D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

Hah! That's fantastic. I tell @Chaosmancer to find a 5e example and instead he tries to move the goalposts to 4e and still fails.

I explicitly said I didn't know from which edition it came. So, yes, laugh at the facts I presented you and was completely upfront about.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, there aren’t any. At least none I am aware of. They’ve maybe published a dozen clerics across all of 5e adventures?

Exactly. Which is why we are at what I said several posts ago. "We don't know if Yeenoghu got a promotion or not."

Do we have literally any reason to believe that a statblock meant for someone worshiping a demon lord doesn’t get included when discussing people who worship a demon Lord?

It isn't mean for or not meant for one. We just cannot assume that Yeenoghu has any. We can only assume, that since he has a cult, there must be cultists. The spellcasting type is not required for a cult, so cannot be assumed. A DM is of course free to include them in a Yeenoghu cult if he wants, but what individual DMs do is not what is under discussion here.

This is like literally asking for an official document saying that Kings have knights in their service, it is heavily implied by the entire concept of knighthood.

Not all kings had knights. Knighthood is a European concept and not all kings were European.

Right, so he was weaker than Iuz and still worshiped as a god. Oh, wait, you think summoning Demons somehow means that people won’t worship him? There is zero reason to believe that, because many Evil Gods are reported to have various fiends in their service. This is just par for the course. ESPECIALLY, since demonic worship is a thing we know exists in DnD.

Yes. Being a DEMON and summoning DEMONS to MURDER and SUBJUGATE people does mean that most will not worship him. Fear yes, worship no. He'll have a small cult of insane people who would worship a demon, but that's it.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t miss things. In fact, SCG is often brought up as a departure from 5e design. So, it is worth noting.

I seem to have missed all of those threads. This is the first time that I've heard that.

You do realize that the wiki’s are pulled from official sources, right? And generally kept updated to the current edition.

You do realize that wikis have incorrect information quite often, right? Many professors won't allow wikis to be used on papers for that reason.

But, hey, you looked at a nearly 20 year old book for Third edition, so clearly that shows how 5e has changed things, right?

I don't have a 4e book to look at, so that was the most recent book I have access to.

Can you find any reference in 5e that has listed them as demigods instead of Lesser Gods?

Um...............................that's the entire point that I've been freaking making to you this entire freaking time. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT RANK THEY ALL ARE.

You're now arguing my point to me in order to refute that exact point.

Additionally, since The Red Knight and the others can hear and answer prayers, they aren’t Demigods according to the 5e DMG.

I see nothing that says that The Red Knight grants spells. It does mention priests in her write-up, but not all priests cast spells. From the Acolyte background.

"You have spent your life in the service of a temple to a specific god or pantheon of gods. You act as an intermediary between the realm of the holy and the mortal world, performing sacred rites and offering sacrifices in order to conduct worshipers into the presence of the divine. You are not necessarily a cleric - performing sacred rites is not the same thing as channeling divine power.

Choose a god, a pantheon of gods, or some other quasi-divine being from among those listed in appendix B or those specified by your DM, and work with your DM to detail the nature of your religious service. Were you a lesser functionary in a temple, raised from childhood to assist the priests in the sacred rites? Or were you a high priest who suddenly experienced a call to serve your god in a different way? Perhaps you were the leader of a small cult outside of any established temple structure, or even an occult group that served a fiendish master that you now deny."

So there's a lot to unpack there. First, you can be a priest and not a cleric. Note how not only can you be a priest, but you can even be a non-spellcasting high priest. Second, you can be a priest or high priest of a quasi-divine being, which includes demigods like The Red Knight. Third, it says that the list in appendix B has quasi-divine beings, which means that demigods are on that list, despite being called gods. Fourth, outside of gods and quasi-divine beings, it beings up another group.............................fiends.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That was 4e. You know, the edition that explicitly says that Erythnul grants Yeenoghu's spells. You seem to keep forgetting that.

I have not been forgetting it. I am aware that in Greyhawk, in one edition, they said that for some unknown reason Erythnul is the granter of the spells that are asked from Yeenoghu.

That doesn't explain things in any setting where Erythnul doesn't exist. Which is anywhere except Greyhawk.

Thanks to archive.org, I'm looking at the article right now. I... have no idea if she has spells or not. She has a couple of powers, but I don't know if they count as spells, and certainly none of them are labeled as clerical, nor is she actually called a cleric. She could be a warlock for all you know. Or even a paladin.

View attachment 144851

The article I was reading was a summary of the original, that I believe I linked, and that called her a cleric. Repeatedly. I did not have the original, as I did not have her statblock (remember, I said I wasn't sure if this came out in 5e or not)

I will not she has a massive Religion skill, and is listed as a Leader/Controller which I believe was the role given to 4e clerics. It isn't quite "has something that didn't exist in that edition) but it is some good evidence. If she had been a paladin or a warlock, she would be a striker. Which she is not.

But at this point, it doesn't matter. I have pointed out multiple times that according to the page you linked, Yeenoghu doesn't grant spells; he gets Erythnul to do so. You ignored that and continue to claim that he does, instead of admitting you were wrong.

You didn't bother to check when this issue of Dragon was published (7 years or so before 5e was released).

You didn't bother why Tiamat's avatar needed to be summoned. You just claimed that oh, she needed to be summoned, therefore gods and archfiends are the same. Nope, she was imprisoned and her cultists were trying to bring her, not her avatar, to the prime. And then you tried to double down by talking about her history, instead of just admitting you were wrong.

You continue to ignore and dismiss everything you disagree with, even when it proves you wrong factually.

You make claims such as "it's in the core books" without providing a single quote or link, yet demand that I provide evidence--even though you ignore it. You make claims like "there's lots of spells that were created ex nihilo" without naming a single one. You expect me to take you at your word, and when I ask you to provide evidence, you refuse.

You make claims like "the gods wouldn't punish Gloopy for killing Pistil!" and chide me because I said I don't care about what happened in the Realms, saying that there was no reason why Gloopy would suffer any punishment if murderous FR gods didn't. A moment of research on your part would show that, as punishment for killing Mystra, Cyric was imprisoned for a thousand years.

You either don't realize there's a difference between innate godly powers and spells or simply refuse to accept it.

When I said that archfiends would corrupt and infiltrate religions to pervert them or leech of the prayer-energy, you claimed gods could do that to. When I tried to come up with ways how gods could do it, you said that it was unlikely or impossible.

You claim your own homebrew material as evidence for your claims--such as the fiend Tana being openly worshiped means that D&D fiends in general are openly worshiped--but dismiss anyone who brings up their own homebrew ideas.

You continuously say that I'm doing things wrongly or badly, rather than saying "not to my taste" or "I wouldn't want to play in such a setting." And you're not accepting that other people might find your tastes to be "wrong" or "bad" as well.

I'm just going to answer this last one individually, because I think it's important.


From what I gather, Catholics pray to saints to ask them to intercede with God on their behalf. I imagine if someone is reading this and actually Catholic, they could answer you better, but I doubt they'd think that their prayers were feeding Saint Whomever.

And so, since there is clearly no reason to continue talking to you, back into the ignore file with you!

Well, since I'm going to be ignored I guess I no longer need to constantly defend myself. I mean, I've addressed most of these complaints repeatedly. Like how I didn't say that gods can't do the thing, but that the way you proposed they would do it doesn't make sense to me. Sort of like saying you are going to paint a house with a semi-truck. I'm sure there is a way to do it, but just making the statement isn't going to get people to agree with you without question, they are going to ask "how".

But, I suppose I'm not allowed to do that. After saying something is possible I must absolutely accept any route to achieve that thing, no matter how off it sounds.

However, again, you'll be ignoring me so I don't see any point in spending even more time defending myself, which is all I have done with you from the start.

I will take a moment though to address that last part though. Because, I believe you are right about how Catholicism works. However, just because Catholicism works that way, doesn't mean DnD works that way. DnD has a concept of Exarchs. Exarchs act as intermediaries for Greater Gods, interceding on the behalf of mortals. Beings like The Red Knight are Exarchs. They also are usually lesser gods in their own right, empowered by the worship sent there way, even the worship it seems of them interceding on behalf of a Greater God.

So, yes, if DnD was Catholicism, then it would work the way you say. However, it isn't, and there are examples of it working a completely different way. Sorry I didn't provide textual links to various books. I'm trying to finish catching up to this thread before having to cook dinner, and I just don't have the time to find page numbers to support things that I'm pretty sure are right.

 

[Faolyn]

I see nothing that says that The Red Knight grants spells. It does mention priests in her write-up, but not all priests cast spells. From the Acolyte background.

Actually the Red Knight does grant spells. In 5e, she has the War domain. In 3e, she had a bunch of domains, and in 2e she had a bunch of spheres (even though she's listed as a demipower in 2e). Which I think just proves that D&D makes up whatever they want to when they want to.

I also see no reason not to say that clerical spells from her actually come from Tempus, since he sponsored her for godhood in the first place. This would be the equivalent of a god granting clerical spells for an archfiend.

 

[Maxperson]

I have not been forgetting it. I am aware that in Greyhawk, in one edition, they said that for some unknown reason Erythnul is the granter of the spells that are asked from Yeenoghu.

We know the reason. It's because he has been losing power since 1e when he was introduced and is little more than a suped up dire hyena. Apparently WotC decided in 4e that he was no longer capable of granting spells direcly, which seems to be present in 5e since even with 7 or more different types of gnolls to use, none of them have spells from the cleric list.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually the Red Knight does grant spells. In 5e, she has the War domain.

They're all listed with domains, despite what I quoted saying that there are demigods(quasi-deities) on that list. Perhaps they're making this a rulings over rules situation and leaving it to the DM to decide who is a demigod, lesser god or greater god.

In 3e, she had a bunch of domains, and in 2e she had a bunch of spheres (even though she's listed as a demipower in 2e). Which I think just proves that D&D makes up whatever they want to when they want to.

In 2e and 3e demigods could grant spells, though, so those editions don't really apply to this issue.

I also see no reason not to say that clerical spells from her actually come from Tempus, since he sponsored her for godhood in the first place. This would be the equivalent of a god granting clerical spells for an archfiend.

And that's entirely possible, since she's an Exarch of Tempus and most exarchs are incapable of granting spells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Exactly. Which is why we are at what I said several posts ago. "We don't know if Yeenoghu got a promotion or not."

Sure, we don't have scientific peer-reviewed evidence, or someone writing down Yeenoghu's quarterly "god-state" report. But we do have quite of bit of evidence, as I keep pointing out.

It isn't mean for or not meant for one. We just cannot assume that Yeenoghu has any. We can only assume, that since he has a cult, there must be cultists. The spellcasting type is not required for a cult, so cannot be assumed. A DM is of course free to include them in a Yeenoghu cult if he wants, but what individual DMs do is not what is under discussion here.

Really? It isn't required to have a magical cult leader, so we can't assume that anywhere in reality Yeenoghu has a magical cult leader? Well, it isn't required to have a magical cleric to have a church, so we can't assume that those exist either.

You are literally dismissing evidence just because you don't like it.

Not all kings had knights. Knighthood is a European concept and not all kings were European.

Actually they were, "King" comes from a Germanic word. Non-European rulers had other titles in their own languages. Also, "Knight" came from a Germanic word as well, same etymology. Other nobility who served other types of courts in a similar capacity had other titles, in their own languages.


I mean, since we shouldn't assume things without evidence, assuming other languages are identical to our own seems pretty egregious.

Yes. Being a DEMON and summoning DEMONS to MURDER and SUBJUGATE people does mean that most will not worship him. Fear yes, worship no. He'll have a small cult of insane people who would worship a demon, but that's it.

You have literally no proof. This is wild assumptions based on your own biases.

I seem to have missed all of those threads. This is the first time that I've heard that.

Go look up discussions of the Banneret and the Tiger Barbarian and the Long Death Monk. The sentiment comes up.

You do realize that wikis have incorrect information quite often, right? Many professors won't allow wikis to be used on papers for that reason.

Which if I was a professional I'd go and buy the linked sources and confirm them to be accurate. I didn't realize I was getting paid for my research into this topic though, so as soon as my first paycheck goes through, I'll tighten up my research.

However, many professors and teachers who do refuse to allow wiki's WILL allow unsourced websites from fifteen years ago that have no listed author. So, since the DnD wiki's frequently heavily quote the source material, and cite it repeatedly, I'm going to continue going with them as a reliable source.

I don't have a 4e book to look at, so that was the most recent book I have access to.

And so how is that supposed to prove that 5e didn't change things?

Um...............................that's the entire point that I've been freaking making to you this entire freaking time. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT RANK THEY ALL ARE.

You're now arguing my point to me in order to refute that exact point.

I see nothing that says that The Red Knight grants spells. It does mention priests in her write-up, but not all priests cast spells. From the Acolyte background.

"You have spent your life in the service of a temple to a specific god or pantheon of gods. You act as an intermediary between the realm of the holy and the mortal world, performing sacred rites and offering sacrifices in order to conduct worshipers into the presence of the divine. You are not necessarily a cleric - performing sacred rites is not the same thing as channeling divine power.

Choose a god, a pantheon of gods, or some other quasi-divine being from among those listed in appendix B or those specified by your DM, and work with your DM to detail the nature of your religious service. Were you a lesser functionary in a temple, raised from childhood to assist the priests in the sacred rites? Or were you a high priest who suddenly experienced a call to serve your god in a different way? Perhaps you were the leader of a small cult outside of any established temple structure, or even an occult group that served a fiendish master that you now deny."

So there's a lot to unpack there. First, you can be a priest and not a cleric. Note how not only can you be a priest, but you can even be a non-spellcasting high priest. Second, you can be a priest or high priest of a quasi-divine being, which includes demigods like The Red Knight. Third, it says that the list in appendix B has quasi-divine beings, which means that demigods are on that list, despite being called gods. Fourth, outside of gods and quasi-divine beings, it beings up another group.............................fiends.

So, you want to counter the evidence of beings like the Red Knight, who were given cleric domains indicating that they provide cleric spells, and whose role is to answer prayers for larger Greater Deities, something that a demigod cannot do and that only a Lesser Deity can do according to the books... by arguing that not everyone in a religion can do magic?

So, if she doesn't grant spells, why does she have a domain? Why is her role answering prayers if she literally cannot do that if you are correct? And why should I take the statement of "not every priest is magical" to somehow counteract this evidence? Because despite you going on about how we can't know... since they grant spells and answers prayers, we DO know.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We know the reason. It's because he has been losing power since 1e when he was introduced and is little more than a suped up dire hyena. Apparently WotC decided in 4e that he was no longer capable of granting spells direcly, which seems to be present in 5e since even with 7 or more different types of gnolls to use, none of them have spells from the cleric list.

Any evidence for that? I mean, I'll go ahead and make a max hp, no I'll make a triple hp Dire Hyena for you to fight Yeenoghu with, since he's so weak and not the ruler of an entire layer of the abyss with at least one ancient ongoing war, and in many ways one of the Demon Lords to most successfully leave his mark on the world. I can see how that makes him just, so weak/

 

[Rob Kuntz]

In my game the above is an archetypal example of at least 3 missed shaving throws vs. confusion!
Just think if all of these words had been directed to product creation! Morrus would have had at least one new Kickstarter! . Just having fun. Otto made made me do it!

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, we don't have scientific peer-reviewed evidence, or someone writing down Yeenoghu's quarterly "god-state" report. But we do have quite of bit of evidence, as I keep pointing out.

None of it from 5e, though. 5e is where demigods lose the ability to grant spells, so 5e is where you need to prove the promotion.

Really? It isn't required to have a magical cult leader, so we can't assume that anywhere in reality Yeenoghu has a magical cult leader? Well, it isn't required to have a magical cleric to have a church, so we can't assume that those exist either.

Correct, but we have the PHB to prove otherwise about lesser and greater gods.

You are literally dismissing evidence just because you don't like it.

I'm sorry. You presented evidence? I'd love to see it. So far all I've seen is your assumption that just because some cults have Cult Fanatics, that somehow proves that Yeenoghu must have them as well.

You have literally no proof. This is wild assumptions based on your own biases.

Let's look at the Greyhawk wiki, since wikis are entirely accurate according to you.

First, your claim of 70 years of rule and indoctrination is bupkis. He took over in 479 and by 505 he had been defeated by a wizard and imprisoned under Castle Greyhawk. Some poweful god being he was to be taken out by a wizard. Anyway, that's 26 years and then the country gets to see just how weak he was. His followers split at that time. He comes back in 570, sixty-five years later. That's 65 years without this indoctrination. This time he lasts a mere 11 years before Vecna, who was only a lich at that time captured and then consumed Iuz, using him to become a real god(liches know how to do it!). That only lasted a year, though and he returned in 582. In 586 half his army was wiped out when many fiends were banished from Oerth. Now we're caught up in time and he has a broken rule in which he is repeatedly shown to be weak, and most of the 103 years since he appeared in that country have been spent by him imprisoned or dead.

Iuz

Iuz is the half-fiend or cambion demigod son of Graz'zt, a demon lord of the Abyss, and the human witch Iggwilv. Originally described as very handsome, Iuz now appears either as an old man with poisonous spit, or a big, red, hulking demon-like creature. His weapon of choice is the whip and...

greyhawk.fandom.com

So, you want to counter the evidence of beings like the Red Knight, who were given cleric domains indicating that they provide cleric spells, and whose role is to answer prayers for larger Greater Deities, something that a demigod cannot do and that only a Lesser Deity can do according to the books... by arguing that not everyone in a religion can do magic?

As I just proved to you in the quote, there are quasi-deities on that list who are incapable of granting spells. Perhaps their priests get spells from the god they serve. Perhaps it's up to individual DMs to promote them. But we have this absolute fact. 1) despite every god on that list being called a god and having domains, some of those gods are in fact demigods who cannot grant spells. I'll quote it again in case you missed it.

"Choose a god, a pantheon of gods, or some other quasi-divine being from among those listed in appendix B or those specified by your DM, and work with your DM to detail the nature of your religious service. Were you a lesser functionary in a temple, raised from childhood to assist the priests in the sacred rites? Or were you a high priest who suddenly experienced a call to serve your god in a different way? Perhaps you were the leader of a small cult outside of any established temple structure, or even an occult group that served a fiendish master that you now deny."

So, if she doesn't grant spells, why does she have a domain? Why is her role answering prayers if she literally cannot do that if you are correct? And why should I take the statement of "not every priest is magical" to somehow counteract this evidence? Because despite you going on about how we can't know... since they grant spells and answers prayers, we DO know.

Tempus probably does it, since she's his Exarch.