Post/Author/DateTime	Post
johnkretzer 10-14-07, 06:10 PM	This complaint as always confuse me because I have never had this thought. To me the differences between most gods are as plain as day. So I am going to start this thread so people can post gods they feel are the same in which I and others if they feel so inclined to can point out how we see them as different.
Another Gnome 10-14-07, 06:52 PM	I'd say it's not so much that there's overlap, but that some gods are simply too obscure to really justify their status, and the pantheon as a whole is kinda clunky. I mean, I don't have a problem with the character of deities like, say, the Red Knight; boring as she may seem, she nonetheless adds flavor and all, but her job sounds more like an excuse to make her separate from Tempus, than something so inspiring that you'd really expect it to have noticeable worship.
Fabius Maximus 10-14-07, 07:58 PM	The number of deities is something of a blunder. Some of them are just one aspect of one thing. There is no reason for all of them to exist. Then there are those whose domain overlaps are very narrow, while other aspects are left aside. A few are just completely redundant, because the base of their existence is just too small to justify them. A few examples: We have a lot of nature gods which mostly cater to woodlands and their inhabitants. Why do we need Silvanus, Mielikki, Gwaeron, Lurue, and Shiallia? Is Silvanus too busy to manage the whole thing alone? Even Eldath belongs in this group, because she's the guardian of groves. And where are the deities that care about deserts? Plains? Mountains? Three war deities in the Faerunian Pantheon. Why? A goddess of freaking nobility? Who needs her, really? She's the proverbial white elephant. The number of her followers is too low to justify her status. Three goddesses of "sensual pleasures". One of the above overlaps with the four gods for bards. (Six, if you count in Deneir and Lathander) The fracturing of the gods of hate and destruction makes not much sense, either. Then we have the Morndinsamman with three war dieties and two who are some kind of caring, motherly figures. Another Gnome is right, I think. Many gods have no justification for their status as deities. Even Shaundakul, my favourite, would make more sense as a demi-divine (not demigod) servant for Selūne, watching over travellers for her.
johnkretzer 10-14-07, 10:46 PM	Another Gnome is right, I think. Many gods have no justification for their status as deities. Even Shaundakul, my favourite, would make more sense as a demi-divine (not demigod) servant for Selūne, watching over travellers for her. What is the thresh hold you would think who should be divine or not? Personaly I think there is room for all of them. Also alot of the deities you mentioned are regional. To me that makes sense. Also it seems that you support that notion there should be one god for each aspect...so I guess you guys aren't happy with them killing the one god of magic and not actualy replacing her with one god. I respect your opinions but disagree with them, what you guys call a overabundence I would call depth.
Rauric 10-15-07, 06:48 AM	I think the 4E sourcebook will just give us the names of the Greater Powers. Then maybe it will mention their underlings somewhere later in the writeup. Perhaps this all is being done to resemble other settings. When I talk to people around the store most people say the say things about the Realms (even though they play in it) "Too many uber-NPCs, too many redundant gods". I have only met one guy who is upset with the god slaying thing, he could care less about the uber-NPCs leaving.
Another Gnome 10-15-07, 09:13 AM	What is the thresh hold you would think who should be divine or not? Personaly I think there is room for all of them. Also alot of the deities you mentioned are regional. To me that makes sense. Also it seems that you support that notion there should be one god for each aspect...so I guess you guys aren't happy with them killing the one god of magic and not actualy replacing her with one god. I respect your opinions but disagree with them, what you guys call a overabundence I would call depth. I do think there's room for variety, but for too many gods the reason for their existence feels backwards: a deity shows up, is given a niche portfolio, and bang, there's a follower base for it. Mind you, I was one of the apparently few people who actually liked having stats for gods that told precisely what a given deity can and can't do, so it's not that I think godhood should be a level of power undreamed of by mortals... but for a number of the more obscure gods the only thing that really separates them from any other high-level NPC is that they have a divine status. They just sit there, not really doing anything except giving clerics a wider selection of domain combinations. (As for Mystra's death, I don't recall seeing an explicit statement that there will be no god of magic at all in the 4E Realms.)
Fabius Maximus 10-15-07, 10:34 AM	What is the thresh hold you would think who should be divine or not? Personaly I think there is room for all of them.Maybe, but not as gods, rather as divine servants like the ones in The Book of Exalted Deeds. Also alot of the deities you mentioned are regional. To me that makes sense. Well, they could be aspects of one deity. Also it seems that you support that notion there should be one god for each aspect...so I guess you guys aren't happy with them killing the one god of magic and not actualy replacing her with one god. There could be one to take over for Mystra. I respect your opinions but disagree with them, what you guys call a overabundence I would call depth. Depth is created through background. Many deities have no real background besides what was written in the game accessories. They weren't used in novels, had no priests in regional books, and such. They just were there.
johnkretzer 10-15-07, 03:52 PM	Depth is created through background. Many deities have no real background besides what was written in the game accessories. They weren't used in novels, had no priests in regional books, and such. They just were there. Actualy that is why I think I liked them so much is that I was free to add my depth to them...(though if you looked the accessories alot of them had more depth then any in a novel had) The 2nd edition panthoen books though added lots of depth to them...as did the Faiths and Pantheon. I can understand a desire to have it all handed to you...though I liked the Realms because you could make it your own. That there was still room for your creativity. Shrug but I guess you guys will get you way and if I convert have alot of work ahead of me. Though, not sayinging you guys did this, I never understood how removing things make a setting more appealing to more people when people can just ignore what they don't like. It is alot harder to add things that you want.
Fabius Maximus 10-15-07, 05:30 PM	I don't think there is much creativity there. The gods are pre-cut into handy parts. You just take the one that suits you most. You got it pretty much handed to you as is. You just have to make the backstory up to fit it and then nothing. I'd like to have few religions/gods with an outlook a bit more... wide (?), where I can try and fit the personal ethos of my followers into the dogma, with all the little quirks and edges. In the Realms, a priest would pretty much get the boot from his god, not only from his church, for deviating from the dogma a bit. It comes down to that you're actually punished for roleplaying your character.
Dark Wizard 10-15-07, 05:59 PM	You see them that harsh, eh? What sort of flexibility are you looking for in their dogma?
johnkretzer 10-16-07, 12:48 AM	I don't think there is much creativity there. The gods are pre-cut into handy parts. You just take the one that suits you most. You got it pretty much handed to you as is. You just have to make the backstory up to fit it and then nothing. I'd like to have few religions/gods with an outlook a bit more... wide (?), where I can try and fit the personal ethos of my followers into the dogma, with all the little quirks and edges. In the Realms, a priest would pretty much get the boot from his god, not only from his church, for deviating from the dogma a bit. It comes down to that you're actually punished for roleplaying your character. Um I didn't take the dogma as strict intpertations. Also I did always find alot of room in their dogma.
Stigger 10-16-07, 07:47 AM	I, for one am completely against getting rid of deities... if anything, I'd add even more of them, which obviously isn't going to happen in 4e, but at home it certainly does. As to the differentiations of the 'minor' gods, I see those differences as actually quite important. Nuanced perhaps, but showing a societal evolution in many respects. Take the war portfolio, Garagos representing the old, outmoded berserker model of warfare, with Tempus representing the contemporary mode of individual skill and valor aspect of warfare, and Red Knight representing the tactical Art of War aspect that will be the future. Sure, Garagos could be trimmed, but with all the barbarian tribes out there, I think he still has a place in the world for the near future. Eventually he'll fade away as the world gets more civilized, sure, but for now I think he still has a small place. Same thing will eventually happen to Tempus as well I would think. War and warfare evolve afterall, so why shouldn't its deities? Or the Sensual Pleasures deities perhaps. Sune representing Love, Beauty, and Passion... seems broad, and it is, but Lliira has little to do with any of it. She's all about freedom, liberty, happiness, and freedom. Patron deity of idealized democracy really. Then we have Sharess, who represents the more physical aspects that Sune doesn't, the darker, but not corrupted aspects of sensuality and sexuality... something Sune doesn't necessarily represent. Think of them as Sune representing the emotional, Lliira representing the philosophical, and Sharess representing the physical and it becomes much more logical a seperation, at least to me it does. Why do we need multiple deities to represent that though? Technically, we don't really, but I for one don't much care for overarching deities who are all-encompassing, and much prefer the more specialized format, since it seems that while it doesn't necessarily generate as much power, it does allow for much more individual attention to be paid, rather than the almost necessary distance the more all-encompassing deities would likely adopt. Though to be honest, Torm does strike me as an odd one I can't quite make sense of, since his portfolio doesn't really strike me as really all that goodly, since it represents things to me that are neutral at best, considering the evil that can be done in their names. Which was pointed out by the whole Tenwealth bit in Tantras I thought... I wouldn't feel all that bad about seeing him go, or at least being changed rather radically to more properly reflect whatever it is he's supposed to be. Afterthought: I never interpreted the dogma as at all strict myself. Most of it is left pretty ambiguous, and presumably each faith would have its philosophical texts and scriptures, so how can you interpret the dogma 'strictly' when we know so little of it would be my question. Reading the text to me, particularly in 2e, seemed to indicate a great deal of flexibility in the interpreting the dogma, though that could get you in trouble in certain faiths. Dunno, just seems that for a polytheistic society to function in a religious sense, then flexibility and tolerance of other would have to be the norm for society to not be in constant states of religious warfare... which seem pretty rare in the Realms to me.
Alediran 10-16-07, 11:29 AM	@Fabius: Not even the gods themselves are THAT strict with the dogma, otherwise we would never had the "Heretic of the Faith" feat. You should stop thinking that, just because the gods exist, and can influence the mortal world, they are doing that all the time. Evil gods (and the lawful more) are more likely to punish their followers for not following their dogma than good/neutral ones, and most PC clerics are followers of good/neutral gods. Can't you think that maybe for some reason your god actually is supporting your exploits (unless they awfully deviate from their dogma) because it furthers his/her influence? Hell, if the gods would be as strict as you think then why the hell we need the "Atonement" Spell? You should go read the part in BoED that speaks about this, and go read the chapters in Order of the Stick that Roy is being checked to see if he can enter the Celestial Realm. This show that gods aren't monolithic blocks of uberpower, but actually are sentient forces.
SgtAnjay 10-16-07, 09:37 PM	A few notes... Many real-world pantheons make the Faerunian look downright and amazingly tiny. Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoist mythology (said to have a named deity for every visible star), Chinese Buddhist mythology (a pantheon so crowded its been described as "the Rush-hour of the Gods"), and so forth. Of course, those examples are eastern, so perhaps its not surprising such pantheons dont seem neccesarily come to mind for your typical westerner. Of course, the Roman pantheon, among others, was comparable in size to the Faerunian, and it was worshipped by an institution (the Roman Empire) that helped define what western civilization is. Moreover, it had definitive tiers of power, much like D&D does. Some gods rose or fell within those tiers. So my question to the comment of there being too many gods.....too many gods for what? What about your D&D games makes a less-realistic itty bitty pantheon preferrable, exactly? And what about your D&D game is important enough to force the lore to change for everyone, and those who like the current pantheon to have to grin and bear a reduction in something they like?
Fingoldfin 10-19-07, 01:06 AM	I think the 4E sourcebook will just give us the names of the Greater Powers. Then maybe it will mention their underlings somewhere later in the writeup. Perhaps this all is being done to resemble other settings. When I talk to people around the store most people say the say things about the Realms (even though they play in it) "Too many uber-NPCs, too many redundant gods". I have only met one guy who is upset with the god slaying thing, he could care less about the uber-NPCs leaving. I wouldn't care either except for one thing. In my games I try to stay away from all the greater gods, because they could pop up in a novel at any time. Any story lines I put together are built around lesser or demi-gods. Those are the gods most likely to get the ax in 4e. Patron deities of my PCs: Shaundakul, Savras, Velsharoon, Hanali Celanil, and Labelas Enoreth.(not all in one campaign) I don't think any of them will be around in 4e, and I didn't include NPC gods that I often use.
Rauric 10-19-07, 01:33 AM	I wouldn't care either except for one thing. In my games I try to stay away from all the greater gods, because they could pop up in a novel at any time. Any story lines I put together are built around lesser or demi-gods. Those are the gods most likely to get the ax in 4e. Patron deities of my PCs: Shaundakul, Savras, Velsharoon, Hanali Celanil, and Labelas Enoreth.(not all in one campaign) I don't think any of them will be around in 4e, and I didn't include NPC gods that I often use. Shaundakul is worshipped by an air genasi in my game. He will still be in 4E even though he may not be officially. SEE WHAT I DID THERE REALM PURISTS? Yeah, it really is that easy.;)
johnkretzer 10-19-07, 02:21 AM	Shaundakul is worshipped by an air genasi in my game. He will still be in 4E even though he may not be officially. SEE WHAT I DID THERE REALM PURISTS? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) Well that is if they have air gensai in 4th edition.... And no we don't know how easy it is to cut things out of 4th and adapt things we like. The indication they have given is that it won't be easy.
Stigger 10-19-07, 06:35 AM	Not really encouraged either... quite the opposite it seems given their attitudes about conversion of characters.
Fingoldfin 10-19-07, 02:02 PM	Shaundakul is worshipped by an air genasi in my game. He will still be in 4E even though he may not be officially. SEE WHAT I DID THERE REALM PURISTS? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) I agree with you 100%. I will go a step further. In my game the Triad won't be broken, Mystra and Helm will still be alive, the Spellplague will never happen, and I'm not advancing the time line. Why should I buy 4e Realms when I'm not using any of it? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) :P
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin 10-19-07, 02:38 PM	I agree with you 100%. I will go a step further. In my game the Triad won't be broken, Mystra and Helm will still be alive, the Spellplague will never happen, and I'm not advancing the time line. Why should I buy 4e Realms when I'm not using any of it? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) :P My own reasoning, exactly...
Alediran 10-19-07, 02:49 PM	My own too.
customdrapery 10-19-07, 04:17 PM	me three.
johnkretzer 10-19-07, 04:49 PM	I agree with you 100%. I will go a step further. In my game the Triad won't be broken, Mystra and Helm will still be alive, the Spellplague will never happen, and I'm not advancing the time line. Why should I buy 4e Realms when I'm not using any of it? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) :P I agree too...my only question remains is if I'll be updating to 4th edition or not. And Mr. Baker has not answeared my direct question on the subject. I know I am not updating till atleast the Druid(and other core classes that are no longer core) comes out, so it will take some time already for me to even contemplate updating.
GothicDan 10-20-07, 05:29 PM	Let's remember that in Classical cultures, there were also uncountable House Spirits, such as the Roman Numina, too, who were considered 'divine.' Then there were all of the nypmphs and sylphs, etc., which were also semi-divine to divine. I think the main problem is peoples' perceptions of what is and isn't 'worthy' of divinity, largely influenced from modern monotheistic interpretations. Demigods or Quasi-Gods (DvR 0-5) really are suitable for these minor local deities and hero cults - the word demigod itself has Classical roots, in fact. This is part of the problem with having received too much knowledge about deities' actual stats - it begs the question of more exact nomenclature of divine hierarchies, which the Realms isn't supposed to have.
Spelldancer 10-21-07, 03:57 PM	I don't see why we need just one god of war or other things. Let's look at the Greeks. You had Ares, god of War, and Athena the goddess of War as well. Ares represented the brutal, deadly, bloody side of war. While Athena was more the logical side. Aphrodite was the goddess of all love, but under her there were the Graces and Eros. It's one of the things I have enjoyed about the FR game. That there is such a variety in what you can play. Now, I am trying to keep an open mind. Though I am weary with all this stuff I am reading. I like that gods don't fit in perfect groups. Lliira for one is a bardic god (as goddess of dance, and Milil's best friend), but she serves Sune. She doesn't fit easily into one group. I like that, as it keeps the doors open for a variety of what one can play.
Dark Wizard 10-21-07, 05:29 PM	Shaundakul is worshipped by an air genasi in my game. He will still be in 4E even though he may not be officially. SEE WHAT I DID THERE REALM PURISTS? Yeah, it really is that easy.;) I really don't think anyone has said they couldn't do something like that or that it was impossible. The point is that more people have to do that at all, in some instances for several gods, characters, locales is really pushing more gamers further from the 4E Realms that is necessary. That major issues were dealt with before yet many gamers still don't seem to get it (like the problem with a NG Mystra) seems to indicate that the difference between people running more 3e style Realms games and the new 4E players will have even more things to disagree on. Which seems to be the opposite of what WotC wants.