Why all the fuss about who or what is/isn't a god?

[Davelozzi]

A comment in the Against the Cult of the Reptile God thread got me thinking...

As for the cosmological implications, "Frostburn" (which I'm just reading now) states that Levistus doesn't grant spells, but he's a focus of worship for entities that DO grant the spells.

This seems to come up a lot, whether or not various creatures are really gods, and whether or not they can grant spells. Most often, the talk is about Demon Princes or Archdevils, though not always (Sorceror Kings from Dark Sun, for example). At any rate, I wonder why people (including the folks at TSR/WotC) seem to be so hung up on this. As for the companies, I imagine that this is just one of the last holdovers from the poltically correct policies of the TSR in the 2e years. You know, just their way of indicating that they're not promoting demons and devils as objects of worship.

In my game, if I want an evil priest to worship demons or devils, I just do it. I have no problem with them granting spells. To translate into game terms (albiet ones that I don't bother with anyway), it makes not difference to me whether or not this or that entity has Divine Rank 1+, Divine Rank 0, or has no Divine Rank at all.

So why all the fuss, both among the publishers of the game and the fans? I'm just curious.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I always thought it was because they wanted Orcus, et al., theoretically killable, which gods are not (especially now), but still able to grant spells (which is a sole province of dieties).

I agree that it's a silly thing to split hairs over, which is why I'm glad to see the "other entities grant the spells" workaround as it opens up all sorts of possibilities, like the worship of a huge tree in the middle of the village, the worship of a highly magical talking sword with delusions of grandeur, scary cults led by mad messiahs, etc.

 

[Shemeska]

I tend to treat some of the archfiends as true deities, and some of them not. Being a god brings power, but also restrictions and responsibilities that might make it undesirable for more base beings such as archfiends.

I think that alot of the controversy seems to stem from TSR/WotC's drastically changing stance of the deific status of such beings, even among same editions of the game, or even among single settings of the same edition. I tend to take the viewpoint of 2e Planescape, even though I'm playing in 3e, though of course I alter some aspects of it to fit my game. Gods are effectively refined and focused belief, nested within a series of precepts and portfolios, whereas archfiends are more raw and less refined, more base alignment than focused beliefs and specific portfolios.

Gods are beholden to their followers and requirements of worship, as well as any restrictions placed on them by the overpower of a specific world they have a deific presence upon. Gods tend to act through worshippers and clerics rather than taking a direct role themselves, whereas Archfiends are more direct, don't require worship, and aren't under the same restrictions of activity and deific politics to the same extent. They may be less powerful in some ways, but their scope and range of power may be massive, especially on their own planes compared to a true deity.


But there's always the fact that WotC seems to view archfiends as just BBEGs that are open possibilities for [booming voice]EPIC[/booming voice] PCs to go kill on their lunch breaks with their +42hackmaster swords of kewlness. I find it silly to some extent to view them in the same light as Joe Osyluth, as I find that it deminishes their mystique, the mystique of the planes in general, and dumbs them down from forces of evil that predate many gods into just targets sitting around for level 20 PCs to kill and loot.

 

[Crothian]

All I know is that if someone asks if you are a god, you say yes.

 

[Pants]

It's because people get hung up on semantics and quibbling little issues and would rather argue that something that can be easily changed is stupid, rather than have fun and just change it.

 

[Hjorimir]

All I know is that if someone asks if you are a god, you say yes.

Beat me to the punch!

 

[alsih2o]

I think the seperation between gods and men in a D+D universe is just for titles. When anyone with good stats and decent luck can become so immensely powerful the lines become blurred.

Ascending to godhood seems like such a formalization that there must be yet another higher power. (Epic Epic Handbook anyone?)

As soon as people start flinging fireballs and throwing wishes around it is all formality.

 

[DragonLancer]

Personally I don't see non-gods granting divine spells or having clerics. Demons and Devil's tend to teach Sorcerer levels, which I think is more fitting for a dark cult. They have warlocks and witches not clerics.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't know. I think in terms of influence on the mortal words, Asmodeus and Set are fairly far apart. Gods tend to concentrate on gaining worshippers and expanding their influence. Devils tend to concentrate on increasing their own power and amassing armies to fight Demons or Celestials. They're more... immediate enemies, I suppose, in a way driven by more "mortal" desires. Gods are enigmatic and unreachable, whereas Demogorgon is more of a really powerful adversary that can't be taken on directly. Psychologically its quite different, for me at least, though in game terms, unless you are epic there isn't really a difference.

It is also easier to move through Bel's territory than Pluto's Realm. I play Planescape so that comes out occassionally. Moving through the Realm of a Power is a bit more difficult than tresspassing on a Demon Prince's land. They know what's going on everywhere, whereas a non-power on that level has to concentrate to know things happening, and minor things (to them at least) will generally go unnoticed. That's a power difference that's easily discernable at even low or mid levels of play.

Also, many times powerful Demons/Devils are underlings to someone. Levistus was banished to the Ices of Stygia; Baalzebul was forced into a horrible shape; both of these done by Asmodeus. Indeed they often plot against each other, war on each other, and ally with each other against common enemies much more than most gods do, although there are pantheons that have such drama (Greek for one). But, you generally wouldn't be too surprised to hear that Orcus is dead (again ), whereas hearing that Odin is dead would be a bit more of a shocker.

So they're kind of like the ultimate BBEG in D&D and less like gods.

 

[Sejs]

Gods are beholden to their followers and requirements of worship

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't particularly care for that avenue of approach. The idea that a god has to be dependant on their worshipers in order to basically keep being a god just seems sort of backwards to me. It takes the power in the relationship and puts it in the hands of the mortal adherants, whether they know it or not. A god needs worshipers for power, okay, but what about when things were first getting started and there were no worshipers, or noone had heard of said god? It just sits wrong with me.