D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you are going to use your own non-standard definitions you can define away any term you wish and mean anything you want by it. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion with people who invent their own private definitions.

Gods, by every commonly used definition I can find, don't need to be omnipotent, omniscient, or infallible (though they often are in Earth monotheistic religions).

I'm using the definition from Lectures on Faith (specifically #4, The Attributes of God). It's not something I just made up--that's how God is characterized where I come from. There isn't generally-recognized definition for the word "god" though. E.g. Greek gods are immortal but Norse gods are not. (One of the reason I, as a child, always thought Norse myths were lame compared to Greek myths.) Christians don't even agree on what "gods" are--half the time the word translated as "god" in the KJV is just "elohim," which I'm told simply means "master of forces" or "powerful being" in Hebrew. Ancient Egyptians sometimes considered Pharaoh a god even though he in actuality had none of the attributes of a mythic Greek god or Norse god. Etc.

This definition, which fits my understanding of word, is typical: a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being

Another: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

And a third: one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

One includes worship
Two include control with the third being preside instead.
All include rulership/control/presiding over some aspect of reality/the world/the universe.

And by at least one of those definitions (#3, arguably #1 as well, although that gets you into circular definitions about what "worship" means), the President of the United States is a god.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly don't know what your comment means. I was just following on from the poster before me to say how I define gods in D&D by looking at Earth's many myths and legends.

Well, I was following on from your post to try to convey some ideas about what makes a powerful supernatural being a god.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, infallability, aren't (perhaps) necessary - but something about the value or significance of the supernatural being's acts and capabilities is necessary.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, I was following on from your post to try to convey some ideas about what makes a powerful supernatural being a god.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, infallability, aren't (perhaps) necessary - but something about the value or significance of the supernatural being's acts and capabilities is necessary.

Do y'all realize we could all be having this exact same discussion completely in character in a D&D game? Even in Yaarel's preferred game setting.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm using the definition from Lectures on Faith (specifically #4, The Attributes of God). It's not something I just made up--that's how God is characterized where I come from.

And that's why your monotheistic real world definition doesn't match mythical pantheon definitions in a fantasy game of other posters.

Tony Stark isn't a god, but Zeus is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And that's why your monotheistic real world definition doesn't match mythical pantheon definitions in a fantasy game of other posters.

Tony Stark isn't a god, but Zeus is.

Tony Stark begs to disagree.

 

[KarinsDad]

Tony Stark begs to disagree.

No doubt.

 

[pemerton]

Tony Stark isn't a god, but Zeus is.

But - in GH, say - what makes Wee Jas or Tritherion or St Cuthbert a god, but Mordenkainen or Vecna (as presented in the original DMG) or Demogorgon (as presented in the original MM) or Lolth (as presented in D3 and Q1) not one?

They all wield supernatural power. Vecna has cultists and devotees, just like Wee Jas. Lolth not only has cultists, but clerics (eg among the drow; Lareth the Beautiful in T1).

At least in some versions of D&D, being a god means more than just being a powerful supernatural being who is worshipped and can bestow clerical spells.

 

[Sadras]

In the common sense of the word clerics and wizards are supernatural, and hence - if worshipped - would be gods!

Clerics and wizards manipulate supernatural energies, but they themselves are not supernatural.

Sauron and Morgoth are clearly supernatural beings, and can empower their followers (at least, that seems to be implied) but they are not gods.

Also just to mention again, I did say being supernatural is but one of the primary criteria for a deity.

Well, I don't think I'm adopting a different view. At least, not different from anything ever found in D&D. Nor do I think I'm trading in "technicalities".

Classic D&D includes supernatural beings who are (i) worshipped, and (ii) can confer supernatural powers upon their cultists, but who (iii) are not gods: the demon lords/princes and arch-devils.

4e contains beings that also satisfy (i) to (iii): demon lords/princes and primordials. (Another way in which 4e harks back to the classic game.)

The theology of classic D&D is rather implicit, but in 4e it's spelled out, and the reason that primordials are not gods is explained: gods created mortals, and fixed the world as a place fit for mortals to inhabit. Primordials supplied the matter, but gods the form - in that sense it's a rather Platonistic cosmology. A recurring theme in HPL - intellectually driven at least in part by his understanding of relativity, but presumably driven by emotional concerns also - is that form is, in fact, an illusion - hence the obsession with chaos, with "unnatural" and "hyberbolic" angles that defy conception and description, etc.

There is a tendency in D&D post-DDG, only strengthening, I would say, in the 2nd ed and Planesape era, and continuing in 3E and 5e (with 4e an interruption in the tradition), to downplay these cosmological/theological aspects of godhood (and its potential contrast with other modes of supernatural power) and to focus on questions of cataloguing (see eg the original DDGs demi-, lesser and greater gods, with attendant special abilities; 2nd ed's introduction of "intermediate" gods; and 3E DDG's use of divine ranks to systematise the special abiliites).

Given that we are in a 5e thread and Yaarel was specifically commenting on polytheism within 5e D&D books, I feel it is safe to say we are not discussing the definition of deities within 4e where as you have illustrated would have had to create mortals. Gilean of DL did not create mortals, yet he is considered a deity. Dionysus did not create mortals, yet he is a deity. Thor did not create mortals, yet he is a deity.

I think the classic/4e tradition is inherently more interesting, truer to the (diverse) literary roots of the fantasy genre, and also is more fruitful

Whether you find 4e tradition/definition of deities more interesting/fruitful is not the topic since you seem to be disregarding 5e D&D setting material and RW mythology on what god status includes.
You cannot exclude the definitions of who/what deities are because you do not find them interesting.

He's a god of wine, intoxication, fertility, passion. He establishes an understanding and orientation towards wine's capacity to intoxicate, the relationship between intoxication and the shedding of inhibition, the resultant lucidity of the drunk, etc.

That is the definition of his portfolio but it does not match up with your requirements for deities to create mortals, or anchoring and integrating the greater cosmos (whatever that means) into the lives and purposes of mortals.

Classic D&D includes supernatural beings who are (i) worshipped, and (ii) can confer supernatural powers upon their cultists, but who (iii) are not gods: the demon lords/princes and arch-devils.

4e contains beings that also satisfy (i) to (iii): demon lords/princes and primordials. (Another way in which 4e harks back to the classic game.)

Are you stating that in 2e, 3e and 5e, there are no supernatural beings such as demon lords/prince and primordials that are worshipped? Because if they did exist within those editions, then I'm not sure why you felt the need to create the specific link between 4e and D&D classic.

 

[Sadras]

And that's the problem with D&D "gods." They don't have the characteristics of a deity. In fact, they cannot have those characteristics because they exist only as emulations in the mind of a finite, and fallible DM. At best a D&D god can be omnipotent; it cannot be omniscient or infallible, because the DM isn't infallible.

And that is the problem with your's and @pemerton's narrow interpretation of a deity. Of the polytheistic religions of earth that we know how many of those deities are omniscient and/or infallible? The Greek, Norse and Egyptain religions all have human human characterisitics ascribed to them. Hell, even some of the gods of the monotheistic religions of earth may be argued to have human characteristics.

 

[pemerton]

Given that we are in a 5e thread and Yaarel was specifically commenting on polytheism within 5e D&D books, I feel it is safe to say we are not discussing the definition of deities within 4e

The question was asked (eg by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) why [MENTION=58172]Yaarel[/MENTION] focuses on 5e rather than other editions as particularly committed to polytheism. I've tried to address that question, by pointing to differences in the ways that different versions of the game approach the cleric class, the nature of gods, etc.

Are you stating that in 2e, 3e and 5e, there are no supernatural beings such as demon lords/prince and primordials that are worshipped?

No. I'm saying that in those editions they are treated as gods. Unlike in 4e and in (early) AD&D.

That is the definition of his portfolio but it does not match up with your requirements for deities to create mortals, or anchoring and integrating the greater cosmos (whatever that means) into the lives and purposes of mortals.

I never said that a deity must create mortals. I said that, in 4e, the gods created mortals and imposed form - which is what contrasts them with the primordials. (Also, to say that the gods created mortals is not to imply that each individual god created one or more mortals: I'm intending a collective, not a distributed reading).

Dionysus does anchor and integrate the greater cosmos into the lives and purposes of mortals: he establishes a context and a logic for cultivation in general, and the cultivation of wine in particular, and also for drinking wine, getting drunk etc. He makes intoxication something of significance rather than just an arbitrary process of biochemistry.