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

[Jer]

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 Who'se been replaced by someone from another culture.

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

Why would I use the myths like that? The benefit that you get is an iconic god that serves a particular purpose - the player knows who Thor is, so having a cleric of Thor means something more to that player than having a cleric of Kraith the War God. They may have the same personalities, and the same portfolio, but the player knows instantly who Thor is and what he stands for, while Kraith is just a nebulous name on the page unless the player wants to invest the effort to do some world building or to pay attention to the DM's world building efforts.

It's worth noting that even published campaign settings have done this in the past. St. Cuthbert of the Greyhawk pantheon was a real saint, Tyr and Loviatar from the Forgotten Realms are real gods as well, and Tiamat is one of the "iconic" D&D images -- pulled from real world myth. The D&D versions of these gods have the same names, portfolios, and in most cases personalities as their real-world counterparts, but no one assumes that the myths around them are the same as their real world counterparts.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Banjo, of course!

Huh. I find them much less interesting, since they're clearly imagined as a game mechanic first (domains and favored weapon) and as an actual living, breathing mythological presence second, if at all.

The GH and FR deities existed long, LONG before deity choice had any mechanical consequences for clerics. And I'll take the level of info available on the FR deities in the 2e gods books over the current real-world pantheon adaptations for D&D any day.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why would I use the myths like that? The benefit that you get is an iconic god that serves a particular purpose - the player knows who Thor is, so having a cleric of Thor means something more to that player than having a cleric of Kraith the War God. They may have the same personalities, and the same portfolio, but the player knows instantly who Thor is and what he stands for, while Kraith is just a nebulous name on the page unless the player wants to invest the effort to do some world building or to pay attention to the DM's world building efforts.

He understands what Thor is in the context of our world. Then you uproot Thor, dont give him his drinking buddies and nullify the myths about Thor the player knows. Why are you using Thor again? Better question - if you're using Thor, why NOT also use Odin, Loki and the whole gang? What do you gain from combining Thor, Anubis and Coyote over just keeping the pantheon intact?

It's worth noting that even published campaign settings have done this in the past. St. Cuthbert of the Greyhawk pantheon was a real saint, Tyr and Loviatar from the Forgotten Realms are real gods as well, and Tiamat is one of the "iconic" D&D images -- pulled from real world myth. The D&D versions of these gods have the same names, portfolios, and in most cases personalities as their real-world counterparts, but no one assumes that the myths around them are the same as their real world counterparts.

Its also worth noting that all of those are incredibly obscure compared to Zeus and such. Your average guy on the street, assuming he passed 5th grade had to take a class on Greek mythology. Thor has a comic book. Loviatar? Umm yeah.

 

[Blackwind]

Well, I would never create a pantheon made up of Thor, Anubis, Quetzalcoatl, Coyote, etc. I agree that would be stupid. My approach would actually be to import some of the more important members from each of several pantheons and assign them to different cultures, with perhaps a little overlap and syncretism (just like in real life) and then throw in some D&D classics. For example, in the snow-swept Kingdom of Hrythig, the main gods are Odin, Thor, Freya, Loki, Hela, etc. Some of the more obscure ones I wouldn't bother to include, really. But beneath yonder mountain there might be a secret cult of Asmodeus. Dwarves would favor Thor as well. The point is to have deities with name recognition. Elves might worship Cernunnos or even Artemis/Diana instead of Corellon Larethian. Far off to the south there might be a desert kingdom where the main deities are Isis, Osiris, Horus-Ra or Amon-Ra, Set, etc. And then you get things like temples of Amon-Zeus, Hermes-Thoth... or Hermes-Nyarlathotep.

This approach is really only appropriate for a certain kind of setting -- a sword and sorcery type game where everything is at least a vague analogue of the real ancient/mythical world... like REH's Hyborian Age. Other settings strive for a purely created-world status with as little resemblance to our world as possible -- Eberron might be a good example of this. Some people prefer a fictional world with little or no relationship to ours, others prefer a world with clear parallels to real-world history and mythology. Me, I can go both ways but I am often times less than impressed with those settings that take a half-arsed approach to being wholly fictional (real-world deities in FR, I'm looking at you).

These are really two different approaches to fantasy settings and I like both. But there needs to be some consistency. I don't think the 4E PH should really have a "core pantheon" per se, since deities are necessarily setting-specific. But as long as they're going to include examples, I would rather they didn't use Greyhawk or FR and would much prefer (mostly) real-world examples. Again, I find the Greyhawk pantheon incredibly boring. I also don't mind if they use real-world deities in generic modules and that sort of thing. It seems to work pretty well for Necromancer Games.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

. . . My approach would actually be to import some of the more important members from each of several pantheons and assign them to different cultures, with perhaps a little overlap and syncretism (just like in real life) and then throw in some D&D classics. . . .

This approach is really only appropriate for a certain kind of setting -- a sword and sorcery type game where everything is at least a vague analogue of the real ancient/mythical world... like REH's Hyborian Age. . . .

It worked wonderfully well for Mystara.

 

[frankthedm]

Well it looks like The greyhawk deities may stick around.

The greyhawk "Green man" is still in D&D. :/

Corellon seems to be taking The Fey god role. Kind of like Oberon and Queen Titania rolled into one... Lets hope It gets better art than last time

Elves are drawn to the worship of both the fey god Corellon and Obad-Hai, the god of the wild.

 

[Sammael]

Corellon seems to be taking The Fey god role. Kind of like Oberon and Queen Titania rolled into one... Lets hope It gets better art than last time

Oh, I don't know... that art is perfectly OK if he indeed ends up being "Oberon and Queen Titania rolled into one."

 

[Jer]

He understands what Thor is in the context of our world. Then you uproot Thor, dont give him his drinking buddies and nullify the myths about Thor the player knows. Why are you using Thor again? Better question - if you're using Thor, why NOT also use Odin, Loki and the whole gang? What do you gain from combining Thor, Anubis and Coyote over just keeping the pantheon intact?

Meh - I can see I'm not going to be able to adequately explain what I mean, so there's probably not much point in my trying to continue. The point is that for this particular play style I wouldn't use "pantheons" at all - I just use the gods themselves. The players are actually somewhat in the middle of the myths of these gods being made, so you don't really need to import the myths at all. What you gain from it is the immediate recognition that a player has for a particular god. Like I said, it's a particular play style and I'm really feeling like I'm not explaining it well, so I think I'm going to give up now.

Anyway, it looks like it's all moot in the end - the new Design and Development article gives a strong indication that the Greyhawk gods are probably going to carry over into the next edition in some form or another. Not my first choice, but if they move them away from their Greyhawk incarnations a bit and keep the same names it'll probably work out okay.

 

[frankthedm]

What do you gain from combining Thor, Anubis and Coyote over just keeping the pantheon intact?

You fill holes in the game setting pantheon. This can be needed in settings that have more ground to cover than the civilizations of the original myths. The Norse pantheon, kept intact, is great for a setting mostly focusing on raiding and battle, but leaves many ‘godly gaps’ in most other settings.

In the Norse setting trickery is bad, someone makes a fool of you and blood may get spilled or the harsh environment may do you in. Thus their god of trickery, Loki, is notability a bad guy.

Now if you want a ‘middle of the moral road’ trickster, Coyote may be of more use or maybe grandfather Raven.

If a god fits, use it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

True, although there are some interesting arguments to make there. Dragon 110 is notably worth taking a look at for its view on the Norse pantheon (including an excellent explanation of why Loki is arguably CN, at least until the Angurboda and Baldur episodes, and of how various deities like Frey, Freya, and Niord can fill the non-fighter/barb patron roles).