kill an Orc God named Herne), Ghaundar and several others.

Hextor and Heironous try and kill each other all the time.

So, again, no, there is no reason that DnD gives us to assume that attacking and killing another god is some taboo that that would get them punished by the other gods. That simply isn't how it works in most settings.

Status Quo is God, as the TV Tropes page says. Having gods attack one another allows for the game to develop mythology. Not having any lasting consequences allows for the writers to not constantly have to rewrite new lists of gods or keep track of their shenanigans.

No, most of the post you were responding to was "wait, why are you making these assumptions? Where are these rules coming from?" I'm not saying you are doing it wrong, if that's how you want to do it for your own games, then that's fine. However, without some basis for where these assumptions are coming from, you can't assume other people are following the same ideas.

If they're playing in my world, they find out what my world's rules are. Or I correct them if they make a faulty assumption.

Prove that juggling five balls is harder than juggling three. It is the exact same thing. Do you actually believe there is someone who would say that five is easier than three and ten is easier than five? I didn't realize it was so controversial to say "doing more things is harder than doing fewer things" that I would need to draft a scientific proof of the matter.

I wasn't aware that if you didn't make sure every single faction in your game worked perfectly, even if those factions had little to no bearing on the game itself, then the entire game would collapse. I'm sure you also track the migratory patterns of every dragon as well.

You seem to think that if a person includes gods or archthings in their games, that they must be major players. Has it ever occurred to you that most people have them as background info and only bring them out when and if they're needed? That people only treat such entities as major players if they're needed to be that, not simply because they exist?

Translation: there are no factions unless the DM wants there to be. I could literally have every single god and archthing ever invented in D&D in my game, even the gods who were referenced once in an adventure and never mentioned again, and there would be no issues whatsoever. Because they're background info. Which gods do the PCs worship? Which gods do the NPCs worship that are important enough to mention? OK, cool, that's good. And then, if I decided I needed to focus on an undeath-related power for a while, I could grab whichever undeath-related god or archfiend I like the best for the adventure at hand.

You may not like that (because of "redundancy"), but the factions problem doesn't exist.

Anyway, in the real world, there are zillions of overlapping gods. Why can't the same be true in a gaming world? You kept harping about Bane only being a Thing on one continent. That means there are other war gods as well (lots if you include non-human gods). They manage to share space just fine.

As for "write well", I'm going to go forward under the assumption that you've never taken a writing class. A few universal things about writing well. Don't make spelling mistakes or grammatical mistakes. This doesn't mean you can't misspell words or use poor grammar, they just shouldn't be mistakes. Write coherent characters. Write coherent plots. I have, in many years of studying the art of writing, never seen someone compliment the fact that they had no idea what was going on and couldn't follow the plot, that is generally and I'd dare say universally seen as a sign of poor writing.

Games are not novels. You can't plot an adventure that tightly. Players will always disrupt the plot if you do, frequently have very different ideas about what's going on than you do, and will do whatever they want. Forcing the players to follow your plot is bad GMing.

I don't love confusing stories. I love games where I'm not railroaded.

It adds some context, especially about the fact that she is imprisoned by BEL of all beings.

It provides context for D&D as a whole. It provides zero necessary context for the adventure itself. Are the players required to know who Bel is? I don't believe so. The players don't even have to know who Tiamat is, or what her history in D&D is. I assume you don't want to gatekeep D&D and limit it to only people who are versed on decades of canon lore?

Wouldn't celestial make more sense? I mean, by this we can't look at the statblocks of the Demon Lords and Archdevils and say they aren't gods, because they could be and just labeled as Fiends because we don't have "god" as a monster-type.

Celestial in 5e D&D means "from the upper planes;" Fiend means "from the lower planes." Empyreans are celestials, but they can be any alignment. Possibly this means that evil gods can't produce empyreans. Possibly it means that we've given more thought to the matter than the actual game designers.

But again, I've heard repeatedly from multiple different people that you fought an avatar. And frankly, if those are the stats of a god, I'm disappointed. Nothing there raises her above the level of Archfiend.

From what I've read, most people decided that was an avatar and not actually the god for that exact reason. But canonically, that's Tee herself.

Of course, as has been repeated many a time, Lolth had 66 hp. While I too prefer less-fragile gods, there's nothing really to say that gods have to have a ton of hp and high-damage attacks. Unfortunately, Tee's statblock doesn't reflect the other abilities a god should have. It was early in the edition. Hopefully she'll be cooler if she's statted up in Fizban's.

Fine, you don't want to defend the fact that he isn't a god in your game? Don't. But then don't expect me to say that he isn't a god, because all the evidence I provided in the next part points to the fact that he is a god.

If you want to say that he's a god in your game, then cool, that's fine. You want to say that he's 100% a god and people need a reason to have him not be a god, you need to defend it.

How is answering prayers not evidence that he is a god? The DMG lists that as a thing only lesser and greater gods can do. Do you have all beings regardless of status able to answer prayers?

First off, which "he" are you talking about? It's been a while since you've used a name. If you're talking about an archfiend, there's nothing to suggest that they have the power to do so. At least not without first casting something like commune.

You can run your game anyway you please, but if you have zero interest in discussing things beyond your table, stop responding. Seriously, just stop. I'm getting sick and tired of trying to discuss with you the game in general and you screaming me down about how I'm trying to control how you run your game.

And yet you were cool in saying that because you had your homebrew Tana being openly worshiped, it proved that all archfiends could be openly worshiped as well.

I run Yeenoghu as he is presented in the core books. He can answer prayers, he can make clerics, he can grant powers. All of this is 100% supported by the core books,

Maybe in 2e when he was a god, but not in 1e, 3x, 4e, or 5e where he was a demon prince. He doesn't t answer prayers and in 4e, he specifically got Erythnul to grant spells for him, according to the site you linked. He's not listed in any list of deities in 5e. Would you like to name what core books you're talking about?

Go open MtF. In the archfiends section, there's not a single reference to either cleric or prayer. Just cultists.

Heck, go to the warlock section in the PHB and read: A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics.

So while it doesn't rule out the idea that an archthing may have a cleric, it does specifically say that archthings aren't gods. (Likewise, the cleric section mentions gods, philosophies, and forces and says nothing of archthings). I'd go so far as to say that if an archthing has a cleric, the cleric is getting its power from a philosophy or force, not the archthing.

People have posted false things.

Like you. You've made a bunch of mistakes and have ignored most of the corrections.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What module has worshippers of Yeenoghu casting spells? It's not in the MM under gnolls(despite 3 kinds of gnolls), it's not in Volo's(despite 4 kinds of gnolls), and it's not in Mordenkainen's under Yeenoghu. It does mention a cult in Mordenkainen's, but you can be a cultist and not be able to cast spells.

This has been a long thread, so where in 5e are there explicit spellcasting followers of Yeenoghu that use the cleric list?

Let's go with Zaiden, the Gnoll Priestess from Dragon #364: Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Yeenoghu as a start of an explicit spellcaster that uses clerical spells. I don't know if that issue was during 5e or not, but it is the first result that came up.

We can also remind you that, yes, while some cultists don't have spells, some Cult Fanatics do have clerical spells. And we have the various rituals, such as the creation of the witherlings.

Because diseases are a very large part of medieval life, as is death. If he has a small following, he's probably a lesser god.

Nope. Small following, Greater God. And "disease is a part of life" doesn't explain anything. Tyrnnical rulers and oppression were also very large parts of medieval life for many people. Yet, somehow, this means that the followers of Iuz aren't real worshipers, but the guy spreading disease panic and death is getting true worship?

The more you dig, the more this just seems like special pleading over and over again.

Because they don't believe in him(in a religious sense). Fear =/= being a true believer.

Do you have any proof that after 90 years of indoctrination almost no one in the Empire worships him? Caesar (both of them) were worshipped as gods and they didn't have 90 years of building their reputation and powers. Also, Julius Caesar popularized the idea that Tyrants are bad. In fact, that was the narrative around him being assassinated, and people STILL worshiped him as a god.

Indoctrination only takes people so far. They don't stop being human(or elven, or halfling...) just because someone has been terrorizing them for a long time. And then there are the multiple times during that period that Iuz has had his ass handed to him and lost control, been imprisoned, or been killed by a lich. It's hard to be viewed as this huge, big bad being when you lose so much.

Dude, I'm going to say two things. One, if you aren't aware, I can save you a rude awakening if you just take my word for it. Indoctrination is far far worse than you seem to think. Two, if you don't want to take my word for it, start looking up people like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Marshall Applewhite, Shoko Asahara, and many, many, many others.

Temporary set backs, imprisonment, none of it shakes these people's believers. You truly seem to not understand the horrors that have been perpetuated by people who were indoctrinated for a scant few years. And Iuz has had four generations of people to work over. It it trivially easy to believe that most of them truly believe he is a god.

The Sword Coast uses the same format as the PHB and doesn't include deity power level. However, since the PHB default is the Realms, The Sword Coast is directly applicable. From the list in The Sword Coast the demigods are...

Gwaeron Windstrom
Hoar
Jergal
The Red Knight
Savras
and Valkur

There's 6 demigods listed on the god list. Now perhaps all of them got promotions, but nothing exists(outside of maybe a 5e adventure path) to indicate that they, Iuz or Yeenoghu are different.

So, zero from the PHB. And you want to reference the Sword Coast book, which wasn't even written by WoTC, but was written by Green Ronin.

Additionally, some of these are... suspect I'll say. Jergal for instance was a Greater Deity and I don't know how much of him being listed as a Demigod is him being weaker than he was, and how much of it is him just not caring about anything.

According to the wiki's Hoar is now a God. Gwaeron Windstrom is a Lesser Diety. The Red Knight in the Sword Coast is referred to in the first sentence of her entry like so: "The Red Knight is the goddess of planning and strategy." and never once is she listed as a demigod in that book. In fact, they talk about how her worship has greatly expanded in recent years.

Actually, that pattern continues with all of them. In the multiple paragraph entries later in the book, not a single one of these beings are referred to as Demigods, all of them are referred to as gods and deities. The only one I can't confirm is Valkur, who is barely mentioned in the book at all. But still, consistently referred to as a "hero-god" not as a Demigod.

In fact, the only mention of the word "demigod" in the entire book is this:

Knights of the Silver Chalice. The Knights of the Silver Chalice was formed by edict of the demigod Siamorphe in Waterdeep a century ago. Siamorphe's ethos is the nobility's right and responsibility to rule, and the demigod is incarnated as a different noble mortal in each generation. By the decree of the Siamorphe at that time, the Knights of the Silver Chalice took it upon themselves to put a proper heir on the throne of Tethyr and reestablish order in that kingdom. Since then they have grown to be the most popular knighthood in Tethyr, a nation that has hosted many knighthoods in fealty to the crown.

So, we have a book whose authorship is shaky, and that never once refers to a single one of these dieties as Demigods, and in fact, consistently refers to them as gods and makes no mention of them being particularly weak. At worst they are seen as serving other gods, and since those gods are Greater Deities, then it is easy to see this as them being Lesser Deities.

Especially since they can answer prayers and grant clerical spells, things that 5e says Demigods can't do. So, it seems to me, that they redefined "demigod" in 5e, and promoted almost all of the previous demigods to full god status.