D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Faolyn]

Personally, if I did imagine redundancy between demons and gods, I wouldn't get rid of either one. I'd simply make demon lords and archdevils more generic. Big bad rulers of their planar layers, not the Archdevil of Tyranny or the Demon Lord of the Undead. Sure Asmodeus might be tyrannical, but only because he's LE. Orcus might love undead, but just because he's into them. Only the gods would rule over aspects of the multiverse

In real world mythology, especially in Goetic demonology, lots of demons are the demons of something, but often because they're credited of having taught humans how to do that something (which is actually really funny to read at times, because you have demons who taught humans how to make cosmetics--demon prince of lipstick, I guess).

So I see no problem with Orcus being the "demon lord of the undead" because he's the one who initially developed the animate/create undead and similar spells (gods don't have to cast spells to do things). But as you say, he wouldn't actually rule over the aspect of the multiverse that is undeath or undead. It's a perfectly fine distinction between the arch-things and gods.

And it would work well to explain warlocks versus clerics, because the arch-things are actually just giving the warlocks copies of the spells that they made, instead of gods who are actually imbuing magical power into their clerics.

 

[Maxperson]

In real world mythology, especially in Goetic demonology, lots of demons are the demons of something, but often because they're credited of having taught humans how to do that something (which is actually really funny to read at times, because you have demons who taught humans how to make cosmetics--demon prince of lipstick, I guess).

ROFL That's fantastic.

So I see no problem with Orcus being the "demon lord of the undead" because he's the one who initially developed the animate/create undead and similar spells (gods don't have to cast spells to do things). But as you say, he wouldn't actually rule over the aspect of the multiverse that is undeath or undead. It's a perfectly fine distinction between the arch-things and gods.

To be clear. I don't see any redundancy. That was only if I imagined that there was. I see it like you just laid out. Orcus is the Demon Prince of Undead, because he loves undead and created a bunch of new ones, and maybe some of the spells. He doesn't have the same interest in undeath that a god of undeath would. To Orcus it's a passion. To the god it's an aspect of the universe(setting) to be cultivated and overseen.

And it would work well to explain warlocks versus clerics, because the arch-things are actually just giving the warlocks copies of the spells that they made, instead of gods who are actually imbuing magical power into their clerics.

That's a good way to look at it.

 

[pemerton]

The same section of the 1e Deities & Demigods which says that the Demon Lords and Archdevils are lesser gods also says that Bahamut and Tiamat are lesser gods.

I know. It says the same about Slaad Lords too. I'm not sure what your point is.

EDIT: In the original MM, Tiamat is a powerful unique dragon who "rules the first plane of the Nine Hells where she spawns all of evil dragonkind" (p 32).

Then in the original DDG we are told to treat her as a lesser god who "very rarely has human worshippers", like (inter alia) the archdevils. Also, in the entry on the Babylonian god Marduk we are told "His battles with Tiamat are legendary" (p 24). Marduk is a greater god with 350 hp and is a 19th level fighter, 16th level MU and 15th level bard.

In the 3E MotP Tiamat is once again presented as a powerful unique dragon. Then in Bastion of Broken Souls she has a human cleric and is described as a deity. In the 3E DDG she is a deity.

In 4e default cosmology, she is a god.

This all drives home the point that the D&D texts have not, historically, marked any clear contrast between "archfiends" and evil gods.

 

[Lanefan]

One could potentially try and make that argument, but "universal" is more "tied to the real world" in the case of real-life pantheons. I don't think that really should count as "core DnD"

Why ever not?

In 1e, Deities and Demigods was put out as a setting-agnostic set of pantheons for all. For the deities in that book, along with some others, I've stayed with the setting-agnostic-ness throughout that DD provided.

And, again, since the claim is that every single setting is homebrew, well, "gruumsh" is tied to settings. Which makes him homebrew. Specifically he is tied to Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realsm, he doesn't really exist outside of those, and as Max pointed out, the core books seem to assume a lot of Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk as the "default" of the core. Which makes them homebrew under the argument, which again I am saying is just highly extreme.

Edit: After all, let us say that those dieties are non-setting specific and therefore not homebrew. What do we know about them? Well, that depends on the setting. Where do they live? That references the settings. You have to then make those things non-setting specific, and at that point, you are basically just making whichever settings story you want to go with the core, which makes it non-homebrew, which then defeats the argument that I am saying is not a good argument.

Or, flip side, it's all homebrew after the names.

 

[Lanefan]

This is bonkers. People can use whatever fiction they like!

Of course they can. But there's still an underlying default which remains if not overwritten or altered.

I had worlds with Orcs in them before I ever encountered Roger E Moore's Orcish gods.

I just used whatever was in 1e's DD to start with, then expanded on that on my own.

I've still never encountered Roger E. Moore's Orcish gods as I've never read a word he wrote.

 

[Lanefan]

Artemis is referenced for ease of understanding for those who know him.

Him???????

Artemis has been female since forever...

 

[Maxperson]

Him???????

Artemis has been female since forever...

They were talking about Artemis Entreri, the assassin that was trying to kill Drizzt.

 

[Helldritch]

Him???????

Artemis has been female since forever...

Well... The thought of the goddess of the Hunt did not even crossed my mind for a second... But as Maxperson pointed out. We were talking about Entreri. This back and forth argumentation can be baffling at times.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

In real world mythology, especially in Goetic demonology, lots of demons are the demons of something, but often because they're credited of having taught humans how to do that something (which is actually really funny to read at times, because you have demons who taught humans how to make cosmetics--demon prince of lipstick, I guess).

So I see no problem with Orcus being the "demon lord of the undead" because he's the one who initially developed the animate/create undead and similar spells (gods don't have to cast spells to do things). But as you say, he wouldn't actually rule over the aspect of the multiverse that is undeath or undead. It's a perfectly fine distinction between the arch-things and gods.

And it would work well to explain warlocks versus clerics, because the arch-things are actually just giving the warlocks copies of the spells that they made, instead of gods who are actually imbuing magical power into their clerics.

I think it was 2e that had the notion that the demon lords were getting power from the Abyss to make other parts of the universe easier to absorb into the Abyss (and if that wasn't how things worked in 4e, it really should have been). Of course that was a long time ago, and I don't have the encyclopedic memory of some other commentators so don't hold me to it, but that would fit your idea pretty well.

If the Abyss is putting a dollar in Orcus' bank account every time somebody animates a zombie, regardless of whether the animator is doing it for Orcus or not, then Orcus has a lot of incentive to make sure that animate dead spells are widely available. [Of course, if Orcus gets $100 for every soul he convinces to become CE, that LG necromancer with a zombie army might be targeted with a lot of temptation; Orcus has a lot of expenses and can't afford to turn down a little extra loot].

 

[Chaosmancer]

What he actually said very clearly was that it was both.

They SAY the Realms is the default, but nothing in the core actually is. Just picking out Elves, this is what it says under Wood Elf.

"This category includes wild elves(Grugach) of Greyhawk and the Kagonesti of Dragonlance, as well as the races called wood elves in Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms. In Faerun, wood elves(also called wild elves, green elves, or forest elves) are reclusive and distrusting of non-elves."

Notice how we have three different settings called out for that one subrace. This is common in the PHB. Core is pretty darned generic despite the claims of WotC.

So, if I take the point that all settings are homebrew then that reads:

"This category includes [homebrew] and [homebrew], as well as the races [homebrew] and [homebrew]. In [homebrew]."

So, again, going forth that we cannot discuss anything that is tied to a setting, because all settings are homebrew is an extreme position that I find unhelpful in the discussion.