Primordials are very powerful elemental creatures, like fire, earth, air, and water. Since they want to destroy and rebuild the world, and fought the gods over that, they're evil.
Demons are elemental evil creatures with a home in the elemental chaos (the Abyss). A lot of the same words are used to describe each.
Where did demons come from?
Everything in the timeline is supposedly preserved up to the time of the Spellplague. The changes to the cosmos are solely as a result of Dweomerheart exploding and stirring up the planes, along with the resultant dissolution of the Weave, the Spellplague, and the machinations of the gods in the aftermath.
Demons are therefore what they always were in FR, just having been evicted from the Astral and relocated to the Elemental Chaos.
Alternatively you could imagine a parallel evolution that caused separate Orci, Demogorgons, and Asmodei to evolve in the FR cosmos similar to the ones that evolved in Greyhawk's Great Wheel, but, unless some greater force was guiding that parallel evolution (such as Tharizdun, or a sentience within the River of Blood/Styx, or some kind of meta-evil overgod) I find that a little too improbable to fathom, and prefer the idea that they interloped.
Note that Ed Greenwood has stated explicitly that the Slaadi of the FR cosmology had their origin over in the Limbo of Greyhawk's Great Wheel cosmos and colonized the FR cosmology through planar rifts or gates that leaked from Greyhawk's Limbo into the FR cosmology. I don't recall him ever saying anything about the origins of Demons or Devils, but if the Slaadi are immigrant interlopers from the Great Wheel, then I think it highly probable that the Demons and Devils are too. And the War of Light and Darkness is a very good explanation for how they came over in the first place: they were brought in as mercenaries by Shar to help fight her sister in a conflagration ignited (so to speak) by Selûne unilaterally creating the Sun to banish the cold and darkness, much to the detriment of Shar.
The 4E FR Campaign Guide doesn't seem to answer where demons came from, what their relationship with primordials is, which came first, etc. Anybody else?
You're right, it doesn't. Although I do like the core 4E explanation personally: that in the beginning, there were primordials and gods. One Nameless God, who along with other deities had found the Living Gate to the Far Realm, eventually came back and stole a shard of corrupt energies from beyond the gate. He then corrupted a portion of the Elemental Chaos (and presumably the primordials who lived there) with that crystal. That portion of the Elemental Chaos "broke off" and warped into what eventually mortals and gods would know as the Abyss.
It's core 4E, but it's interesting and I liked it as an explanation.
Gods are creatures that are composed of this energy; they manipulate it, feed on it, and it in turn makes them malleable to the mass perceptions and psyches of their worshipers. Gods are creatures of the Astral Sea, as it appears to be a medium either made up of, or at least containing and propagating the collective psyche of all living beings.
Primordials get their power from the Elemental Chaos, as incarnations of physical forces and matter.
However, just as mortal beings can ascend to divinity, so too can Primordials, fiends, and celestials also become divine. Some Primordials come to be worshiped as gods, and so they acquire the ability to grant spells and manipulate divine energy. This power is invested them by their worshipers. It is not essential to who they are. Think of it as multi-classing; Primordials can pick up "god levels".
If a Primordial loses worshipers, it's no skin off his back. He might lose access to certain divine abilities, but then Primordials don't usually care about that anyway. Primordials exist independently of any worship. Acquiring worshipers is just a side effect of their awesomeness, one that they may even find distracting or annoying. Examples of Primordials with god levels: Istishia, Kossuth, Ubtao, etc.
However, If a god loses worshipers, the god will diminish, up to the point of death if people forget about him completely. Examples of gods dying (or nearly dying) from being forgotten: Amaunator, Gorellik, and Aupenser.
Some demon lords and arch-devils also seek to be worshiped by mortals so as to obtain god levels (aka divine ranks), and many have succeeded. Archfiends have some sort of symbiotic relationship with their plane. When a demon takes over a layer (or part of a layer) in the Abyss, he becomes bound to it in some fashion that invests him with a divine rank. He is equivalent to a rank 1 demigod at that point. Same with the Nine Hells and Achdevils.
The Abyss and the Nine Hells, on some level, would appear to be almost sentient, or at least "alive" in a way that allows these planes to live in symbiosis with their fiends. I see the Abyss and the Nine Hells as more than simply terrain; they are semi-sentient biospheres akin to a single organism, über-evil versions of the Gaia hypothesis.
Perhaps all outer planes (or Astral dominions) can be thought of in this way. It is said that most petitioners (dead souls) that live in a plane for a time, eventually get absorbed into the plane or into their god. This absorption can be portrayed as peaceful or violent. Some gods actually eat their petitioners. But for others it is some sort of mystical joining. Or the being just fades away and his energy is absorbed into the god or into the plane. The souler energy sustains the plane and probably you could imagine there is some sort of mechanic that defines how much incarnum a plane needs to absorb in order to sustain itself. Gods are engines that fuel this process. It's almost a chicken or an egg question: does the plane exist to sustain the god, or the god exist to sustain the plane? A little of both as far as I can tell.
No, they don't, unless that's something specific to FR's primordials. They have uses for worshippers - minions, servants, lackeys, and errand runners, basically - but they're not, as far as I know, dependent on worship. Of course, they're also mostly enjoying various stays in the Divine House of Bondage courtesy of the victors of the Dawn War, but then you've got Imix, who's unbound but seems to see his cult in the terms I described. The Elemental Lords of the Realms don't really seem too attached to their cults, either.
EDIT: Beaten out doing research. Oh well.
Gods were always dependent on followers, to some degree. Ao did make a declaration after the end of the Time of Troubles that gods would be more beholden to their worshipers, but this appears to be a fine tuning of the old mechanic rather than a new rule. There are documented cases of gods gaining and decreasing in power in proportion to their worshiper base, even dying from lack of worship long before the Time of Troubles.
What I gather is that by the Time of Troubles, gods have learned to game the system, storing up artifacts, fostering a certain amount of shrines, and banking the incarnum of their petitioners in their divine realms to an extent that they had become somewhat less dependent on the active faith of living worshipers. Ao's pronouncement probably had more to do with a restructuring of the divine accounting rules, eliminating the cheats, requiring the gods to be more customer service oriented, rather than a wholesale creation of a new mechanic.
You are misremembering.
You are intentionally misinterpreting me.
In 1E there was none of that crap. The gods were actual gods, not cartoonish caricatures.
There are documented cases of gods gaining and decreasing in power in proportion to their worshiper base, even dying from lack of worship long before the Time of Troubles.
Name the 1E source for this (no cheating... the "lead in" articles for 2E don't count).
The changes to deities throughout 2E significantly damaged them as actual deities. Nothing you've said above (except for your misinterpretation of my statement) challenges anything I have said. Gods were weakened on multiple levels, and IMO it damaged them for use in the game.
In D&D the gods were never gods to me. I don't think Thor should have a stats block. It doesn't seem immortal to me.
I agree completely, deities should never have been given stat blocks. It only encouraged munchkinism and power bloat of PCs, not to mention diminishing the gods into mere caricatures. Once they were given stat blocks, they were just another higher level monster for PCs to overcome, and that's just completely ridiculous.
In D&D the gods were never gods to me. I don't think Thor should have a stats block. It doesn't seem immortal to me.
I personally agree, but D&D draws a lot of stuff from mythology and gods dying isn't unheard of in mythology. It's an easy houserule, of course.
In D&D the gods were never gods to me. I don't think Thor should have a stats block. It doesn't seem immortal to me.
Funny you should use that example, because norse mythology actually addresses the death of Thor, along with Wodin, Heimdall, Freyr, and Loki. Granted, that's predicted in the Ragnarok event, but in D&D, epic PCs are dealing with events and personalities on that same scale.
Ao's pronouncement probably had more to do with a restructuring of the divine accounting rules, eliminating the cheats, requiring the gods to be more customer service oriented, rather than a wholesale creation of a new mechanic.
So in otherwords, they got errata to tone down the deity powergaming. ;)
In D&D the gods were never gods to me. I don't think Thor should have a stats block. It doesn't seem immortal to me.
Funny you should use that example, because norse mythology actually addresses the death of Thor, along with Wodin, Heimdall, Freyr, and Loki. Granted, that's predicted in the Ragnarok event, but in D&D, epic PCs are dealing with events and personalities on that same scale.
In the Ragnarok, the Norse Gods were fighting against the Jotnar, as powerful as themselves (in some cases, more powerful). Epic PCs are still mortals, not godlike. IMO PCs should never be put on the same scale as gods, otherwise they were never gods to begin with but just another monster.
Epic PCs are still mortals, not godlike. IMO PCs should never be put on the same scale as gods, otherwise they were never gods to begin with but just another monster.
Like all discussions on this topic, it really comes down to how the setting defines "god". Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and most other generic D&D settings clearly have killable gods. I'm not familiar with Eberron's take on gods. Athas' gods are "What gods?"
The gods in my setting are literally incapable of death; they invented death as a concept when they were creating the mortals.
Your setting may vary.
Epic PCs are still mortals, not godlike. IMO PCs should never be put on the same scale as gods, otherwise they were never gods to begin with but just another monster.
Like all discussions on this topic, it really comes down to how the setting defines "god". Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and most other generic D&D settings clearly have killable gods. I'm not familiar with Eberron's take on gods. Athas' gods are "What gods?"
Settings change with editions and designers' interests, though, and with the Realms this wasn't always the case. Heck, with D&D this wasn't always the case. And that's part of what we're talking about.
I'm not familiar with Eberron's take on gods.
Eberron's take on gods is 'there may be gods, there may not be gods. There's no hard evidence that there are gods, but that doesn't mean there aren't gods. It depends on faith'. Like, y'know, the real world.
There is one confirmed source of divine power (the Silver Flame), but it's not really a god so much as an energy conduit.You are intentionally misinterpreting me.
In 1E there was none of that crap. The gods were actual gods, not cartoonish caricatures.
I wasn't trying to misinterpret you. You said 2e and that's what I thought you meant. You referred to a post 2e change, and I was pointing out that gods were always like that in 2e. Forgotten Realms treatment of gods has been rather consistent from 2E onwards, and there was precious little 1e Realms stuff published. As this is a Realms forum I assumed we were talking about the rules that apply to the Realms and not the pre-Realms 1e rules.
As for the "cartoonish caricatures" of gods, my own impression is that gods have been treated more complexly and richly in later Realms sourcebooks and novels than in the earlier sources. From Faiths & Pantheons onward, the gods have been written with more depth than say in something like Tales from the Outer Planes which I personally find pretty cartoony. But that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
As for stat blocks, gods always had stat blocks. Not only did gods have stats in the 1e Deities & Demigods sourcebook, but they even had stats in the very first gods sourcebook, the Gods, Demigods & Heroes pamphlet from way back in the Original D&D days.
If you don't like gods having stat blocks, then you are totally playing the wrong game, as gods were always, from the beginning, seen in D&D as something for the characters to potentially fight or to aspire to become.
That said, nothing precludes you from running your games without god stats. You don't have to put your players up against gods, you can play the gods how you want. If you don't like "munchkins" then just don't play with them! Choose to play with people who prefer your particular style of gaming. Why should anyone care how other people choose to play their games?
...As for stat blocks, gods always had stat blocks. Not only did gods have stats in the 1e Deities & Demigods sourcebook, but they even had stats in the very first gods sourcebook, the Gods, Demigods & Heroes pamphlet from way back in the Original D&D days.
If you don't like gods having stat blocks, then you are totally playing the wrong game, as gods were always, from the beginning, seen in D&D as something for the characters to potentially fight or to aspire to become.
No, they were not. And I'm playing the right game, tyvm... just not with the ridiculous post-2E junky interpretations that others might play.
The fact is, those early stat blocks for gods... they were Monty Haul jokes and the designers clearly noted them as such. They were never intended to be used with the actual game that people played from day to day. They were never intended to be fought by honest players in a regular game. They were an illustration of how ridiculous some games could become if people "broke" the game with Monty Haul attitudes. Those stat blocks were meant to show DMs and players what not to do, and not really even "insider" jokes.
Quoting from Gods, Demigods & Heroes, "This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?"
Consider also the opening words of Deities & Demigods, "DDG (for short) may resemble MONSTER MANUAL, and in fact does include some monsters. However, the purpose of this book is not to provide adversaries for players' characters."
Only in 2E and after do the designers make the radical switch of suggesting that gods really could be fightable in "epic" campaigns as a genuine option. It was a radical change in the philosophical approach to the game, and it was perhaps one of the most damaging things that designers ever did in D&D. And the Monty Haul DMs and players ate it up, to the chagrin of regular players everywhere.
In any case, getting back to the original Forgotten Realms' approach to the gods, it's hardly the case that there was "precious little" published on them during the 1E period. "Down to Earth Divinity" in Dragon not only listed the gods in FR and their portfolios, but explicitly showed how to use gods appropriately and without avenues for players to travel down a power-bloat path toward Monty Haul gaming. Greenwood wrote, "gods possess power relative to the worship they receive, but I have deliberately left this idea vague and undeveloped, for players would love to learn such mechanisms in order to influence the relative power of gods for their own ends, and that type of manipulation upsets the balance of a campaign very quickly."
Also, and I think notable for this discussion, the 1E Realms "gray box" set listed the deities of the Realms in quite a bit of detail. And there aren't any stat blocks. Why? If you are correct in your assertion that "gods were always, from the beginning, seen in D&D as something for the characters to potentially fight or to aspire to become," you'd think they would have put in stat blocks. But they're conspicuously absent, do not show up in subsequent issues of 1E Dragon magazine, precisely because the philosophy on gods was different in 1E and they didn't want to immediately poison their new flagship setting with Monty Haul ideas. You don't see stat blocks for FR deities until 2E.
That said, nothing precludes you from running your games without god stats. You don't have to put your players up against gods, you can play the gods how you want. If you don't like "munchkins" then just don't play with them! Choose to play with people who prefer your particular style of gaming. Why should anyone care how other people choose to play their games?
Yes, yes... everyone can houserule and yadda yadda... this is an old, tired argument that holds little water with me anymore. Of course you can, but the game now has certain expectations and beliefs built into the system and supported (now) by decades of rules and game play. This isn't a discussion about what people can do individually to "patch" things they don't personally like, but rather an attempt to point out how things are broken in the game, how they've been broken for a long time, and why it's bad to keep those things as semi-sacred cows now when they were not part of the original design philosophy.
But any way on the subject of god stats, I agree the gods should be far beyond mortal understanding, and not have stats. But wether it was a joke or not, if the designers give the gods stats, then somebodys gonna want to fight them.
This isn't a discussion about what people can do individually to "patch" things they don't personally like, but rather an attempt to point out how things are broken in the game, how they've been broken for a long time, and why it's bad to keep those things as semi-sacred cows now when they were not part of the original design philosophy.
I respectfully disagree. This is not a thread about your personal feelings for how the game has developed. This was a thread about primordials and demons (and tangentially about gods). Perhaps you could start your own thread to discuss your views on the matter. Personally, I think you are entirely too obsessed with how other people play their games. You should play the game in the manner that is most fun for you and leave others to have their fun in the way they best see fit.
I respectfully disagree. This is not a thread about your personal feelings for how the game has developed. This was a thread about primordials and demons (and tangentially about gods). Perhaps you could start your own thread to discuss your views on the matter. Personally, I think you are entirely too obsessed with how other people play their games. You should play the game in the manner that is most fun for you and leave others to have their fun in the way they best see fit.
I'm sorry you felt the need to turn this into a personal attack. I have strong opinions, as do most people here, but I don't believe I've ever suggested that any of my opinions are the only way to view the game. If anything, by presenting facts as I've done here, my intent was to point out that D&D did not always have the same philosophy about the use of gods that it has had since 2E. I suspect that many people don't challenge your "facts" very often, which is perhaps one reason why this has taken a disappointing turn. In any case, my intent has never been, and will never be, to suggest that my view is the only correct one.
If you can give stats to an archangel, archdevil or archfey (do want these) it is instantly usable in a meaingfull way. Those powerfull creatures need only a small step up to give stats for a godlike being, at least of the power that fearun's cosmology shows.
Story wise I find it hard to believe Fearun has no diety deaths, as its history is littered with such stories. Even castout devils were capable of consuming lesser gods (Gargauth has eaten minor godlings around the Sea of Fallen Stars with a gauntlet) so to me its acceptable that divine energy (a diety) can be created but can end aswell. When that happens it has the power to move planes, a feat thats feasable for some epic arcane casters (Plane Shifter, MotP).
A fiend (both devils and demons) in D&D is inherently a corrupted spirit, something that was molded by the evil influence over its outer form. Elemental traits such as fiery bodies, rocklike carapaces and stormlike special abilities could be inhereted from the base spirit that was corrupted into a demon. In 4e this is the case for elementals that underwent their transformation under influence of the Abyss, initially a shard of the Far Realm. In earlier editions the larvae of chaotic petitioners were transformed into demons.
Devils are corrupted divine beings and servants, who are created when a more innocent or benign spirit undergoes corruption. This could have been mortal souls but can be gods or their direct servants.
Saying gods do not have their place in a DnD product is like saying the Tarasque shouldn't be in them because it is a mythological creature and those shouldn't have stats.I think the only reason people do not like stated gods is because they are called gods. If they were called big powerful monsters people wouldn't say complain.
This is correct, but also at the same time misses the point. In fact, I think everyone has missed the point.
The point is this: The Realms wants to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it wants to make gods seem like what people would generally consider to be gods: extremely powerful beings that are beyond mortal understanding, power, and perception. On the other hand, it wants to humanize gods, and place them within the scope of mortal power to overthrow, destroy, and potentially even transcend or replace. These are two things that do not go together.
You either treat deities like monsters - powerful celestials, demons, or devils - or you treat them as being beyond mortal power. It's an either or proposition. This has resulted in gods becoming murky beings that hover in some sort of weird place - it feels wrong for players to have the ability to overthrow them, and yet mortals clearly possess the ability to do such - as has been proven in canon time and time again.
The inconsistency may result from having multiple designers and authors of the Realms, or it may be something that just developed over time as the setting evolved. I'm rather certain if you asked the question of multiple Realms designers (both past and present) you'll receive different answers to the question.
In the end, the only way to solve the issue is to answer the question definitively: What are the fundamental physics of godhood in the Realms? (This includes responsibilities, connection / relationship with mortals, the scope of a deities power, the limitations of godhood, etc.)
Not sure what inconsistencies you see, but if you have any questions about how gods work I could try to point you to some lore that may answer your questions.
But to the extent that there are any unresolved questions, I don't think the designers need to create any more rules for gods. There are adequate rules already for DMs to use them in play however they see fit. Plus, although WotC initially thought there would be a great demand for god stats, after releasing Deities & Demigods, it turned out that most people were not all that much interested in that kind of game play. So I think WotC has no intention to further develop the rules for gods (at this time anyway.)
The point is this: The Realms wants to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand, it wants to make gods seem like what people would generally consider to be gods: extremely powerful beings that are beyond mortal understanding, power, and perception. On the other hand, it wants to humanize gods, and place them within the scope of mortal power to overthrow, destroy, and potentially even transcend or replace. These are two things that do not go together.
I always felt that the Realms kind of went the way of the Greek gods. Very powerful, but humanized. Nothing about Realmsian deities screams "beyond mortal understanding" to me, especially since they take such a direct hand in things. Most D&D gods (of any setting) haven't been portrayed as omnipotent, all knowing deities.
Also, once PCs get to the higher levels, what they do is hardly mortal in power. It's mythical and legendary. Taking on a god can be a major capstone for a campaign. And just because the players defeat the god doesn't necessarily mean they're dead.
And of course, YMMV.
I hate that whole 'followers shape the gods' crap. It annoys me greatly. Gods acting human/elven/orcish/whatever, great, I was raised on Greek Mythology so it's nothing new. Zeus will **** you, sometimes literally.
But if gods are the embodiment of aspects of a concept, it makes absofrigginlutely no sense to have them be affected by the beliefs of their worshippers in any way except perhaps maybe power level. If everybody in Toril decides tommorow that Shar is suddenly the goddess of fluffy bunnies and loves giving people hugs and making them happy, it isn't going to freaking do anything because she's a friggin' goddess.
This idea that belief can change gods was developed all through the Planescape line. But as pointed out above, as far as the Realms, the idea had its origins in the first Dragon article that Ed Greenwood wrote on the matter of gods.
But not only is this true in Realms lore, you see this effect in Greek and Roman and Norse mythology. At one point Tyr was the head of the Norse pantheon, and he diminished and Odin was elevated to All-Father status. You see Greek gods changing names and conceptions, and rising in status or diminishing, taking on new portfolios, and worshiped in very different conceptions in different regions and time periods of Greece and Rome. The conception of Eros is one that changed a lot. Athena and Apollo and Bacchus also see many changes in their myths and portfolios. Plenty of examples of Greek gods absorbing other gods as well, as their mythologies get conflated over time. For example Athena absorbs Pallas, Hermes absorbs Thoth, etc.
Heck, even the parentage of Greek deities gets changed around a lot, depending on whether you are reading Hesiod or Homer or Aristophanes or Empedocles or the Orphic Mysteries, etc.
In Semitic mythology you see the El of Ugarit and Canaan become the El of Hebrew Mythology. Even the name Zeus is a cognate of Tiwaz, later Tyr, and also with Dyauṣ Pitā, the sky father of Vedic myth, and Deus Pater of Roman myth, later incorporated into medieval christian conceptions of demonology as the devil Dispater, and also know as one of the archdevils of D&D. All the same god, with vastly different conceptions, powers and outlooks.
So, I respectfully submit that it not only makes sense, but that it is also the way it works in D&D, and has for going on 30 years (since at least 1981 with the advent of Ed Greenwood's article "Down to Earth Divinity" in Dragon magazine.)
Heck, even the parentage of Greek deities gets changed around a lot, depending on whether you are reading Hesiod or Homer or Aristophanes or Empedocles or the Orphic Mysteries, etc.
In Semitic mythology you see the El of Ugarit and Canaan become the El of Hebrew Mythology. Even the name Zeus is a cognate of Tiwaz, later Tyr, and also with Dyauṣ Pitā, the sky father of Vedic myth, and Deus Pater of Roman myth, later incorporated into medieval christian conceptions of demonology as the devil Dispater, and also know as one of the archdevils of D&D. All the same god, with vastly different conceptions, powers and outlooks.
Okay, now you're just showing off. ;)
Although all this talk makes me think of 3 words: glingle, glingle, glingle...
Not actually arguing that that is the canon case. The canon case, alas, heavily implies the BS I'm decrying. It's the single worst aspect of the handling of deities in D&D.However, from any sensible standpoint that isn't filled with 'our gods aren't', yeah, if everyone starts believing random crap about a goddess who predates them, screw that, no. The players cannot make say, Gruumsh the god of fuzzy slippers and puppies by getting everyone to believe it. He's Gruumsh, FFS, and he doesn't give a rat's, not to mention he'd gut you like a fish for even trying.
It gets even more dumb when you take into account multi-spheric deities like Gruumsh or Corellon, who are very likely to have different kinds of followers on different worlds who believe different things. Hell, even within the same world. If your god allgedly changes with popular opinion, screw that, might as well go directly to the Wall since for all you know a bunch of elves elsewhere decided that Corellon is evil and whoops, that's now true. That or they just aren't actually gods of anything and don't have personalities, because whoops, all their worshippers just couldn't agree and they got affected by that. Speaking of Gruumsh and Corellon, they *created* the races they're associated with. Saying that 'oh, people believe this, so it's true now' about them is just... Argh. No.
It's just ridiculous.
And yes, Greek mythology is a huge jumbled mess of things. You'd also never get me to actually worship one of them specifically because of that reason.
arguing that that is the canon case. The canon case, alas, the BS I'm decrying. single worst aspect any sensible standpointif everyone starts believing random crap about a goddess who predates them, screw that, no. He's Gruumsh, FFS, and he doesn't give a rat's, not to mention he'd gut you like a fish for even trying.It gets even more dumb when you take into account multi-spheric deities like Gruumsh or Corellon, who are very likely to have different kinds of followers on different worlds who believe different things. Hell, even within the same world. If your god allgedly changes with popular opinion, screw that, , because whoops, .
It's just ridiculous.
You are complaining about something that was decided over 16 years ago. You don’t like the concept don’t use it in your game.
Please take your ‘arguments/complaints’ to personal e-mails, blogs, or start a new thread elsewhere called, “ I think the D&D deities being influenced by their worshippers is BS, ridiculous, & a dumb idea created by TSR game designers over 20 years ago”
Now let’s get back to helping Terrainosaur’s with more creative ideas.
multi-spheric deities like Gruumsh or Corellon, who are very likely to have different kinds of followers on different worlds who believe different things.
You are very correct on this point. For example, Lolth of Greyhawk is notably different from the Lolth of Faerûn. Not to mention that the Tiamat of Faerûn is different from Tiamant/Takhisis of Krynn.
What's especially interesting about Tiamat, is that she appears to have interloped twice into Toril's cosmology, in different aspects from different worlds. She came over as a draconic deity during the time of Dragons (roughly -30,000 DR to -24,000 DR) and again as part of the Mulan deities (Untheric Pantheon). She seems to have entered Toril separately from the arks that brought over the Untheric gods in -2488 DR. Grand History of the Realms puts her arrival somewhere between –2087 to –1071 DR. But Powers & Pantheons states that she had a manifestation (sort of a super-avatar) like the other Mulan gods.
I don't know how different her Mulan conception differed from her draconic conception, or even if they operated as one god or as two distinct individuals (like clones). Her "human" manifestation was killed in -1071 DR at the hands of Marduk (aka Bahamut).
And it's not really that far of a stretch to think of him as the god of fuzzy slippers and puppies, if responsible parent orcs ask for continued peace with neighboring dwarves and if toddler orcs pray to Gruumsh for baby worg and wolf pets at Orcmas time (the new winter holiday for Orcs, a time of home and hearth, and remembering their first King).
If you've been good throughout the year, you might find a slab of bacon, or a big ham hock, or yes... even a wolf puppy under your tree when you wake up on Orcmas morning. And Gruumsh has morphed into a loving deity because these civilized orcs have the power to make him so. It's in the rules, after all, and btw the drow made everyone forget Kiaransalee's name with a special epic spell. So it's not out of the realm of possibility for Gruumsh to get a nice makeover.
I'm not sure where you are coming from. The fundamental physics of godhood are pretty much spelled out in the 3E FR supplement Faiths & Pantheons. And, by extension, in the 3e supplement Deities & Demigods.
No, there you only find the combat related game mechanics of godhood. And these supplements are lacking any game mechanics for the fundamental physics.
How does Auril make autumn turn into winter? How does Chauntea keep the plants growing? How does Gond ..... beside running around invisibly and using their respectice SDAs one X-miles radius at a time.
Yeah they only did it for those who were young wanting to go out and become a god by killing him and taking his stuff, or her stuff.
wanna be a god, then rise to the occassion and do it the hard way, earn it.
But maybe you were referring to the existence of Divine Ranks? Most likely they HAVE gotten rid of those in 4e. Now a god just seems to be a greater god, lesser god, or exarch, end of story. God stats are not likely to be explored in 4e. 4e is going a different direction with gods, leaving them ambiguous and unstatted.
But seriously, why does anyone care if WotC published god stats for those who care for them to use in their games? DM's that don't like stats can arrange their games in such a way that players never come up against gods in physical form, or if they do, the DM can play the gods as untouchable, all-powerful entities, and ignore the rules altogether.
Alternatively, the DM could use the stats as presented, but deem them to be stats merely for the god's avatar; thus a player could "fight" the avatar, but would not necessarily kill the god.
Moreover, the god stats as given are really, really, really powerful! So much so that in order for the player to have leveled up to anything like what it would take to combat a god, the DM has to be really generous and geared toward a certain type of play. OR the player would have indeed "earned it" as you say. 99.9% of normal games will never see a character level up to any kind of comparable power if they are playing by the rules as written. So the point is moot for most players.
Obviously, if characters level up to a point that they are ready to take on gods, then the DM assuredly enjoys that kind of campaign and is giving out those kinds of experience points and allowing the characters to become god-like intentionally. I cannot imagine any DM ever allowing his characters to progress so high and then feeling painted into a corner and resenting the fact that he is trapped into having to let the players fight gods. Clearly, any campaign that progresses so high is doing so with the ultimate aim of taking on challenges of cosmic proportions. God stats have their place for those campaigns that want and have a need to use them.
Now personally, I may not prefer that style of game. But I don't see anything wrong with people who do. It's fantasy, right? Some people fantasize about killing gods and achieving apotheosis. And D&D is a game about indulging fantasies! It's a natural fit. That fraction of the marketplace has a right to have their interests served by WotC publishing material geared toward facilitating their style of game play.
D&D is so modular. It's a smörgåsbord of options that you can plug and play into your game. Psionics, true names, shadow magic, evil campaigns, vestiges. There a tons of options that a DM can choose to utilize or not. WotC has tried very hard to give people options. And the hobby is enriched by having those options.
The cool thing about god stats is that I don't have to ever use them. But I don't begrudge those who might like to. More power to them! It's like free Jello. Eat it if you like it, don't if you don't, but it's there for those who do. The fact that god stats exist doesn't harm my game in the least. I am free to ignore the stats, which I do... for the most part. Although, I do find the stats interesting from a lore perspective.
God stats are not likely to be explored in 4e. 4e is going a different direction with gods, leaving them ambiguous and unstatted.
As a rule of thumb, you may be correct. However, in general I don't think this assessment is true. Afterall, the first 4e adventure path ends with the players fighting Tiamat in all her statted-out level 35 solo brute glory. (Bahamut is statted out as the Old Man with the Canaries too although PCs aren't expected to fight him) Not to mention Lolth is statted out in MM3 (and even has a God keyword).
Granted, one (or two) exceptions do not necessarily make a rule, and I agree that we may not see a publication that simply stats them out just to have them. It's likely to be on an as needed basis. We've also seen Primordials statted out (6 I know of, one of which is in a diminished state) and they went to war with the Gods and are just as powerful. 4e also places the Demon Lords on par with the gods (some Demon Lords being changed Primordials in the basic fluff) and the stats of Demogorgon and Orcus bear that out as being on par with Gods.
Bahamut has TWO write ups (one as himself, and one as the man with the canaries).
Other creatures statted out are Yeenohghu (the demon-lord of gnolls), Maglubiyet (lord of goblins), Dagon, Grazz'zt, and Imix.
Note that I couldn't find Tiamat in the compendium, but I did find a few exarchs of her (one of which is 32nd level).
Mind, I looked at that final adventure chapter, and I think it is just a bit dumb to have a campaoign revolve about destroying a mayor god. Let's hope we don't get told that Tiamat now also is dead in the Realms...
Gomez
Given the "dependence" on common human faith, why would Asmodeus even want to be a deity?
Why would any mortal even want to ascend? Suddenly you go from being a powerful individual, not dependent on outside anything, to needing the "constant battery recharging" of worship energy from people who might decide to alter your moral codes and goals.
Someone will undoubtedly suggest that deities might have more power than a demon lord or a primordial, but is this really even remotely true given all the limitations there are on power (and even on one's motivations, thoughts and goals) for deities?
And for that matter, why don't demon lords who gain worshippers automatically become deities, at least of a sort? Why did Cyric, who had no worshippers, become a greater deity at the end of the ToT and instantly obtain the amount of worshippers to sustain that level of power? Plot device, plot armor, and the will of "Ao" who apparently needs nothing to maintain his power.
There's very little that's been organic and realistic about deities in Faerun since the start of 2E. Most of it is indeed codified into tidy rules, but they don't make much sense in the grand scheme of world design.
which is mostly true from how I see it, which may be bent and twisted.
I wanted to post something here along the lines that there is no diffrence between the two, that they both wanted the PC's soul.....
This isn't completely true, Imix doesn't give a damn if anyone worships him and has a very curious relationship with people who do. He's just as likely to burn you to pieces on a whim if you worship him than if you don't.
If the demons, devils and primordials don't depend at all on the "energy" from potential worshippers, and deities do, why haven't all the deities been slain long ago?
Well, it's been tried, and in some case succeeded. Talona took out Kiputytto in a war of plagues that killed off the city of Asram, thereby eliminating Kiputytto's power base. In the Planescape line it was mentioned that when any god tried to interfere in the Blood War between demons and devils, that the fiends acted to slaughter that god's worshippers so as to weaken if not kill the meddling deity. It's a valid tactic. Why it is not used more is open to debate. It might be harder to achieve than you surmise, and the gods might have certain defenses, or can rely on other gods to help them. It's essentially a "denial of service" attack like you might see hackers occasionally engage in against certain sites on the internet. And there are defenses against that kind of thing.
People are going to worship gods as long as there are people in the Realms. To eliminate gods entirely would require genocide on a mass scale. The fact that all the gods were not slain long ago means that what you are suggesting is either much harder than you think or doesn't work quite the way you think it does.
Given the "dependence" on common human faith, why would Asmodeus even want to be a deity?
Because he does? We know he did, so he must see it as a desirable thing. You should ask Azzy.
Why would any mortal even want to ascend?
Because they do. Time and again mortals have ascended in Faerûn, so they must see something in it that does not appeal to you. Some seek power, but many do it out of duty, out of a sense of obligation to their worshipers or the portfolio or respect for the god they are replacing.
why don't demon lords who gain worshippers automatically become deities, at least of a sort?
Some do. There are many ascended fiends. Moander was an ascended fiend. So was Gargauth. Azzy of course. Cegilune. Arguably Orcus was, Demogorgon has been worshiped as a god as well as Yeenoghu, Koshchei, and Baphomet. Fiends can ascend to divinity and many have. Other primordials have done it too, namely Akadi, Istishia, Kossuth, and Grumbar, and also Ubtao.
Why did Cyric, who had no worshippers, become a greater deity at the end of the ToT and instantly obtain the amount of worshippers to sustain that level of power?
He was invested with Myrkul's portfolios, and therefore all the power Myrkul had possessed inhered in Cyric. Plus, the guardian of the Fugue Plane is a special office; as such it may come with certain special considerations and benefits, which may or may not be granted by Ao, as the guardian of the Fugue is sort of the regulator of "net neutrality" regarding all recently deceased souls in Realmspace.
There's very little that's been organic and realistic about deities in Faerun since the start of 2E. Most of it is indeed codified into tidy rules, but they don't make much sense in the grand scheme of world design.
Not sure where you are coming from in regards to "realistic." As this is a fantasy world, "realism" is not strictly applicable. I mean, you don't go around arguing that Ankhegs don't make sense because their surface to mass ratio would not support the perfusion of oxygen into their blood through the spiracles in their skin? That their thin legs would not be able to support their weight or facilitate the amount of energy they would need to expend in burrowing or attacking without snapping like twigs? Would you argue that dragons cannot possibly fly because the amount of lift their wings would generate could not possibly raise them off the ground? No, of course not! Fantasy gaming is itself an act of faith, and of willing suspension of disbelief.
But ultimately, I think your argument may be more about aesthetics than logic: you do not care for the rules or the concepts so you malign them as not making sense. However, the rules do make sense to lots of people such as Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, etc. The fact that the rules don't make sense to you seems like more of a failure of comprehension on your part, or an unwillingness to try to understand.
Ik think Jorunhast objections are not so much related to physics as to story consistency (my deduction, I may be wrong).
I agree that it is rather futile to worry about it, as there have always been exceptions to rules, so while you can say soemthing genericv as to how the rules on gods work, they may not always turn out to act as expected.
I.e. a DM may say: yes, you killed this deity's followers, but apparenlty, he is still around. It maybe due to the glimmer of faith that still exists in others... like yourselves?
I think it is very hard to destroy a god by removing its followers. It is easier to kill it personally (well, we've seen how easy that is in some FR novels). But even then you can wonder how permanent that is (the answer: until the DM changes his mind).
So yes, the rules regarding gods are inconsistent. They should be - deities are not beings we should understand too much. If they become just these 'bigger kinda monsters', they loose their appeal for worship.
Gomez
I think Jorunhast objections are not so much related to physics as to story consistency (my deduction, I may be wrong).
Yes, that's largely what I'm referring to.
So yes, the rules regarding gods are inconsistent. They should be - deities are not beings we should understand too much. If they become just these 'bigger kinda monsters', they loose their appeal for worship.
They do lose their appeal as deities, at least to me and many others, if they're simply treated like powerful monsters. I've always agreed with the Gygax philosophy, which was the prevailing one throughout original D&D and AD&D/1E, that having players fight statted-out deities is just plain silly. Greenwood also, in Down to Earth Divinity deliberately left the "mechanisms" for deity power "vague and undeveloped, for players would love to learn such mechanisms in order to influence the relative power of the gods for their own ends, and that type of manipulation upsets the balance of a campaign very quickly." That's a very clear statement, and it's how he still runs his own home Realms.
Because of the inconsistencies in deity rules, especially with respect to how they're often portrayed in novels vs. the various sourcebook rules (e.g. Kiaransalee and Eilistraee), my belief goes back to Gygax and Greenwood who would have kept such things undefined or entirely out of the game. It's not that I lack understanding of the Planescape rules or that I'm unwilling to look at said rules, it's that I firmly believe those types of rules do more harm to the overall game than good.
And I don't think anyone would suggest that either Gygax or Greenwood were "unwilling to understand" or "failed to comprehend" the fairly basic deity rules as presented in 2E sources, as a certain someone has claimed of me in a previous post. ;)