D&D 4E Who / What will be the main gods of 4E?

[RigaMortus2]

Regarding Asmodeus...

Asmodeus, also known as Ashmadia, most likely originated from the Persian Aeshma-deva ("demon of wrath").

The apocryphal Book of Tobit describes an instance where Raguel's daughter, Sarah, was tormented by the demon. She was married to seven times, each time the Asmodeus killed off the husband before they could have intercourse. Sarah, was about to hang herself in grief, but decided against it after thinking about the shame it would cause her father. She then prayed to God for death.

God answered her prayer by sending the angel, Raphael, to her aid. He instructed Tobiah to place fish liver and heart on the embers for incense. Asmodeus was repelled by the odor:

"The demon, repelled by the odor of the fish, fled into Upper Egypt; Raphael pursued him there and bound him hand and foot." - Book of Tobit 8:3

In the Testament of Solomon (dated 1st - 3rd centuries CE) , Solomon invokes Asmodeus to aid in the construction of the Temple. The demon appears and predicts Solomon's kingdom will one day be divided.

"My constellation (is like an animal which) reclines in its den in heaven; some men call me the Great Bear, but others the Offspring of a Dragon. Moreover, a smaller constellation accompanies my constellation, for the high position and throne of my father is always in the sky. So do not ask me so many things, Solomon, for eventually your kingdom will be divided. This glory of yours is temporary. You have us to torture for a little while; then we shall disperse among human beings again with the result that we shall be worshiped as gods because men do not know the names of the angels who rule over us." - Testament of Solomon 5:4-5

After Asmodeus had spoken, Solomon ordered him to state his name and activities, to which the demon responded that he:

"Is always hatching plots against newlyweds; I mar the beauty of virgins and cause their hearts to grow cold" - Testament of Solomon 5:7

When Solomon interrogated Asmodeus further, he learned that Asmodeus was thwarted by the angel, Raphael, as well as sheatfish found in the rivers of Assyria. He also admitted he hated water.

Milton writes in Paradise Lost

Better pleased
Than Asmodeus with the fishy fume
That drove him, though enamoured, from the spouse
Of Tobit's son, and with a vengeance sent
From Media post to Egypt, there fast bound.
- Paradise Lost , iv. 167--71.

 

[Sadrik]

I like the idea of having 9 or 18 entities. Then each culture gives them a name. Asmodeos Loki and Set could all be the same entity but be called something different in different parts of the world. I doubt they would do this but I still like the concept for a fantasy setting.

Also, I am tired of the old and worn out "demi-human" deities from first edition getting regurgitated into every new edition. I am sick of Lolth, Moradin, Corelon and all of the rest of them. Please, please please do something new with them. Make the dwarves worship Thor and all of the "human" gods. Basically remove racial deities- they are dumb.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I wouldn't mind seeing Thor provided as a deity option for divine spellcasters in the PHB (heck, I've had several characters who've either worshipped Thor or the campaign's closest Thor analog).

I think using references that are somewhat obscure for most people, or at least are "sorta-kinda familiar" rather than well known works well for D&D (Tiamat, many of the demons & devils, etc.). With that said...

I think that using some deities from lesser-known mythologies may work well as deities for the default D&D setting. Perhaps Finnish mythology would work (sorta-kinda linking it to FR that way, with Mielikki and Loviatar): it'd be great to have Ukko available as an option. Perhaps Slavic mythological characters, like Zoria for a goddess of beauty.

Or perhaps using more obscure name variants of mainstream mythological figures: Thunor instead of Thor; Llyr/Leir instead of Lir or his son Manannan; Radigost instead of Svarogich (and as another tip of the hat to Tolkien, like the Balor/Balrog); etc.

 

[Nifft]

I want the racial deities to bite the dust and no longer be part of the 4e implied setting.

Signed.

"Hi, I'm the personification of lawful good... halflings. All other lawful good folks, please call somewhere else."

Bleah!

- - -

Schisms are fun and lead to interesting plots / fights / betrayals. I want fewer churches, with more internal strife.

Cheers, -- N

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

I want the racial deities to bite the dust and no longer be part of the 4e implied setting.

As race-specific gods, I agree. But if they were members of a cohesive pantheon, I'd be fine with them.

For example, Freyr is a Norse fertility god venerated by all, but is the favored of elves.

The same multi-ethnic status could be done for deities like Gruumsh (rage in battle), Corellon (skill at arms), Kurtulmak (dark places), and Lolth (creepy crawlies). Hell, you could even do the weird ones like Blibdoolpoolp (the sea depths).

They would have different aspects dependent on who's worshipping them.

 

[frankthedm]

For example, Freyr is a Norse fertility god venerated by all, but is the favored of elves.

I like merging Hephastus and Moradin.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

They should cherry-pick gods from real religions. Greek pantheon, norse pantheon, egyptian pantheon, maybe hindu as well. Choose most interesting deities, say 18 (two per alignment). I want Thor, Ares, Aphrodite, Ra, Set, Anubis, Zeus, Freya.

They are much more interesting that some bland obad-hai and you can find a lot of stuff online.

I soundly disagree. If you're going to be too lazy to deisgn your own gods, cherry picking is the wworst way to go. You lose any benefits of using real world mythology (ie, relationships between the gods and stories you can import) and just end up with a useless hodge podge that doesnt fit.

 

[Jer]

I soundly disagree. If you're going to be too lazy to deisgn your own gods, cherry picking is the wworst way to go. You lose any benefits of using real world mythology (ie, relationships between the gods and stories you can import) and just end up with a useless hodge podge that doesnt fit.

I disagree with this, depending on the setting. If I'm creating a fully fleshed out setting where the impact of the gods on my overall narrative is as important as the impact of two warring kingdoms then, yes, I need to design gods. I used to do that a lot back when I had a lot of spare time for world building on my hands. It's fun, if you're a certain type of person.

OTOH - if you are doing "world building as you go" (a very, very noble and ancient tradition in D&D), laying out a pantheon of gods beforehand is not always the best approach. I've had some very fun, engaging campaigns where we used a hodge-podge of real world mythical gods as the gods of the setting. It isn't laziness - it's just placing a different emphasis on attributes of the campaign.

My current campaign is a fully fleshed out world where I created a small group of gods (and a whole bunch of them were already "dead" at the start of the campaign) and an overall narrative. The gods are very important to the whole "metaplot" of the world (which has rapidly become plot over the last couple of levels). When this campaign wraps up, I'm going to go back and do a hodge-podge, group collaboration approach to building the world (I think my players will be ready for it by that point). One method of campaign design is not inherently superior to the other - different players prefer different styles and some of us can switch back and forth depending on our moods

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I disagree with this, depending on the setting. If I'm creating a fully fleshed out setting where the impact of the gods on my overall narrative is as important as the impact of two warring kingdoms then, yes, I need to design gods. I used to do that a lot back when I had a lot of spare time for world building on my hands. It's fun, if you're a certain type of person.

OTOH - if you are doing "world building as you go" (a very, very noble and ancient tradition in D&D), laying out a pantheon of gods beforehand is not always the best approach. I've had some very fun, engaging campaigns where we used a hodge-podge of real world mythical gods as the gods of the setting. It isn't laziness - it's just placing a different emphasis on attributes of the campaign.

My current campaign is a fully fleshed out world where I created a small group of gods (and a whole bunch of them were already "dead" at the start of the campaign) and an overall narrative. The gods are very important to the whole "metaplot" of the world (which has rapidly become plot over the last couple of levels). When this campaign wraps up, I'm going to go back and do a hodge-podge, group collaboration approach to building the world (I think my players will be ready for it by that point). One method of campaign design is not inherently superior to the other - different players prefer different styles and some of us can switch back and forth depending on our moods

Except what benefit do you gain from having Thor, Anubis and Quetzocouatl as the chief dieties? You gain name recognition sure, but you also take on baggage. Remember the time that Thor and Anubis wandered around and got in an eating contest? Oh wait... that was Loki. Who'se been replaced by someone from another culture. So you have people showing up to the game familiar with the gods, but they find that its been taken out of context. The tone and personality of the pantheons varies distinctly. Yeah, Thor prolly would get along with Zeus, but Anubis? Why isnt Hades good enough? Are we just going to cut and paste Anubis in there when relating myths about Zeus?

If you're going to snag real world pantheons, I think its better to do it whole cloth.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Since Greyhawk is going away as the default setting, what D&D Icons willl fill the holes?

Since there will be no default setting, I predict there will be not default pantheon. Pantheons are integral to settings. Pantheons are intimately a construction or choice of DMs. I predict there will be no pantheon of deities to choose from in the PHBs. I predict that as the DMG will present a multitude of planar rules, it will also present a multitude of deities and pantheons as examples for DM's to customize their own.

The PHB1 will instead have rules for customizeable powers of clerics (and other divine characters). They just won't be explicitly connected with a presented pantheon in the PHBs.

I could see the DMG presenting the 3.x as one sample pantheon, the Norse as another sample, Greek as another, etc. Maybe even show how to mix and match from such to get a DM's desired setting flavor.

I just think that pantheons are so integral to a setting that the setting neutrality of the Core rules seems to mean that there won't be a defined Core pantheon.