Twenty plus one

[The Ubbergeek]

I have never liked Obad-Hai.. his name, his symbol, his story. No real reason, just don't like him. Just personal preference, which is being catered to in 4E in this case- nice!

Oh, and Pukunui, the only name we used for 'em, when I was a kid. Probably not used that much now tho', it was a while ago

I also feels that Sylvanus is better in the role of the nature god, and Chauntea sounds better as the agriculture, earth mother one...

 

[EATherrian]

Personally I don't like them taking Greyhawk's (and to a lesser extant FR's) deities and place-names at all. If they want to use those deities actually publish the setting for it. I'd prefer either new names with no baggage or just ideas on how deities work and possible examples. I'm sorry, but with these and the Temple of Elemental Evil and Vault of the Drow in Worlds and Monsters I'm afraid the current management of WoTC sees Greyhawk as just a resource to mine for names with gamer resonance, not an actual setting.

 

[Sitara]

I'm pissed that vecna and pelor are in. I thought they were doing away completely with greyhawk; if so get rid of vecna. ANd get ridofpelor because perlor is annoying.

 

[pukunui]

I'm pissed that vecna and pelor are in. I thought they were doing away completely with greyhawk; if so get rid of vecna. ANd get ridofpelor because perlor is annoying.

Why do so many people hate Pelor? Is it because he's the most "holier-than-thou-old-school medieval Christian" of all the default deities?

 

[helium3]

So there will still be things that don't directly relate to adventuring, but there won't be gods whose portfolios are solely those things. "Adventuring gods" will now have all the non-adventuring stuff in their portfolios. It's built right into tnto the cosmology, what with the little fluff bit about the gods breaking up into "small groups" in order to fight the primordials.

The thing is, I've never participated in a game where any aspect of religious belief has been expressed via role-playing other than a "yeah, that's where my cleric gets his spells from." and occasional nods to "I donate money to my temple" and vague handwaving about church hierarchy. The one time I saw a DM attempt to force a player to do something with his character because the "church demanded it", the player had an absolute hissy fit. Heck, we had a player whose character was an Astral Deva that directly worked for Bahamut, and even in that case the vast majority of religion related role-playing was more like humor than anything else.

Why not keep it simple? Just list the gods that adventuring cleric's are likely to come from, the gods whose clerics the adventurers are likely to tangle with and a statement that "yeah, there are probably other gods, but their cleric's don't adventure so we didn't include them in the default pantheon."

With all the talk they've been making about "cutting out anything not directly relevant to the play experience" why go through contortions to make the default pantheon both comprehensive and totally relevant to adventurers? It seems like an awfully trivial thing for the designers to suddenly get insecure about, much less blow a couple of articles on.

 

[pukunui]

The thing is, I've never participated in a game where any aspect of religious belief has been expressed via role-playing other than a "yeah, that's where my cleric gets his spells from." and occasional nods to "I donate money to my temple" and vague handwaving about church hierarchy.

Me neither, to be honest.

Why not keep it simple?

Isn't that what they are doing? Making the pantheon simple by getting rid of the "extra" stuff that no one besides seriously immersive roleplayers will use?

With all the talk they've been making about "cutting out anything not directly relevant to the play experience" why go through contortions to make the default pantheon both comprehensive and totally relevant to adventurers? It seems like an awfully trivial thing for the designers to suddenly get insecure about, much less blow a couple of articles on.

Who says they're going through contortions? Who says they're suddenly getting insecure about it? They're essentially building a new cosmology from the ground up to go hand-in-hand with their new ruleset. Why not do a bit of gardening in the pantheon while they're at it and weed out the chaff?

IMO, the end result is going to look more like a real world mythological pantheon than 3e's pantheon did. As I said before, the sun and agriculture go really well together. Why not just have one god for both instead of one god for each, especially when the god of agriculture will never really get used in the game? It makes sense that farmers would worship a sun god because the sun is what allows their crops to grow.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Why do so many people hate Pelor? Is it because he's the most "holier-than-thou-old-school medieval Christian" of all the default deities?

I just find him bland, about the only thing he has going for him is that he does hate the undead so much.

I would like him better if he were more 'holier than thou old school medieval Christian.' Heck, I love St. Cuthbert. Who actually is a holier than thou old school medieval Christian.

 

[helium3]

Who says they're going through contortions? Who says they're suddenly getting insecure about it? They're essentially building a new cosmology from the ground up to go hand-in-hand with their new ruleset. Why not do a bit of gardening in the pantheon while they're at it and weed out the chaff?

All right, so I was using a wee bit of hyperbole when I said the above. Let me see if I can clarify my point with a bit of hypothetical conversation.

Gamer Buddy: So let's see this new pantheon you've come up with for 4E.

Designer/DM: Here. See, it has all the good stuff. Vecna, Pelor, Bane, Bahamut. All the gods that adventurers would care about. We left out the rest because they don't matter.

Gamer Buddy: But what if I want to play a cleric of The Goddess of Herd Animals?

Designer/DM: Why would you want to do that? A cleric of that goddess would never adventure.

Game Buddy: Okay. So that goddess doesn't have any clerics?

Designer/DM: What? Why do you think that?

Game Buddy: Well if the only way a cleric can become more powerful is by adventuring and getting XP and clerics of the Goddess of Herd Animals don't adventure, then there must not be any clerics, or if there are they're all 1st level.

Designer/DM: Nah. The goddess just grants her most devoted, wise and oldest clerics powers equivalent to a higher level cleric.

Game Buddy: Cool, so if I play a cleric of that priest can i be granted extra powers too?

Designer/DM: No. You're an adventurer.

Game Buddy: So an NPC gets special granted powers but I don't? I'm a PC, I'm special. Why does an NPC get something and I don't?

Designer/DM: Well, that's just the way things are. It's D&D. You're an adventurer and you only get more powers through adventuring and getting more XP.

Game Buddy: Well that's just stupid. I think you're being arbitrary and controlling. Are you going to rail-road us through the adventures you want us to be in too?

Designer/DM: No!! *sigh* Fine. Here's how I'm going to change the default pantheon so that this isn't even an issue. All those gods with cleric's that wouldn't have a reason to adventure? They're gone. Their portfolio's are distributed amongst the gods I originally mentioned. So, Pelor now has Herd Animals. So if you want to be a cleric of the deity of herd animals, you're a cleric of Pelor.

Game Buddy: Oh. Okay. Well I think I want to be a rogue anyway.

Designer/DM: Oi!

So as I see it, the result they've arrived at is a response to an extension of the belief that NPC's and PC's should operate according to the same set of rules. The Designers have been very clear that NPC's and PC's do not operate according to the same set of rules. So, what I'm wondering about is why it seems like in this one specific (and unimportant instance) they appear to have caved.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not actually upset about this or even care all that much. It's just something I noticed that I thought was odd.

IMO, the end result is going to look more like a real world mythological pantheon than 3e's pantheon did. As I said before, the sun and agriculture go really well together. Why not just have one god for both instead of one god for each, especially when the god of agriculture will never really get used in the game? It makes sense that farmers would worship a sun god because the sun is what allows their crops to grow.

Ehh. I agree that the 3E pantheon wasn't realistic. But, it also didn't go to the same lengths to make every god relevant to adventurers.

Also, I'm sure it seems like the Sun and Farming go together, but I'm not sure that from a historical sense they typically did. I know that in Greek Mythology Demeter was the goddess of agriculture and Apollo was the Sun. Not sure about the others though.

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter since no one pays any attention to religious stuff anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, what I'm wondering about is why it seems like in this one specific (and unimportant instance) they appear to have caved.

Seeking a middle ground?

Appeasing as many people as possible?

Avoiding conversations like the one above where the player is like "Why CAN'T I be a cleric of agriculture?" and the DM is like "Because it's boring to me!"

Because some people seriously care?

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter since no one pays any attention to religious stuff anyway.

Wrong. You now owe me a cookie for posting a lie. I demand it be chocolate chip. E-mail me, and I'll tell you where to deliver it.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter since no one pays any attention to religious stuff anyway.

*I* do, and the most dedicated Clerics fans do - it's a part of the job, after all.

i like clerics precisely for the spiritual aspect. I'm weird like that.