D&D General Which Gods/Pantheons do you use in your D&D setting?

[Zeromaru X]

I started DMing when 4e was released, and as such I just defaulted to the Dawn War pantheon for my homebrew. I find that pantheon to be perfect for a DM who wants to homebrew but doesn't want to create their own sets of gods, as this pantheon not only covers all the necessary elements for the divine in a D&D setting, but also incorporates a very good mythological backstory (the Dawn War) that ties them to your world in a more intrinsic manner.

I also like that this is a small group of gods that is universal, so they are known and worshiped in all the world and by all the peoples and cultures.

What is better, its lore is so open and customizable that you can include whatever other gods and pantheons you want from other sources without breaking it. For instance, I introduced Elohna from the Greyhawk gods from the 3e PHB (she is my favorite from that group of gods), and she fits perfectly as a goddess of the forest that is subservient to the goddess of wilderness, Melora.

And since Exandria uses the same gods, you basically have a free expanded lore from where to draw from whenever you need new stuff. The lazy DM's paradise!

 

[bedir than]

as well as my belief that trying to get players interested in detailed homebrew info is usually a waste of time.

I've cut way down on expected knowledge.
I do a campaign one-sheet that guides the rules, themes and factions of the campaign.
Then a two-sheet that's common knowledge any character would know.

While I've written much more lore, most of it grows out of the players' ideas and actions. New players aren't expected to know that.

 

[Shiroiken]

I use the pantheon(s) for the setting I'm running. That's almost always Greyhawk, but if I make a homebrew world I make one or more pantheon of gods to go with it. Since I don't want to spend forever making a hundred gods, I usually keep it down to a couple dozen.

 

[Distracted DM]

I've cut way down on expected knowledge.
I do a campaign one-sheet that guides the rules, themes and factions of the campaign.
Then a two-sheet that's common knowledge any character would know.

While I've written much more lore, most of it grows out of the players' ideas and actions. New players aren't expected to know that.

Yeah, you're generally not going to interest players with pages of worldbuilding lore. That stuff is for the GM. Some players dig that, most don't.. unless you pique their interest with lore-relevant equipment and quests. Dark Souls was great at this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But, uh, yeah, recently I’ve had a growing interest in taking the opposite approach and having the gods be both definitively real and directly involved in the events of the campaign. I think either approach can work quite well, what’s dissatisfying is when the gods are definitively real but mostly uninvolved in mortal affairs.

Yeah. That wishy-washy, "we're really here! but you'll never actually see us!" take is the worst of both worlds. You can't get the "well done, my good and faithful servant" vibes, because the relationship is entirely one-sided on the part of the believer-PC. It comes across as hollow and fake. But you also can't get the "Are you there God? It's me, Margaret" feels either, because there's no ambiguity, no nuance--the gods definitively exist and have quite clear and articulated stances on a great many things.

I'm honestly at a loss for what could possibly be enabled by non-interventionist but objectively-real deities that isn't done better by either "matter of faith"-style deities or "active, interventionist, and reciprocating"-style deities.

As far as I can tell, the only thing it does better than either of those two is keeping deities out of the game. Which, I mean, cool I guess? But you could do that just as easily without even mentioning deities at all, so...like...why?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, “matter of faith” was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to express was that I usually prefer there to be a variety of different religions in my fantasy worlds, with no definitive canonical answer as to which, if any, is “right.” But surely the people within those worlds experience what they perceive to be direct evidence of their beliefs.

Right. But then the players know that what their characters believe might not be real. Which of course is not necessarily a problem, but basically my point was that if you want to help the players to get to the historical mindset, it is easier if you just make the world work like those historical people believed it worked.

Also, I don't think people usually though that gods of other peoples were not real. They tended to think that they were either the same gods with different names or just some other gods they were not familiar with.

But, uh, yeah, recently I’ve had a growing interest in taking the opposite approach and having the gods be both definitively real and directly involved in the events of the campaign. I think either approach can work quite well, what’s dissatisfying is when the gods are definitively real but mostly uninvolved in mortal affairs.

Could you elaborate on what you find to be the issue with this "middle position?" Because I think that might be what I actually like. If you make gods too effable and interventionist, they start to feel just like powerful people. I sort of like the position where whilst being real, the gods are also more like ineffable mysterious forces rather than just people. Doesn't mean they can never intervene, but they don't routinely show up to sort out petty mortal squabbles, and their perspectives are not the same than those of the mortals.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. But then the players know that what their characters believe might not be real. Which of course is not necessarily a problem, but basically my point was that if you want to help the players to get to the historical mindset, it is easier if you just make the world work like those historical people believed it worked.

Also, I don't think people usually though that gods of other peoples were not real. They tended to think that they were either the same gods with different names or just some other gods they were not familiar with.


Could you elaborate on what you find to be the issue with this "middle position?" Because I think that might be what I actually like. If you make gods too effable and interventionist, they start to feel just like powerful people. I sort of like the position where whilst being real, the gods are also more like ineffable mysterious forces rather than just people. Doesn't mean they can never intervene, but they don't routinely show up to sort out petty mortal squabbles, and their perspectives are not the same than those of the mortals.

Yeah, sounds like your preference might be the approach I find dissatisfying. That’s alright, different strokes and all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, sounds like your preference might be the approach I find dissatisfying. That’s alright, different strokes and all.

Could you still try to elaborate on what you dislike about it? I get that this is just about preferences, but as you're not the only one implying similar viewpoint, I'd like to understand where people are coming from.

 

[Charlaquin]

Could you still try to elaborate on what you dislike about it? I get that this is just about preferences, but as you're not the only one implying similar viewpoint, I'd like to understand where people are coming from.

Personally, I just find it disinteresting. The gods are real, so there’s no mystery to it, no room for beliefs outside the mainstream to be valid, no room for crises of faith. But then they don’t do anything, so there’s no direct interaction, no answered prayers, no “oh s$@%, we pissed off Poseidon, now he’s going to come sink our ship.” The gods are acting like objects of faith, without providing the thematic benefits of faith vs. doubt. It’s the worst of both worlds.

EDIT: To use an analogy, it feels like if you said monsters are real, but the PCs will never actually encounter any, the campaign will only feature humanoids and natural beasts. Like, ok I guess, but then why does monsters being real even matter?

 

[ichabod]

So my question here (which is open ended, so thus no poll), how do you handle which gods are available in your game?

I have a lot of them. My homebrew setting is called the Dome of Heaven, after all. There are four elemental deities, who rarely get involved in human affairs. There are the Regents of the Dead, who rule the lands of the dead. There are the Royal Deities, who are the most well known and the most powerful. There are the Noble Deities who are lesser known/powerful, but still recognized throughout the (huge) world. Then there are the common deities, of which there are a ton. My player hand out has as many common deities as all the rest combined, and if the player wants something specific that's not on the list, I would work with them to create a common deity for them. I have always loved the idea of the gods in Lankhmar, as opposed to the gods of Lankhmar, with a long street of worshipers for god after god after god...

There are also some non-deity centered faiths. There is animism, which is based on the spirits in the Astral Sphere that reflect animals, plants, and geography. There is Moism, a more philosophical way of life founded by a semi-mythical mercenary named Mo.

Do you pick a pantheon for each kind of people (elves, humans, dwarves)?

I don't like this and tend to stay away from it. There are deities who are associated with certain species, and look like one of them. But the idea of religion in my world is that people go to different deities at different times based on what they need. When starting out they might make offerings to Alodar, the god of luck and wealth. When they meet that special someone they might seek help from the priests of Iosephine, the goddess of love and truth. When the wife becomes pregnant they will of course pray to Mah, the goddess of fertility. Later they may pray to Obi, the god of farming an family. If their son is killed, they might make a dark vow with Morcant, the god of vengeance.

Do you pick pantheons for regions?

It's possible. My world is a big place, and some regions may have particular (common) deities specific to them. It hasn't come up yet, though.

Do you use real-world pantheons, D&D setting ones, or totally homebrewed ones?

I have several real world deities among my list, like Thor, Tyr, Asmodeus, Anubis, Hexate, Artemis, and Oghma. But not whole pantheons. I used to pull from the D&D ones as well, but after the OGL debacle I went through and trimmed out any WotC specific IP from my world, just to be on the safe side.

Does this only matter if there are cleric PCs?

Not really. Moism could be anyone. Animism is common among druids, but there are various nature related gods they might be devoted to. I don't use alignment in my games, so instead I have core tenets for each deity. Clerics are expected to have a deity, and to follow the core tenets of that deity. In extreme cases they could lose their clerical powers by pissing off their deity, but I would allow them to change deities or atone to get their powers back (Hey! Side quest!).

Anything else you think is relavant?

My view on world building is that I like to do it, so there is a fair amount of it out there. But I don't try to insist that my players enjoy it. I have a 43 page document about my homebrew world, but I don't expect the players to read it. It's there if they want it, and some do. When things come up in the game that depend on my world building, I let them know what their characters would know about it, maybe after some history or religion checks for the more obscure things. When they ran into some locathah who were trying to rebuild a statue of their god to protect them from a giant, psychic lobster, it was an easy religion check to recognize Harro, the god of rivers and death.

In terms of interacting with the world, most of what deities do is through their worshipers. Right now my players are dealing with a nasty cult of a dark aspect of Chippick, the god of rats and deserts. As they get to higher levels I expect more interaction with celestials and fiends sent by the deities. Dealing directly with the god would be at much higher levels, although they might get visions or messages at the lower levels.