Deities as villains

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I was watching through all of Buffy the Vampire Slayer recently and I thought it'd be neat to use something like The First Evil (http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/The_First_Evil) as an overarching villain, as a "man behind the man" type deal to make sure that the players always have some adversity to face and that it wasn't exactly just random evil doers that they kept stumbling upon. This would also allow a recurring antagonist who wouldn't need some contrived handwave to not have been taken out earlier than meant or have some strenuous connection exist between one event and the next they stumbled upon.

In thinking all this though, I realized that this would be similar to using a deity as the villain for your game and I'm curious what everyone's opinion on using gods as a source for conflict in games (where they're not meant to be the main source, of course) and if you've ever used them in this manner in any of your games (and what your resulting experience was like).

[gom jabbarwocky]

As someone who has run a lot of Call of Cthulhu, I can say that I have definitely done this, but comparing, say, Vecna to Azathoth is kind of dissonant.

Basically, the only issue with it that comes to mind is that it's hard to make a deity a credible threat - if they were really omnipotent, why wouldn't they just crush the heroes instantly once they became a problem? If they aren't omnipotent, then where do they get off passing themselves off as a god when they are just some schmoe (albeit an incredibly powerful schmoe)?

To fix this, you just need to establish extremely rigid and justifiable rules as to how a god can exercise its influence. Within areas of its influence, a god should be essentially omnipotent, but out of their element... not so much. Maybe there are even situations in which they are effectively powerless.

For a case like the King in Yellow, it's less like a god, though, and more like a force of nature - there's no will or intention behind it. It just is, like gravity. Most bad guys are going to be the (mortal) agents of this ineffable force which can't be fought, negotiated with, or comprehended. Revealing the true nature of this god to which adherents ascribe personality or intelligence to could be a turning point in the game, or misunderstandings into its nature could result in odd decisions on the part of the PCs. This lead to some nasty revelations in my Delta Green game when one of the PCs got thinking that it was possible to use the Yellow Sign as a kind of weapon. Needless to say, that PC is still trapped in the palace of Yhtill ....

[LibraryOgre]

It also comes down to the scale of the game. If you're playing a game where a deity IS a reasonable end-game opponent, then using one as the string-puller isn't a bad idea. But if you're playing something smaller of scale, then your PCs are going to be limited to foiling schemes, no matter their power.

[Tanuki Tales]

I was assuming a framework here where the god is an unassailable, but extremely restricted force and the players would only ever fight a really potent avatar of it at the highest scale of their power.

So, to give a 3.5 example, I was thinking more along the lines of fighting the Aspect of Atropus or Leviathan at the endgame and not actually throwing down with the a moon sized demiurgal afterbirth or planet sized Armageddon serpent. Assuming you ever fight more than just mortal pawns of the deity.

[veti]

I was assuming a framework here where the god is an unassailable, but extremely restricted force and the players would only ever fight a really potent avatar of it at the highest scale of their power.

So, to give a 3.5 example, I was thinking more along the lines of fighting the Aspect of Atropus or Leviathan at the endgame and not actually throwing down with the a moon sized demiurgal afterbirth or planet sized Armageddon serpent. Assuming you ever fight more than just mortal pawns of the deity.

At that point, what exactly is the difference between a deity and any other "powerful, inaccessible" stringpuller? Except that one tends to put on airs and make more arbitrary demands than the other.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A deity is, to varying extents based on system, a much more ubiquitous foe. Their ability to see -far- beyond any spy network and direct their minions with nigh unparalleled efficiency (barring system limitations on how clear or cryptic they get or have to be) makes them a much more terrible foe than any mortal manipulator, no matter how skilled.

[TheCountAlucard]

In some game systems, anyway.

Protip: not all gods across all systems are D&D 3E gods who see all events related to their purview some weeks before it happens and treat all their rolls as nat 20s on top of being high-level spellcasters.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Plus, most settings have the gods set up to act as foils to each other. Either directly or through some gentleman's agreement setup. This is why mortal opposition doesn't get squished directly in a pantheon setup. In a monotheistic setup the mortals usually have the gift of freewill to prevent the deity from taking a direct hand.

[genmoose]

If you want more inspiration for this theme, take a look at Supernatural. The Winchesters often have to go up against gods, or god-like figures.

One tip to prevent the group from outright getting squashed is to give them something that will hide them from normal detection. You could even make this part of the plot. Maybe they've pissed off the BBG too many times and now he's just spamming mooks at them wherever they go. They can't get a moments rest because as soon as they stop BBG gets a fix on them and has goons knock down their door.

The goons could even be fairly low level, but when they just keep coming it can be draining, which might be fun to play. In their desperation the party can seek the help of another god that opposes the BBG. This god could require a quest or two of them either to win favor or to obtain rare materials.

In the end the party could get some item that would 'cloak' them from god-like radar. Perhaps it could be a tattoo or if you want to really make them pay, runes etched onto their bones.

This would then mechanically allow them to go back on the offensive as the BBG wouldn't be able to see any actions coming. If they want to get really sneaky the 'cloak' could be engaged in such a way that the BBG thinks the party has been destroyed. That would provide some cover until they choose to reveal themselves again.

Another limiting factor for a god could be that unlike some fantasy they can't directly interact with the prime material plane; requiring them to go through intermediaries. So the party can slay the BBG's agents and not worry about being blinked out of existence.

Another mechanic could be the use of shrines or other physical talismans. Maybe BBG can only extend it's powers X miles from some object that their cult would establish, like an altar or tower (divine cell phone towers). The party can work on smashing these towers and effectively push the BBG's influence back. Maybe even to the point where if they wipe them all out, the god will whither and die without worshipers and a connection to the real world.

[Red Fel]

Here's the thing. Fighting an enemy like the First Evil worked in Buffy, because there was supposed to be a certain air of futility to it, a sense of "You can win every battle you want, but you'll never win the war."

In a tabletop game, that only works if it's what the players signed on for.

Call of Cthulhu is a classic example. The players know (or should know) that once the Old Ones get involved, all is lost. That's basically the end, unless you're Old Man Henderson. It's just a question of whether you went insane or died before they arrived. A being like the First Evil is the expectation; if he were killable, there'd be a bit of a feeling of disappointment.

That might not fly in, say, a D&D-style campaign, where the PCs tend to be larger-than-life superbeings who tower over most of creation. The rule in such a campaign is "If it has stats, we can kill it." A First Evil-style villain wouldn't work in that kind of atmosphere, because the players would expect yet another killable foe; being told "No, it is incorporeal and eternal, it will outlast you," feels kind of anticlimactic.

So, if you want to use a deity or similar being, the important question is: How does it fit the game?

I tend to use them either as background set pieces (such as part of the game's mythology, or questgivers via their clergy or prophets). I rarely get gods directly involved, because I like playing my NPCs smartly. As others have mentioned, if a being were truly omnipotent, why have the PCs do anything? By the same token, if he were truly omnipotent and the antagonist, why let the PCs continue breathing?

So I tend not to have the PCs directly oppose a deity, proper. I tend to play them as cosmically distant power sources, rather than as people with whom you have tea or wrassle.

[Kitten Champion]

Another idea is to go the unfathomable route. As in the god's seeming malevolence is merely how the PCs are interpreting it, as their wider agenda is incomprehensible from the limited vision of mortals on a single material plane.

Of course that can seem to be a cop-out - or rather a very weak character motivation - if you don't pull on that thread to get some insight into what that agenda may be.

It could simply be a god that believes absolutely in free will and is putting forth trials to prove some existential point, that's hardly uncommon in the world's religions.

[Oudyn]

As someone who has run a lot of Call of Cthulhu, I can say that I have definitely done this, but comparing, say, Vecna to Azathoth is kind of dissonant.

Basically, the only issue with it that comes to mind is that it's hard to make a deity a credible threat - if they were really omnipotent, why wouldn't they just crush the heroes instantly once they became a problem? If they aren't omnipotent, then where do they get off passing themselves off as a god when they are just some schmoe (albeit an incredibly powerful schmoe)?

To fix this, you just need to establish extremely rigid and justifiable rules as to how a god can exercise its influence. Within areas of its influence, a god should be essentially omnipotent, but out of their element... not so much. Maybe there are even situations in which they are effectively powerless.

For a case like the King in Yellow, it's less like a god, though, and more like a force of nature - there's no will or intention behind it. It just is, like gravity. Most bad guys are going to be the (mortal) agents of this ineffable force which can't be fought, negotiated with, or comprehended. Revealing the true nature of this god to which adherents ascribe personality or intelligence to could be a turning point in the game, or misunderstandings into its nature could result in odd decisions on the part of the PCs. This lead to some nasty revelations in my Delta Green game when one of the PCs got thinking that it was possible to use the Yellow Sign as a kind of weapon. Needless to say, that PC is still trapped in the palace of Yhtill ....

As for them passing as gods while not omnipotent, I'll quote Winski Perorate, mentor of Sarevok in Baldur's Gate: If you have the arrogance of a god and can kill like a god, who's to say you are not a god?

If the PC's are actually going to fight, and presumably kill, a god, make there some sort of cosmic balance issue. So, let's say the PC's are going to kill a god, in this example, Bane. So, first of they need to find a way to make such a god mortal, to bind their divine essence into a mortal form. In the case of Bane, being a god of war and tyranny, destroying his armies, freeing his slaves and crushing his fortress. Or some great display of peace, quelling wars between other gods. Basically, either beat them at their own game, or manipulate it so that it ceases to matter. Then, for that moment, he is bound to an avatar. An avatar that can be slain. Of course, these godly avatars pull out all the stops. They're nearly impossible to actually defeat at whatever level the PC's are. So the PC's kill the god. It's blood runs from the heavens. That's not the end. In order to maintain some sense of cosmic balance, a new god must emerge to take his place. Or existing minor gods adopt his portfolios and become major players.

That's how I would run it, for epic levels of course. But regardless, the key to running gods is giving them a sense of scale. Making sure that no matter how strong the PC's are, congratulations! You are fighting a tiny, insignificant portion of a god's true might. And you are still nothing to it. A god in their hour of absolute weakness, can still destroy any mortal who ever lived. Make them strong. More importantly, make them EPIC.

[Scipio_77]

I haven't run games like this, but I have played in games that cross into what you are considering (where we'd directly engage avatars and similar entities in the endgame). The only sensible way to do it is to let the players be under the (relative) protection of competing deities as they progress in power, but once they cross into a certain treshold (epic levels makes sense) they are expected to much more directly engage the enemy. Also consider that such champions are really only going to be allowed in "good" faiths as evil deities would have much more to fear from their own champions.

Such campaigns are also definitely munchkin... players would pretty much pick'n'choose from top shelf items, and in the games I played unique and homebrewed powers and artifacts were the norm rather than the exception. Munchkinness can make players bored of more mundane campaigns, which is a drawback. But on the flipside it is also nice to finally find a use for all those extreme abilities and spells that abound the D&D universe.

If there is one tip I would give it is to not let players start at the necessary level, let them need to play up their character at least a little. This way they actually have something to lose when things go epic.

[QuidEst]

Also consider that such champions are really only going to be allowed in "good" faiths as evil deities would have much more to fear from their own champions.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that evil wouldn't pull this kind of stunt. Evil contract-y type? The power comes with a built-in off-switch clause. Evil, seductive type? They may not get as much mental protection. Enough to defend against a god that doesn't specialize in turning brains into sensual silly-putty. Evil mother of monsters? Just make your own champion that loves you! Good doesn't have as much need to put this sort of protection in place, but they're also more vulnerable if something does go wrong. Evil's got a better likelihood of something going wrong, but is much better prepared for it. In the case of PCs, sometimes "prepared for the worst" is the way to go. :smalltongue:

[Adrastos42]

Yeah, others have pretty much covered it, but I agree one good way to solve the whole omnipotence problem is for the PCs to have the patronage of another deity, meaning the bbeg deity cannot affect them directly and must work through empowered mortal agents. And perhaps this patron's protection isn't perfect, and waxes and wanes with the tides of battle between the two gods in the heavens (as influenced, for example, by the actions of the PCs). When their patron has the upper hand, the PCs can recieve some small buffs from their god. But if the enemy god starts winning the battle above, then their influnce starts breaking through the good god's defences, and the PCs recieve some equally minor debuffs.

On the evil champion thing, if would definitely still be a thing. But unless the evil god in question is stupid, the power would still be tied to the god in question. It was theirs to give, and theirs to take away at a moment's notice if their champion strays from the path, probably when they most needed it.

[Zale]

God's don't have to be omnipotent to receive worship. I mean, without going into a discussion this board forbids, there are plenty of religions that worship gods who are explicitly not omnipotent.

Hell, there are games like Exalted where gods go from incredibly powerful embodiments of celestial bodies to non-sapient incarnations of individual blades of grass. Player Characters are expected to be able to bully even moderately powerful deities as a rather regular part of the game.

One d20 game (Runs on Mircolited20) I DM draws a lot of inspiration from Exalted in how the divinities work. Even the most powerful gods in the setting are no where near omnipotent. She can drop hurricanes on people's heads and destroy entire armies, but a group of sufficiently advanced players could quite possibly bring her down with the right amount of planning. The less powerful gods can be dangerous antagonists, but not impossible ones.

It all really boils down to how deities are treated in the setting and how they are treated within the mechanics of the game. It's not like it's writ in stone.

[TheCountAlucard]

Right you are, good sir. I said something shorter to that effect upthread, but I appreciate you being more verbose in that regard.

[Knaight]

Basically, the only issue with it that comes to mind is that it's hard to make a deity a credible threat - if they were really omnipotent, why wouldn't they just crush the heroes instantly once they became a problem? If they aren't omnipotent, then where do they get off passing themselves off as a god when they are just some schmoe (albeit an incredibly powerful schmoe)?

In polytheistic systems, omnipotence generally isn't a thing. Gods are specialized, their influence restricted to certain areas, there's frequently conflict between them, so on and so forth. As such, them not being omnipotent isn't a problem. Omnipotence is a trait generally associated with monotheistic gods, and even then it's not strictly a necessity.

[Zurvan]

So, I was watching through all of Buffy the Vampire Slayer recently and I thought it'd be neat to use something like The First Evil (http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/The_First_Evil) as an overarching villain, as a "man behind the man" type deal to make sure that the players always have some adversity to face and that it wasn't exactly just random evil doers that they kept stumbling upon. This would also allow a recurring antagonist who wouldn't need some contrived handwave to not have been taken out earlier than meant or have some strenuous connection exist between one event and the next they stumbled upon.

In thinking all this though, I realized that this would be similar to using a deity as the villain for your game and I'm curious what everyone's opinion on using gods as a source for conflict in games (where they're not meant to be the main source, of course) and if you've ever used them in this manner in any of your games (and what your resulting experience was like).

Once I made all the gods jerks who killed the real true gods and sealed the divine fragments in the humans. Then they ruled the humans as the real gods and the heros had to find out the truth about their divine origin and thus decide if it is better to destroy the fake gods world and liberate the true gods( And thus ceasing to exist) or let the fake gods rule the humans a keep the true gods locked in the fake universe.

It was all a very "conspiracy and cosmic horror" game. Angels vs. heros. Gods vs. heros. Humanity that don't won't to stop existing vs. heros. But in the end they realised they all were gods locked in human bodies and in an act of extreme abnegation of the self they choose to obliterate the world. A very Nihilistic action now that I think about it.

[goto124]

Once I made all the gods jerks who killed the real true gods and sealed the divine fragments in the humans. Then they ruled the humans as the real gods and the heros had to find out the truth about their divine origin and thus decide if it is better to destroy the fake gods world and liberate the true gods( And thus ceasing to exist) or let the fake gods rule the humans a keep the true gods locked in the fake universe.

...and now I wonder who ran the world better- the real or fake gods. What makes the gods 'real' or 'fake' anyway?

[TheCountAlucard]

I would assume origins for this case - perhaps the "true" gods arose from the primal chaos or whatever, and the "false" ones were fathered or created by the original divinities to attend to their creations? Sounds familiar. :smalltongue:

[Darkmonger27]

God's don't have to be omnipotent to receive worship. I mean, without going into a discussion this board forbids, there are plenty of religions that worship gods who are explicitly not omnipotent.

Hell, there are games like Exalted where gods go from incredibly powerful embodiments of celestial bodies to non-sapient incarnations of individual blades of grass. Player Characters are expected to be able to bully even moderately powerful deities as a rather regular part of the game.

One d20 game (Runs on Mircolited20) I DM draws a lot of inspiration from Exalted in how the divinities work. Even the most powerful gods in the setting are no where near omnipotent. She can drop hurricanes on people's heads and destroy entire armies, but a group of sufficiently advanced players could quite possibly bring her down with the right amount of planning. The less powerful gods can be dangerous antagonists, but not impossible ones.

It all really boils down to how deities are treated in the setting and how they are treated within the mechanics of the game. It's not like it's writ in stone.

This makes a lot of sense to me. A god is not necessarily omnipotent, but merely a being who is much, much more powerful than most of creation. Heck, at the upper reaches of epic levels, PCs should be considered gods in their own right.

If a god in your setting is, in fact, omnipotent, or too powerful for even really high-level PCs to take on, then the goal most likely won't be to destroy the god, but more likely to imprison (done in many mythologies) or render powerless the being.

[Zurvan]

...and now I wonder who ran the world better- the real or fake gods. What makes the gods 'real' or 'fake' anyway?

Well it was not a easy answers game. The world was created by the fake gods so technically we owe our lives to them but they created us for the sole purpose of being prisons.

So the group had to think about what is worst. Live on as prison in a eternal cycle of death and resurrection or break the cycle by destroying the material world and the self thus releasing your divine essence and raising the true gods again, living together as one mind in total harmony with the universe but technically no longer existing.

The true gods were cosmic beings in perfect harmony with the universe. But one of them decided to have a children by herself. She used a type of energy that was really bad the material energy and so her offspring were horrible and deformed(The false gods) she was terrified by it and decided to hide them.

They started to create things using material energy but all the creations of the fake gods were horrible and misshapen she(the true goddess) felt pity and decided use the energy of the higher plans to help.

Realising such energy improved their creations the false gods decide to kill the true gods and use them as fuel for perfecting their own creations. Doing that they imprisoned the true gods in the material world and created the humans in the processs.

[Mastikator]

[snip]
To fix this, you just need to establish extremely rigid and justifiable rules as to how a god can exercise its influence. Within areas of its influence, a god should be essentially omnipotent, but out of their element... not so much. Maybe there are even situations in which they are effectively powerless.[snip]

Basically this. Maybe the deity could've been banished some thousand years ago and was recently partially returned. A group of cultists sought to return this deity, they did a ritual spell and were partially successful, the spot where the ritual took place the deity is able to assert influence and is able to communicate with the cultists, and give them some amount of divine power (only as much as they can take before spontaneously combusting).
There you have a deity that is reasonably restricted and only able to act through its minions. The only way to re-banish the deity is to undo the ritual spell at the cite where it first took place, where the deity has immense powers to stop anyone from doing a reverse ritual spell.