If you have an opinion on what the books say, and you think that that opinion contradicts what I see the books saying, then we can discuss it.
If you want to hop in and say "well, nothing in the books says anything, but you could make up this" when we are trying to discuss what the books say, well, that is an interesting idea, but it is just as irrelevant as bringing up Michael Jordan.
Is Michael Jordan a D&D god or arch-thing? No? He has nothing to do with D&D. However, discussing different ways to use and understand D&D gods, including completely homebrew ideas, is totally relevant.
I'm not super familiar with all of the details. I do think that there was a God who ended up with Winter and Death, which are complimentary, but they very much got them because that was available at the time.
So,
maybe two times a god has claimed another portfolio, and in this case, it wasn't one like "Truth" that had nothing to do with its previous portfolio; rather, it was one that was complimentary to its own.
But frankly, as much as we talk about the portfolios changing hands, it actually is a fairly rare event. Because there aren't any free portfolios.
So actually the gods
don't squabble over the "constantly," like you said.
And new gods have "appeared" in the Realms often--by which I mean, the writers came up with them and inserted them into a book or adventure or novel. Those new gods each had portfolios which were new to the Realms. So the portfolios exist. You aren't aware of them until some god is written for them. It's not like there's a list of portfolios you get to cross off when you assign one.
No exception was made for being of a different pantheon, in fact, with references to Overgods, it could be assumed that this is interpantheonic and applies to all pantheons. So ,being a goddess of specific pantheon had nothing to do with the claim.
So, we have a being who has "Magic needs to always be balanced"/"Knowledge above all" and "Magic used to gain power"/"Necromancy". If this is the cosmic order, which it would have been before Vecna ascended, then Vecna suddenly having "The secrets of magic" as part of his deal seems to me that he had to take it from those areas.
Again, show that this is the case. You are claiming that portfolios aren't just laying around for the taking. Show that Vecna stole or was granted the portfolio "secrets of magic" from some other god.
That would change the cosmic balance. This would disprove the assertion that the Gods maintain the cosmic balance and that ascended mortals never change the cosmic balance. Which was the assertion I was arguing against.
Show us the cosmic balance. Then, show us that when, a mortal ascends, it unbalances the cosmos. Unless you have some source I don't know about, you have no idea how much is needed to unbalance the cosmos. Prove that the ascension of a mortal will change its balance, especially to the point that other people (possibly including mortals) will even notice.
For all you know, it may take two, ten, hundreds, maybe
thousands of mortals ascending to godhood to change the cosmic balance--
if the cosmic balance can even be changed in this manner. And maybe it can't. The third layer of Arcadia was, thanks to the Harmonium, changed from Lawful Neutral Good (or possibly LGN) to Lawful Neutral and got sucked out of Arcadia and became a cog in Mechanus--and the balance of the cosmos remained unchanged. Sure, people got really pissed at the Harmonium and worried about what would happen if things got worse, but the Great Wheel keeps chugging along. At least until 4th edition, but it's back in shape now.
Ravenloft, once a demiplane in the Ethereal, got moved to the Shadowfell. The paraelemental and quasilemental planes got turned into a single unit, the Elemental Chaos. Entire new Material Planes come into existence, not only with the creation of each new setting but with the start of each new
game. The cosmos contains an infinite number of infinite layers. But the Great Wheel keeps chugging.
One mortal becoming a god is literally
nothing in comparison to that.
I don't care if it isn't the most interesting way to you to have this discussion, it is the discussion we are having.
I wasn't talking about the discussion we're having. I was talking about creating gods and sticking them in the pantheon, and you insisted that it has to be done by determining their role and purpose first ("you're doing it backwards," which is literally the same as "you're doing it wrong.") and then only using them if they're "necessary" (i.e., if you're using them when they're not necessary, you're doing it wrong").
Not "I personally think it should be done role/purpose first." Instead, you outright said I was doing it wrong because I wasn't doing it
your way.
Nothing.
Now, right here and right now, tell me where I have ever said that people can't have redundant gods? Even if you find one example, I've stated a half dozen times in the past two days that people can do whatever they want, my entire argument is just to show that they are redundant.
Pretty much everything you've said has been against having redundant gods. Even the bit you misunderstood above was you saying that having redundant gods was unnecessary.
So, if you don't care if redundant gods exist, and you don't care that people have them in their games, then what's your purpose in harping on their redundancy? Are you simply not going to be happy until everyone participating in this thread says "Yes! These gods
are redundant!"
What preferences? Maxperson and Helldritch are arguing that their answers are right via Canon. Max has multiple times written "RULES" to prove that he is correct and that anything that goes against what he is saying is wrong according THE RULES (his emphasis). You seem to have missed this, and that is why this conversation with you is so frustrating, because you keep yelling at me for attacking preferences, when I'm arguing points that are being claimed to be official canon, not preferences.
I'm pretty sure that they've both either posted quotes from books that support their stance, or that other people have posted those quotes. In other words, their
RULES have textural support. As opposed to your "it stands to reason" claims.
I mean, the gods of Greyhawk and the gods of the Realms work differently--there's no Ao telling the Greyhawk gods they can't have two gods with the same portfolio--and you're treating them like they're the same!
In the absence of "magical secrets" (which is the state before Vecna becomes a god) do you honestly think it makes logical sense that "Magical Knowledge" doesn't include secrets of magic? The entire idea of magic is that it is unknown and secretive.
Again, you want to focus on personality, but that has nothing to do with anything being claimed.
Personality has
everything to do with the gods. Its why you have war gods that are good, evil, lawful, chaotic, and neutral.
And yes, Boccob, like probably all other D&D gods, is
not omniscient. His goal is to learn all that there is to know about magic. This means that his knowledge is incomplete. That's where Vecna steps in. His goal is to obfuscate information about magic and other things. Boccob uncovers magical knowledge where he can, makes it so others can learn it. Vecna hides magical knowledge where he can.
First, I'm not sure how the dozens of examples, book quotes and ect quoted by myself, Pemerton and others somehow isn't evidence. Would you mind explaining why you can dismiss all of that while accepted the same sort of evidence from Max and others?
Because honestly, your sources have mostly been pretty weak, along the lines of "hah, the archfiends grant 7th-level spells back in 1e, therefore they're just like gods!" (I literally do not care if they also granted 9th-level spells in 3e.)
Secondly, it isn't that hard to understand. Max is a person who believes in the ultimate an unquestioned authority of the DM to change literally anything. He is of course going to say that any DM can change canon if they feel like it. Meanwhile, he will also continue pointing out that he has the canon answer, and that he is following it, and supported by the books. Just because he isn't saying people must be bound by his answer doesn't mean he isn't arguing Canon.
Yes? I don't see the issues here. Just because he has a canon answer that he's following doesn't mean that he's wrong when he says DMs can change anything they like, or that he isn't arguing canon. I fail to see the problem here.
Back when Heironeous was conceived, before St. Cuthbert,
According to this,
Cuthbert was first mentioned in The Dragon #2, in '76, whereas
Heironeous didn't appear into Dragon #67, in '82.
Paladins would lose all of their powers if they lied. They were no longer paladins. So, a more accurate comparison rather than the god and food and ranches, would be the god of food and Calories. Because just like without honesty you are not a paladin, without some number of calories, you aren't food.
Nope. Because Caoimhin still isn't the god of calories. He's the god of food. And that's just moving the goalposts. Honesty was an aspect of being a paladin, but not the only one. And the fact that Boccob and Cuthbert both share honesty doesn't mean one is stepping on the other's toes. It just means they have a trait in common.
And since the question at hand is "Did Cuthbert's apotheosis into a god alter the cosmic balance" not "who is more powerful" again, it has no relevance to the point.
Well, Gygax strongly hinted that Cuthbert got apotheosed here on Earth and then went to Oerth, so if there was any sort of alteration to any cosmic balance, it wouldn't be on Greyhawk. Because he was already a god when he arrived.
I "complain" when people either
A) Completely ignore the discussion to begin making wild tangents
B) Claim my position is wrong, and provide textual evidence to try and prove their answer canonically correct.
So, you get annoyed that the conversation isn't 100% focused on what you want it to be, and when people use facts to back up their assertions. So you want people to pay attention to you and only you, and to believe everything you say without question or opinion of their own.
Oh-
kay....
So you are literally saying that there is
no reason to actually try to communicate with you, unless it's to, what, to tell you that you're right?