Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8405692" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Well, except the Fiendish Codices from 3.5 explicitly gave archfiend’s clerics too. And in 4e when we had fiendish clerics. Which leaves 5e, where we have cultists who worship fiends and explicitly have clerical spells.And your initial statement wasn’t “clerics of fiends would be warlocks if they were made in 5e” it was “clerics of fiends never existed” which is false. And claiming that 5e would make them warlocks doesn’t make it true that they never existed.I don’t think anyone is doubting that they have different leadership styles or “unforgivable actions”. The point is that they fill the same niche. And the differences between them are small. The idea that “one is the general and one is the king” make massive differences seems to ignore how many times a general has become a king in history, and how many times kings acted as generals. There isn’t a meaningful difference there to latch onto. Tiamat is different because of her focus on dragons, and her actual lack of care about organization or structure (at least in the versions I am most familiar with)</blockquote>