D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Chaosmancer]

They're redundant in exactly the same way that fighters, rangers and paladins are redundant, and how wizards, sorcerers and warlocks are redundant. I wonder if he's going to tackle that "problem" next.

Because fighters can totally use lay on hands while the warlock is absolutely casting the same way as a wizard right?

But hey, nice try to be snarky and dismiss everything we've demonstrated throughout this entire thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What make them any different? Some of the best known primordials were just deities before 4e came up with the concept and upon saying "these guys are now totally primordials and always have been" absolutely nothing changed for them. Not their churches, not their clerics, nothing.

Kossuth is the greater deity ruling the elemental plane of fire vs. Kossuth is the most powerful primordial ruling the plane of fire.

Not even the areas of influence are as clear cut as initialy indicated. (deities = cultural concepts, primordial = elemental base matter).

Torog slew a primordial of imprissonment and torture and we still have deities of elemental concepts like sea or storms, etc.

And while we're at it, just throw the primal spirits into the same pot. Another group of deities under a different name. And I still say they were the worst of the three in 4e

I guess I didn't realize that they all had been gods in 3.X.

For me, I liked the seperating of them out into Primordials and Primal Spirits. For my homebrew I ended up making it so there were no gods of nature (with the exception of sun, moon, stars, ect which is a bit of a weird middle ground) because I agree that having storms being part of a primordial package, and then also a god is a bit weird.

But, is that the only criteria you are using? They were gods previously, so they are gods going forward no matter what we call them? I'm just trying to get a handle on where you are coming from.

 

[Voadam]

Just pointing out that the only place they were used officially was in the realms.

Are you talking 5e only?

Because the Egyptian gods have also officially been in Ravenloft, Spelljammer, the planes, and modules not set in any specific setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A mention does not make it core. But it can make it as core as the DM wants it too be. An example is just that. An example.

Again, "as core as you want it to be" is a nonsense statement if you are trying to argue that we should only discuss core.

But was it fully described? The planes are briefly described in the PHB and in the DMG. From these a lot can be infer, but for all the rest, that is in the hands of each individual DMs out there.

Does it matter how much it is described? It was presented as something that exists. It is setting specific. No, they didn't spend more than a few paragraphs outlining it but that doesn't make it suddenly not setting specific.

Nope, they were referenced is quite a few places. Notably OD&D. Even the Olympians are mentionned (in some immortal adventures). There are even adventures in AD&D where you have to please quite a few gods of different pantheons. Tales of the Outer Plane is that book called. So nope, they're not mentioned only in the realm but in many other books. Dungeon Magazine is also in there.

So, the Realms and Greyhawk.

And, for the third time, real world religions and mythologies are not "core DnD" they are real world religions and mythologies. Especially since they haven't actually done anything different with them, just put their names out there. Except in those settings which they were used.

There is a big difference between being mentionned and being core. Of course a company like WotC will mention their other products. They would be fools not to. But the simple fact that so many settings are mentionned makes the Core Books pretty darn generic.

So, since you only want to talk about the core, and not the homebrew settings... and the core books talk about those settings... where does that leave us. I can't assume which books you have? That has nothing to do with anything. I've actually been discussing multiple different settings too, which makes this discussion "pretty darn generic" as well, so what's up with the derailment and your sudden desire to suddenly want to dismiss things because they are only "mentioned" by the core, but not core.

Of course. Examples are just that. Examples. What do you not understand. The core books are meant for both veterans and beginners. It would be stupid not to give some real life examples of gods for the new DMs/players out there. After that, it is to each individual tables to chose what they will make of these examples.

That is your opinion.

??????????????????
Again Loki is as core as the DM wants him to be. He is given as an example. It means nothing more than that.

Artemis is referenced for ease of understanding for those who know him. For those who does not, they will have to make their research. A nice way for WotC to promote Drizzt novels don't you think. Loki on the other hand, is well known (if not universally but that would be another debate). So no research is truly necessary to incorporate him. Which makes him as core as a DM wants him to be.

You seem to have a difficulty with options, examples and core.

Let's go back to the beginning of this conversation, shall we?

I was talking to you about Orcus and about Kelemvor. I was pointing out that both beings started as mortals, gained a bunch of power and worshippers, and one is a Demon Lord and the other is a God. And that there doesn't seem to be a significant difference between those two titles that we have been able to find. Which made your comment that a being like Orcus being "considered" a god but that being meaningless because you can be considered a First Nations individual but aren't because you don't match the bloodline kind of ridiculous

You said I was wrong, only in FR did Orcus start as a mortal and all settings are homebrew so we should only discuss core things.

Which, as I pointed out then, since Kelemvor is also from FR, your complaint about homebrew is kind of ridiculous, because I was using FR lore for both sides. But anyways, this is what started all of this. I wasn't allowed to use the example of Orcus and Kelemvor, because Orcus being mortal in FR is homebrew and I should instead use the generic version where he just appeared in the Abyss. Which... is actually never claimed in the Core Books.

So, I gave an example, using the setting, and you decried it because "settings are homebrew". You have now repeatedly said that the core books using examples from the settings is fine, because they are only examples. Which is exactly what I did.

So, I'm done with this line of discussion. You seem to just want "core" to mean whatever it needs to mean so that you can dismiss my points and examples out of hand. Referencing the settings is fine for the Core Books, because they do a lot of different settings, so it is fine for me to do the same.


Finally, there was an interesting line I saw in the MM while double checking what we know about "core Orcus" which was that Demon Lords are specifically "unique fiends whose power can rival the gods". So, it seems that the Core states that the Demon Lords are about as powerful as the gods. Not less powerful.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Since they are fictional entities any fictive reason should suffice within the prescribed limits of choice. Who's going to the Challenge THEM? Mother Hubbard?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Ah. As the thread in general is about deities, please forgive my assumption that you were talking about Artemis the goddess...

 

[Chaosmancer]

See, here you are doing that "Aha! You said something that I think is contradictory, so you're wrong!" thing that I told you about.

I will not apologize for trying to keep the record straight.

Why doesn't it make sense? Which gods of the FR pantheon do you think would want to fight or kill for the portfolios of Wisdom or Truth?

The part that doesn't make sense is being told that all settings are homebrew, so we can't discuss them, but that the Realms are the baseline of the core game.

As for the FR pantheons... all of them? Do you think control over the fundamental nature of Truth isn't something that the various gods would fight and kill over, since they fight and kill over the idea of Murder? These aren't minor concepts.

Or not. "It's always been understood" could just be a misunderstanding of his portfolio. A misunderstanding Vecna surely likes, since it means that the truth is obfuscated,.

I don't think Vecna is a meta-textual entity that is participating in the writing of DnD rulebooks. So, if you are trying to say that every writer has been misunderstanding Vecna's portfolio... well, the fact that it has been every writer kind of means that they didn't.

Neither did I. I pointed out that even with the overlap, they are very different deities.

And that has nothing to do with the debate. The debate is about the effect on the cosmic order and how that order changed with the apotheosis of a new deity. The personality of the gods involved doesn't matter at all.

Except that they don't. Multiple gods may have "honesty" as part of their portfolio, but that doesn't mean their entire portfolio overlaps or that they are redundant with each other. Both Chauntea and Silvanus have "growing things" as part of their portfolios, but agriculture and wild nature are very different things.

See, now this is something worth discussing.

Let's take Chauntea and Silvanus and make up a new ascending diety named Pistil.

Now, according to Maxperson's assertion, the cosmic order is maintained by the gods, and they have portfolios. Chauntea is in charge of agriculture, the growing of things by civilization with a purpose, and Silvanus is in charge of wild nature.

Let us say that Pistil ascends and becomes the Goddess of Flowers. Now, here is the kicker. Flowers are things that people cultivate as part of agriculture. They are also part of wild nature. This would mean that Pistil's portfolio was part of two different deity's portfolios.

Now, to me, that reads like a change in the cosmic order. Things that were under the control of Chauntea and Silvanus are now under the control of a third party who was not originally part of the cosmic order. The Cosmic order has changed, which Maxperson claims doesn't happen, because their claim is that the portfolio of "flowers" was unclaimed and therefore no one was in charge of it. (of course even that would be a change in the cosmic order, but that feels a little nitpicky)

No, why would it? St. Cuthbert isn't the god of paladins (who notoriously lack common sense) while Heironeous explicitly is the god of paladins. They're similar, yes, but different. According to Wikipedia, when they were first introduced in the 1980 Folio, Cuthbert represented forthrightness and Heironeous represented chivalry. In the '83 book, Cuthbert was considered "widely worshiped" while Heironeous was specifically an Oeridian (human) god, not part of the pantheon worshiped by the Suel, Bakluni, or Flannae. So that's another difference between them.

Now, you could decide that those are actually the same god. Which is cool. I've frequently wanted to go through all of the gods and combine the ones that are similar into a single deity. Like, Maglubiyet, Tiamat, Bane, and Hextor would be combined into a single god. Annam, Moradin, and Io. Hlal and Tymora. Combine their dogmas and lore until you get something really interesting. I started it once, but got distracted so never really finished it.

You are misunderstanding. I'm saying that Cuthbert changed the cosmic order by taking control of "honesty" which was likely part of the purview of Heironeous, since he was the God of Paladins and Paladins are super big into Honesty.

Or, are you trying to claim that Heironeous cared absolutely nothing for Honesty, and that portfolio was just floating in the aether untended and uncared for?

I am not, never will, and never have claimed that Heironeous and St. Cuthbert are the same god. They aren't. The entire point is that St, Cuthbert became a god, and changed the cosmic order when he did so.

So, wait. Because you did what you wanted to do in your setting, everyone else should stop discussing the idea of evil gods and arch-fiends? Everyone should decide that since you're right, there's no reason to discuss evil gods in the main game? Are you saying that everyone should just do what you want them to do?

No.

You asked "now what". Well, if the question being discussed is over, the discussion is over. I've never been interested in how people address the redundancies, my entire goal in this discussion has been to show that they exist.

You want to keep jumping into debating me on homebrew solutions, but that goes beyond the question being discussed. You want to say that I shouldn't get rid of, or I shouldn't remove, or all of these other things because you keep assuming I am pushing some sort of agenda.


Here is what I am pushing. The Archfiends and the Evil Gods are redundant. The Evil Gods have no role and purpose that cannot be filled by Archfiends of similar styles.

That's it. I'm not arguing we should get rid of evil gods (I did, I think that makes the most sense, but that is for my personal homebrew) I'm not arguing that redundancy is bad (I think it is for me, it ends up causing confusion and unfocuses the narrative elements) the only thing I am trying to do is demonstrate that the redundancy exists.

OK. Now that you've won, how does that address the actual thread, which is evil gods in D&D?

Ignore the setting books. The PHB lists multiple pantheons in the back. Some of those are from D&D settings; some of those are from real-world mythologies. There are evil gods in the lists. Now fix the redundancies you see.

Did you read the title of the thread? "The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods" not "Evil Gods in DnD". If we have determined that their role and purpose is identical to the role and purpose of Archfiends, just being the enemies of good, then there is little more to discuss.

But, you want to know what I did for my homebrew?

First thing I did was make all of the pantheon's racial pantheons. There are no inter-racial gods. In part, I did this because those "inter-racial" gods were just human gods. I got a little sick of seeing "humans have no gods of war, they just worship THE god of War." It felt a little too much like a privileged view point.

I then removed all gods of nature, because that is the realm of the Primal Spirits and potentially the Fey, which is why the druids and rangers exist. Then I removed all the gods of magic, because magic is a fundamental part of reality and no god has a claim over it. This also means I don't have to deal with the question of why enemies of the gods can use magic, no one is in charge of magic, so everyone can use it (and attempting to become a god of magic probably erases you from existence or something, it is impossible in my setting)

After that I started trying to make each pantheon distinct.

Spoiler: Dwarves

For the Dwarves I really only have two gods, Moradin and his wife, Berronar Truesilver. She wasn't a goddess originally, but a primal spirit that Moradin fell in love with. In his attempts to woo her, he created the Firstborn dwarves, infusing them with his divine spark these dwarves are demigods I think, but I haven't had too much focus on them.

They are Helija Bladeringer, Tordexk Axe-Shaper, Drurakal Vaultbuilder, Jarana Stonebrewer, Nordak Foesmiter, Uram Orefnider, Yurgun Diamondquill, Anbera Ringgiver. Each one of them was famous for a great work or for being the first dwarf to do a thing. They also gave birth to the "true dwarves" since they are not quite dwarves themselves.

Then I have "saints" which is a bit of a misnomer as I note in my setting notes. They are more like folk heroes and folk villains who achieved a semi-divine state by doing something incredibly notable or terrible, and activated the divine spark placed in them by Moradin's creation of the First Born. It is a bit of a thing in Dwarven culture that everyone can achieve perfection and become a saint to be closer to Moradin. Bit of a catholic saint inspiration.

Notable Dwarven saints include: Dumathoin The Silent Keeper, Gorm The Brother of Battle, Abbathor The Trove Lord, Riswynn The Gilded Lady, Sharendlar The Last Light, Laduguer The Grim Sentinel, Clanguddin The Merry Lord, and Shiallia The First Light. Some of them have stories, some don't yet. It is a work in progress.

Spoiler: Elves

For Elves, I went a slightly different route. The Gods were heroes who acheived divinity, as they aided the elves in escaping from the Nightmare Court of the Feywild, where they had been hunted like animals since the dawn of their species. This has gone through a few rewrites, but mainly I have four beings here, Corellon of Larethian, The First Star and the leader of the Elven people, Sehanine Moonbow, The Lady of Dreams who has done just all the various magical protections on the elves, Solonor Keen-Eye, the Great Archer whose role is much more subdued but vitally important, and Aurshanee, the Weaver of Fate, who helped aid the elves and tied them with the Giant spiders which have become a major part of their culture.

After that, I have the idea of them worshipping hero-kings and Queens, using the idea of them being "stars" as part of it, but I haven't fully developed the idea yet.

Spoiler: Humans

For Humans, like I said, I took a lot of the "generic gods" and just made them human gods. Humans have A LOT of gods though. I think I'm still working with 13 major gods and then hundreds of minor gods. Think Hinduism or Shinto to a degree. Most of the major gods have ties to the various parts of society. So, The Iron Lord is bit of a take on Bane, but more Lawful Neutral and the nominal leader of the gods and the head of war. He is opposed somewhat by Arveene The Unbroken, a mortal who became a goddess in defiance of The Iron Lords cruel tactics in trying to preserve humanity. The Raven Queen is in charge of the souls of the dead. Shar is the Lady of Loss and Mourning, and assisted by El the Preserving Path. Oghma is the god of scholars, Loviatar is Mistress of Pain and embodies the belief that pain is a teacher. Waukeen is the goddess of trade still, my notes are all scattered, but this should give you an idea.

One big point is that the Tielfings are human, who during the great war that destroyed the human's previous world took power from Asmodeus. The gods had retreated into a council to determine what to do, but the people of one of the frontline kingdoms felt abandoned. They turned to the Devil's power to protect their people. Later the Gods returned to the fight, but the retreat of humanity from that world would have been impossible without a group of Tieflings known as the Lost Legion, who held the rear.

This has led to a debate between the various groups over the tieflings. Some of the Tielfings feel guilty for doubting the gods. Other feel they were justified and worship the Lost Legion and their bravery. It is a complicated matter

And it goes on and on

But briefly

Spoiler: Demons, Devils, ect

Demons are embodiments of hunger and destruction forming in the Abyss and eventually taking over entire lairs of the infinite wound. The various Demon Lords have favorite feeding grounds that affect their abilities and dispostions. Demogorgon the Far Realms, Orcus the Shadowfell, Yeenoghu the Material Plane, Vaprak once snuck into the Celestial Realms, Graz'zt the Feywild, ect.

Devils all work in a unified plan. Asmodeus is sometimes thought to be the first being to have made a deal, and this is the source of his original power. But he had a plan, and that plan involved giving up his "true" body (Nessus) and forming nine realms. His first recruit was Zariel, who became the Lady of the First. I could go into each of the Nine's origins, some are more filled out than others, but the big thing was that the Nine are a meritocracy. As part of that, each of the realms of Baator has a control stone. A fiend or mortal who gets that stone is allowed to fight the ruler of that realm for control and dominance of that realm. That is how Levistus was killed and the new Lady of the Fifth Tana was installed.

Most GOOs are the endlings of their realities, traveling through the Far Realms and seeking to dominate, corrupt, and conquer this reality as they did their originals.

So, now that I've talked a lot about my homebrew, do you feel better?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Because to me, "core dnd" references something that is owned by wizards of the coast and used in their products. It is the core of their produced game.

WoTC doesn't own Norse Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Ect ect ect.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

WoTC doesn't own Norse Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Ect ect ect.

You even having to point that out means, however, that they're half way there...

 

[Lanefan]

The part that doesn't make sense is being told that all settings are homebrew, so we can't discuss them, but that the Realms are the baseline of the core game.

Let's unpack this a bit.

"All settings are homebrew." With the possible exceptions of the recent M:tG-based settings, this is universally either true now or has been at some point in the past.

"We can't discuss them." Sure we can; and I disagree with those who might be saying or implying we can't.

"The Realms are the baseline..." Obviously the system authors need to have an example setting of some sort to show how everything ties together, and that's fine; but I don't necessarily see that setting as the baseline. Rather, FR is one setting that happens to include a bunch of factors either universal to all settings or easily made so.

I also fully subscribe to the theory (and by random chance it seems Planescape agrees with me - yay!) that all Prime Material settings ever created exist on the same Prime Material plane and in the same universe; that looking up at the night sky from somewhere on Greyhawk you might see the star around which orbits Toril, while in a different part of the sky you might see the galaxy somewhere within which the world of Eberron orbits around its star, and so on.

Because to me, "core dnd" references something that is owned by wizards of the coast and used in their products. It is the core of their produced game.

Ownership of the IP has nothing to do with it. TSR/WotC can drag in stuff from the public domain and make it core just by putting it in a rulebook, and have done so many times particularly in the early days.

For example, the Norse and Egyptian etc. pantheons (public-domain material all the way) were officially written up and published by the game's producers back in the 1e days and thus were then established as part of the game's core lore.