Does A Campaign Setting Need Gods for Every Alignment?

[Palanan]

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder are meticulous about providing at least one core deity for each alignment, and Pathfinder usually gives two or three apiece. Eberron seems to have just about everything covered, and the Forgotten Realms is completely out of control.

Given that a cleric’s alignment can usually be one step away from his deity’s, is it really necessary to have one or more gods per alignment? And if not, why is there such a careful saturation of alignments in the major settings?

[Venger]

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder are meticulous about providing at least one core deity for each alignment, and Pathfinder usually gives two or three apiece. Eberron seems to have just about everything covered, and the Forgotten Realms is completely out of control.

Given that a cleric’s alignment can usually be one step away from his deity’s, is it really necessary to have one or more gods per alignment? And if not, why is there such a careful saturation of alignments in the major settings?

You need a bunch of gods so you have a good choice of domains, favored weapons, etc.

[Lokiron]

Norse and Greek mythology (and others, I'm sure) have a lot of deities, so it's not like it's unheard of, historically. But I do think you could easily shave off half of the gods in PHB, if you wanted to. The mechanics of clerics can be solved with fewer gods!

[Nifft]

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder are meticulous about providing at least one core deity for each alignment, and Pathfinder usually gives two or three apiece. Eberron seems to have just about everything covered, and the Forgotten Realms is completely out of control.

Given that a cleric’s alignment can usually be one step away from his deity’s, is it really necessary to have one or more gods per alignment? And if not, why is there such a careful saturation of alignments in the major settings?

Players pay for lists of super-powers they can pretend to "buy", and the favor of a god is one of those super-powers.

Therefore, you tend to see a proliferation of options as a money-printing technique.

Eberron was surprisingly disciplined about this -- there are relatively few gods, and the one time a potentially new god-group was introduced in a splatbook (Secrets of Xen'Drik), it was blatantly just a variant of the Sovereign Host -- albeit one which pre-dated the Sovereign Host, and humanity, by a fair bit...


Anyway, in terms of necessity: it's not necessary to have any gods at all.

You can have "concepts" or "ideals" instead of gods, or you could throw away the "within one alignment" restriction and have far fewer gods.

You could have one god with several "aspects", or one god with a pantheon of intermediaries (e.g. saints).

You could also go with an eastern conception of Priest -- not a guy who particularly venerates one god, but rather a guy who knows how to mediate between gods & humans. So he doesn't worship any specific god. He's just really good at dealing with spirits & such -- which is why he can Turn Undead, they're spirits and bullying spirits is his job. Exalted the RPG is one game which uses this type of priest.

[BlackOnyx]

Considering how law, chaos, good, and evil are tangible, measurable forces in 3.5e, I'd say it's generally good practice. Players tend to take stories in directions you'd never anticipate, and having a wealth of developed allies & adversaries to draw from can make story progression that much smoother and coherent.


You don't necessarily need to introduce every god in existence at the outset of your campaign, but being able to acknowledge them when their purview becomes relevant can be very helpful.


That said, if you are looking to develop a campaign world with a different take on the "classic" 3.5e pantheon, the 3.0e book Deities & Demigods has some good information on developing alternate systems in the first few sections.


Introducing a religious system without specific gods for certain alignments is certainly possible, it just requires a bit more legwork for the DM to determine (A) how exactly the new system works and (B) how the DM plans to address any divine "gaps" in jurisdiction over certain alignments.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BlackOnyx
…how the DM plans to address any divine "gaps" in jurisdiction over certain alignments.

Can you elaborate on this point? Not sure what you mean by jurisdiction over alignments.

[BlackOnyx]

Can you elaborate on this point? Not sure what you mean by jurisdiction over alignments.


Certainly.


By "jurisdiction over alignments," I'm referring to the actions typical of & divine powers relevant to specific alignments.


For example:


Hextor is Lawful Evil. "Tyranny" is his mainstay, and the majority of his followers are both militant and malicious. Clerics of his have a lawful and evil aura about them, reflecting his inherent energies.


Nerull is Neutral Evil. His portfolio encompasses the idea of "all things will die," with many/most of his followers acting detached or nihilistic. Clerics of his would have an evil aura (but not a lawful or chaotic one).


Doresain is Chaotic Evil. His portfolio basically revolves around "destruction and hunger," with most of his followers (mainly ghouls) acting deranged and feral. Clerics of his would have an evil and a chaotic aura about them, reflecting the energies he represents.


If you were to cut Hextor and Doresain from your pantheon, you would probably want to specify which deity now has jurisdiction over the portfolios & energies that no longer have gods to "champion" them.


This could be accomplished by extending Nerull's reach in your campaign: making him responsible for *all* evil actions/energies, whether they be lawful, neutral, or chaotic.

[redwizard007]

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder are meticulous about providing at least one core deity for each alignment, and Pathfinder usually gives two or three apiece. Eberron seems to have just about everything covered, and the Forgotten Realms is completely out of control.

Given that a cleric’s alignment can usually be one step away from his deity’s, is it really necessary to have one or more gods per alignment? And if not, why is there such a careful saturation of alignments in the major settings?

I've seen settings with no God's, one god, demi-gods, saints, multiple pantheons, etc. There is absolutely no reason that all alignments need represented. There are, however, questions you need to consider.

If there is not balance in the heavens, what stops Gods of the dominant side crushing their opponents?

Who can I worship if no god matches my alignment? (Not usually an issue, but meh.)

Are there "other" sources of divine inspiration? (Demons, angels, great old ones, elemental princes, etc.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Both 3.5 and Pathfinder are meticulous about providing at least one core deity for each alignment, and Pathfinder usually gives two or three apiece. Eberron seems to have just about everything covered, and the Forgotten Realms is completely out of control.

Given that a cleric’s alignment can usually be one step away from his deity’s, is it really necessary to have one or more gods per alignment? And if not, why is there such a careful saturation of alignments in the major settings?

You don't need deities at all. If you should choose to include them and they represent only part of the alignment spectrum you'll want an answer for why that is unless you're dispensing with alignment.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
If you should choose to include them and they represent only part of the alignment spectrum you'll want an answer for why that is unless you're dispensing with alignment.

I’m not sure how that follows. You seem to be saying that the alignment system will somehow collapse if there isn’t a god for each alignment. Is that what you meant?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I’m not sure how that follows. You seem to be saying that the alignment system will somehow collapse if there isn’t a god for each alignment. Is that what you meant?

Not at all. If you're keeping alignment as-is, it represents 4 cosmic forces that predate the gods that represent them; a fundamental part of reality itself. It's just very odd for only part of that to be represented by deities and such oddities, IMO, demand explanation. Those forces simply not being in balance would be one such answer. The gods lacking any intrinsic ties to these fundamental forces and simply putting on airs by assuming their mantle could be another.

Verisimilitude is pretty important to some players and logical consistency goes a long way in world-building. I suppose, technically, you don't -have- to come up with an answer for why some alignments are deifically represented while others aren't but it strikes me as creating a hole in your setting to do so.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
…[alignment] represents 4 cosmic forces that predate the gods that represent them; a fundamental part of reality itself.

I see where you’re coming from. That’s an interesting take on alignment, but it’s not an aspect of my setting.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
Verisimilitude is pretty important to some players and logical consistency goes a long way in world-building.

Definitely a different perspective. “Verisimilitude” is not a word I would ever associate with the concept of alignment as a fundamental force.


Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera
I suppose, technically, you don't -have- to come up with an answer for why some alignments are deifically represented while others aren't but it strikes me as creating a hole in your setting to do so.

Well, I’m not sure who would be asking the question in the first place. No one I’ve gamed with in the past fifteen years would see this as a serious issue.

[BowStreetRunner]

If you're keeping alignment as-is, it represents 4 cosmic forces that predate the gods that represent them; a fundamental part of reality itself. It's just very odd for only part of that to be represented by deities and such oddities, IMO, demand explanation.
You could easily represent this with gods of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil without needing to have gods of LG, LE, CE, CG, or True Neutral.

[Psyren]

Gods are a very useful form of shorthand for most settings; they give the players who don't have a specific concept in mind something to champion and emulate, and the major ones also come prepackaged with powerful organizations (their churches) at their beck and call that the GM can use to rerail a plot and/or keep it moving. As Nifft and a couple others correctly mentioned, these are commodities that many GMs and players alike are willing to pay for; nobody is forcing you to use them in your games of course, but they have demonstrable value in the games of others, particularly those who don't feel like spinning pantheons from scratch.

In particular, the value of gods being aligned is that they can serve as living examples for how two (or more!) individuals can share an alignment while still being very different in mindset at the end of the day; this helps to keep characters who also share an alignment (both PCs and NPCs) from becoming one-dimensional. Consider for example three of the major Lawful Good gods - Iomedae, Torag, and Erastil: despite all sharing an alignment, all having paladin orders, and having other qualities in common (e.g. honor, honesty, a love of justice, martial focus etc.), they and their followers end up having very different approaches to problem-solving.

An Erastilian paladin for example is a bit of a reluctant hero - willing and able to take the fight to evil, but with the ultimate aim of returning home to their community and settling down once the threat is dealt with. They're also more comfortable working alone to spare others the hardship such a task would entail. An Iomedan paladin meanwhile is a crusader, never content as long as evil might exist, and is less concerned with returning home at the end of the day. Torag meanwhile has a community mindset like Erastil, but with more of a focus on empowering the community to stand up to threats themselves than keeping them safe at all costs, and being more forgiving of short-term losses if it means long-term strength and self-reliance are gained. As a result, you could feasibly have three paladins, each from a different order, who actually end up disagreeing with one another while still all remaining paladins, and whose approaches could complement each other well.

The difference in their mindset is even borne out by their choice of weapon - Erastil likes the bow because he wants to deal with the threat and go home, while Torag likes a hammer because he believes in the challenge being used to temper his followers and forge them into something stronger. Iomedae meanwhile uses a sword - a weapon that isn't a tool at all, but whose only purpose is in finding more threats to deal with, because she believes that journey never really ends.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
You could easily represent this with gods of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil without needing to have gods of LG, LE, CE, CG, or True Neutral.

That’s a tidy solution to Kelb’s concerns, although I wonder how domains would work in that case.


Originally Posted by Psyren
Gods are a very useful form of shorthand for most settings; they give the players who don't have a specific concept in mind something to champion and emulate, and the major ones also come prepackaged with powerful organizations (their churches) at their beck and call that the GM can use to rerail a plot and/or keep it moving.

A couple other people have mentioned removing gods entirely, but that’s not my goal here. I was more interested in the reasoning behind the alignment saturation, if you will, of major settings like Golarion and the Forgotten Realms.

One interesting difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is that some of the language about good and evil being physical forces was removed from the Pathfinder CRB. The 3.5 PHB describes good and evil as “the forces that define the cosmos,” but this text doesn’t appear in the CRB, which instead emphasizes alignment as a guide to “general moral and personal attitudes,” without any broader cosmic inferences. The Pathfinder approach uses alignment as a way to flesh out a character’s personality, and doesn’t seem to ascribe any metaphysical underpinnings to the alignment grid.

[Psyren]

A couple other people have mentioned removing gods entirely, but that’s not my goal here. I was more interested in the reasoning behind the alignment saturation, if you will, of major settings like Golarion and the Forgotten Realms.

My answer stays the same though - it exists because enough people enjoy it that they're willing to pay for it. Specifically, playgroups enjoy it because it provides them with a whole host of motivations and mindsets for the protagonists, antagonists, and supporting characters to make the world feel real that they would otherwise have to spend considerable time devising themselves.



One interesting difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is that some of the language about good and evil being physical forces was removed from the Pathfinder CRB. The 3.5 PHB describes good and evil as “the forces that define the cosmos,” but this text doesn’t appear in the CRB, which instead emphasizes alignment as a guide to “general moral and personal attitudes,” without any broader cosmic inferences. The Pathfinder approach uses alignment as a way to flesh out a character’s personality, and doesn’t seem to ascribe any metaphysical underpinnings to the alignment grid.

The problem with your reasoning is that while they may have dropped that specific language, they nevertheless kept the metaphysical and mechanical trappings that informed it. When you're a good person, the cosmos is still capable of recognizing it via detection magic, or by allowing you to pick up a Holy sword without being smote. So I don't see Golarion being much different in that regard than Faerun or Greyhawk, myself; alignment is still a pretty big deal. To truly change that would require an Eberron-esque approach of actually tweaking how such mechanics work.

[hamishspence]

So I don't see Golarion being much different in that regard than Faerun or Greyhawk, myself; alignment is still a pretty big deal. To truly change that would require an Eberron-esque approach of actually tweaking how such mechanics work.



Eberron didn't do all that much mechanical alignment tweaking. Holy weapons still inflict negative levels on Evil beings, etc.

What it did was (at least in the case of many monsters) take the "Always X Alignment", "Usually X alignment" etc. and make exceptions much more common.

And, in the case of the Cleric class (although oddly, not classes like Paladin or Druid) make it "impossible to Fall" - Evil clerics of Good deities became a thing.

[Psyren]

I know it didn't do a lot (which is why I used the word "tweak" to begin with.) Apologies if I was unclear.

[Sheogoroth]

Not necessarily, I think you can bog down your cosmology when you have TOO many deities. Eventually, the deity of chaos and madness had its own organized clergy and it just seems like more bureaucracy that is invisible and uninteresting in that it is interchangeable.

Too many deities means you lose out on more interesting belief systems and practices

My preferred way of doing it is that every major race has its own deity(kobolds and goblins can have ancestor worship and animism or something like that) with all of the “good races” (humans, elves, dwarves, etc.) being rolled into a general pantheon with all of the “deity of merchants, deity of builders, deity of horses” nonsense being rolled into good race saints. Evil races like orcs and giants and whatnot, the major ones might have deities, but by and large I’d just give them some unique form of shamanism or occultism and call it a day.

[hamishspence]

I know it didn't do a lot (which is why I used the word "tweak" to begin with.)



4e took a much stronger approach to minimising the importance of alignment.

Detect spells, spells that did extra damage based on alignment, penalties for "changing to alignment inappropriate for your class", magic items that targeted particular alignment - all these were cut.

[Andor13]

I don't see that you need gods of any alignments at all. You could just dissaociate the Gods from alignment. Or strip out alignment as a concept in game (replace it with d20 Modern allegiences, if you must.) If you're using the standard "Morality = geography" outer planar system, then you will need to reshuffle your cosmology, maybe, but it's not like there is a shortage of alternative out there.

[BowStreetRunner]

That’s a tidy solution to Kelb’s concerns, although I wonder how domains would work in that case.The total NUMBER of deities necessary to drive the story in a given campaign is entirely a factor of PLOT.

Since LAW vs CHAOS and GOOD vs EVIL are intrinsic elements of the game, some concession to these concepts is necessary with any cosmology used, regardless of the number of deities. Besides having a deity for each of the 9 alignment combinations, other methods can be employed as long as the polar struggle along both axes are explained.

The addition of DOMAINS to the equation creates a problem for players attempting to optimize and a tool for DMs to control the relative power levels of each group of clerics. From a player perspective, the larger the number of deities, the greater the chance of finding the combination of domains needed for a particular build. Many optimizers will select their domains first, and then adapt an ethos to fit.

Personally, I like the idea of Major deities having a large number of domains, Minor deities with a smaller set of domains, and possibly even weaker divine beings who have only a single domain. Keep the Major deities aligned with LN, CN, NG, and NE representing the major power struggle and minor deities spread out evenly among the entire spectrum. No more than one Major and two Minor deities per alignment, and keep the combination of domains such that any really potent combinations come from Major deities only.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
Personally, I like the idea of Major deities having a large number of domains, Minor deities with a smaller set of domains, and possibly even weaker divine beings who have only a single domain.

In fact, this is the general approach I’m using, at least as far as having minor gods with fewer domains. I also really like the idea of divine spirits with just a single domain—it fits well with what I’m doing. Great idea, thanks.


Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
…and keep the combination of domains such that any really potent combinations come from Major deities only.

Another really good idea. This raises the question of what combinations would be considered potent, and the fact is I don’t have much feel for which domains or combos are stronger than others. Is there something like a tier list for domains, or a list of combinations that are generally considered stronger?


Originally Posted by Psyren
My answer stays the same though - it exists because enough people enjoy it that they're willing to pay for it. Specifically, playgroups enjoy it because it provides them with a whole host of motivations and mindsets for the protagonists, antagonists, and supporting characters to make the world feel real that they would otherwise have to spend considerable time devising themselves.

All of which is fine, and your answer nicely helps clarify my understanding of the why of the mechanics.


Originally Posted by Psyren
The problem with your reasoning is that while they may have dropped that specific language, they nevertheless kept the metaphysical and mechanical trappings that informed it.

Not sure if I had any reasoning there, just comparing the sections on alignment in the PHB and CRB. If there’s other rules text from Pathfinder that goes into more detail about alignment and cosmology, I’d certainly be interested to take a look.

Also, I assume that the forthcoming book on the Great Beyond will go into this in much more detail.


Originally Posted by Psyren
When you're a good person, the cosmos is still capable of recognizing it via detection magic….

I tend to see this as magic provided by a specific divine patron, rather than the cosmos in a general sense. I let the cosmos provide basic services like gravity, with gods for the detailed work.

:smalltongue:

.

[lylsyly]

I have 3 Overdieties, Lawful Good, True Neutral, and Chaotic Evil. Although truly unknowable, these deities do have their own Priesthoods.

Under them I have 5 gods, Law, Chaos, Balance (Neutral), Good, and Evil. All with their own priesthoods.

The God of Evil (and his priesthood) represent the concept of Evil. He does not care if you are Lawful or Chaotic.
Conversely, the God of Law, could care less if you are Good or Evil. Are you Lawful?

It works for us. I also insist that all PCs and NPCs worship a deity.

The Detection line of spells is one spell, casting it shows the alignment *ahem* of every being within 30 ft+10 ft per character level.

The Protection From line of spells is one spell, the caster chooses at casting which of the five they want protection from.

I have been using this system since 1e, it works at our table. YMMV

[Buufreak]

If memory serves, there is an issue of dragon magazine that lists many real world pantheons. Most relevant is the Mayan/Aztec where there is hardly a good god listed.

If anyone has the issue on hand for reference I'd be appreciative, I'm currently on mobile.

[Psyren]

Not sure if I had any reasoning there, just comparing the sections on alignment in the PHB and CRB. If there’s other rules text from Pathfinder that goes into more detail about alignment and cosmology, I’d certainly be interested to take a look.

Also, I assume that the forthcoming book on the Great Beyond will go into this in much more detail.

Well my point was that, just because the book doesn't say "good is a cosmic force", doesn't mean the rules aren't still treating it like one.

And yeah, I'm interested in that book as well.



I tend to see this as magic provided by a specific divine patron, rather than the cosmos in a general sense. I let the cosmos provide basic services like gravity, with gods for the detailed work.

:smalltongue:

My issue is that inanimate actors can detect alignment too - like traps, alarms, or the aforementioned holy sword. So there's clearly some universal quality or energy associated with aligned acts that can be tested for empirically. What is that, if not "cosmic?" Your gravity comparison is quite apt I'd say.

[BowStreetRunner]

This raises the question of what combinations would be considered potent, and the fact is I don’t have much feel for which domains or combos are stronger than others. Is there something like a tier list for domains, or a list of combinations that are generally considered stronger?
There have been various conversations about the comparative strengths of each domain, but I am not aware of any list.

One thing that would have a huge impact on the potential combinations is whether 'Turn transparency' was used in your campaign. For the Domain feats from Complete Champion and other abilities that are powered off of uses of Turn Undead, if the DM rules that other Turn attempts (such as 'Turn or destroy earth creatures' from the Air domain) also count, then giving one deity multiple 'turning' domains would grant their clerics enormous pools from which to power such abilities. If the DM rules that only Turn Undead, and not other turning abilities, count for these abilities then it's not such an issue.

Overall though, since the relative value of a domain is based on the utility and power of the domain power and all nine spells, it's going to be a very subjective sort of thing. Not only would different domains be superior for different builds, but even through the life of a character a domain that starts out strong might become less so at high levels, or vice versa. Mostly, I would just watch for any combinations that fit too easily into OP builds. If every PC suddenly has a one level dip of Cleric of the God of Cheese, then something is wrong.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by lylsyly
I also insist that all PCs and NPCs worship a deity.

Very interesting. I assume your players are generally onboard with this?


Originally Posted by Buufreak
If memory serves, there is an issue of dragon magazine that lists many real world pantheons. Most relevant is the Mayan/Aztec where there is hardly a good god listed.

If anyone has the issue on hand for reference I'd be appreciative, I'm currently on mobile.

According to the DragonDex (http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/articles-subject.html), there was a four-part series on the Aztec mythos in Dragon #352, 354, 356, and 358. There’s also an article on the Babylonian mythos in #329. Not sure if either of those is the pan-pantheon article you were thinking of.


Originally Posted by Psyren
My issue is that inanimate actors can detect alignment too - like traps, alarms, or the aforementioned holy sword. So there's clearly some universal quality or energy associated with aligned acts that can be tested for empirically. What is that, if not "cosmic?" Your gravity comparison is quite apt I'd say.

Thanks, although that was actually a contrast, between gravity as a cosmic force and divine powers as more local, at least on an interstellar scale.

I see your logic about inanimate actors, although I treat this differently. In the case of the holy sword, to me it makes sense that there is some tiny mote of divinity inherent in the sword, the merest fleck of the divine power to whom the blade was consecrated; and it is that mote which senses the heart of whoever takes up the blade.


Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
One thing that would have a huge impact on the potential combinations is whether 'Turn transparency' was used in your campaign….

Overall though, since the relative value of a domain is based on the utility and power of the domain power and all nine spells, it's going to be a very subjective sort of thing. Not only would different domains be superior for different builds, but even through the life of a character a domain that starts out strong might become less so at high levels, or vice versa.

All good points, thanks.

.

[Dragolord]

If memory serves, there is an issue of dragon magazine that lists many real world pantheons. Most relevant is the Mayan/Aztec where there is hardly a good god listed.

Considering the Aztec fixation on war and endless human sacrifice, that shouldn't be too surprising.

[Buufreak]

According to the DragonDex (http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/articles-subject.html), there was a four-part series on the Aztec mythos in Dragon #352, 354, 356, and 358. There’s also an article on the Babylonian mythos in #329. Not sure if either of those is the pan-pantheon article you were thinking of.


Strangely enough, none of those. Its actually from 283, along with egyptian, norse, chinese, and a few others.

To expand: Celtic only has the goods, a few neutrals, and lawful evil. Greco-roman is similar with NE and LE. Egyptian lacks CN and NE, Aztec has NG, CG, 3 N, a LN, 4 CE and 2 LE. Chinese actually covers all bases, then Norse has 5 NG, a few CG, and the rest some neutral besides Thrym, Surtr, Hel, and Loki (so, ya know, the jotun).


Considering the Aztec fixation on war and endless human sacrifice, that shouldn't be too surprising.

Of the 12 gods listed, not a single one has the war domain. Death and destruction, on the other hand...

Edit: I went crosseyed, there is a single war god in Huitzilopochtli. Funny enough, he's TN.

[lylsyly]

Very interesting. I assume your players are generally onboard with this?.

Yes, When I DM everyone knows the rules I am going to use. Plus, we are a well established group of six. Three of us have been together since 1976 and the newest member has been with us since 1998. We are all comfortable with each others rules and we play 4 games a week.

[tomandtish]

Something to consider: Even if a god has a particular alignment doesn't mean he is a god OF that alignment (if you understand the difference). While there are some gods who personify good/evil/law/chaos, most gods actually have portfolios dealing with other things. Their method of handling their portfolio? That's why they are the alignment they are.

(I'm gonna be using 3E Deities and Demigods for this)

Let's look at Ares and Athena. They are both gods of war. But they vastly differ in how they approach it.

Ares embraces the anger, the savagery, the blood-letting. He's the poster child for the violent brutality of war for its own sake, and he revels in it. This is what makes him CE.

Athena embraces the ideals of protection, wisdom, defense, noble and just combat. War is a tool to defend oneself. This (along with other parts of her character) makes her LG.

Even the gods themselves can change alignment. If you read the description for Loki, he was probably CN until near the time of Ragnarok. Their listing him as CE tells you that they've arbitrarily statted him at a particular time as well.

And a lot of this is flat out subjective. Read the description for Hades. What in there says NE to you? But that is how he is statted. They decided to make him the god of Evil, even though nothing in his description really justifies it.

[SirNibbles]

Considering you can have settings with no gods at all, I don't see why you couldn't have settings with just a few, or even a lot, but none of certain alignments.

Don't you think it's more interesting to have different sects, perhaps because of alignment differences, worshipping the same god in different ways? I think that's much more fun than everyone having a different real god to worship.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by lylsyly
…and we play 4 games a week.

We need one of those emoticons with its jaw on the floor. I’m lucky if my players’ schedules allow for one full session a month.


Originally Posted by tomandtish
Even if a god has a particular alignment doesn't mean he is a god OF that alignment (if you understand the difference). While there are some gods who personify good/evil/law/chaos, most gods actually have portfolios dealing with other things. Their method of handling their portfolio? That's why they are the alignment they are.

Absolutely. This is the approach I’m taking, with each god being defined by their portfolio first and foremost.


Originally Posted by tomandtish
Read the description for Hades. What in there says NE to you? But that is how he is statted. They decided to make him the god of Evil, even though nothing in his description really justifies it.

I haven’t read that writeup, but just going from the mythology I’d say he’s LN.


Originally Posted by SirNibbles
Don't you think it's more interesting to have different sects, perhaps because of alignment differences, worshipping the same god in different ways?

This is something else I’m incorporating, since some of the major churches have had severe schisms in their histories, although from issues more complex than simple alignment.

[Buufreak]

And a lot of this is flat out subjective. Read the description for Hades. What in there says NE to you? But that is how he is statted. They decided to make him the god of Evil, even though nothing in his description really justifies it.

F'in thank you! In my opinion Hades is one of the fairest, most level headed deities in all of Paganism, but Papa Pluto always gets a bad wrap.

[hamishspence]

And a lot of this is flat out subjective. Read the description for Hades. What in there says NE to you? But that is how he is statted. They decided to make him the god of Evil, even though nothing in his description really justifies it.

I thought it was a case of "first giving him the Assassin class, and then remembering that Assassins need to be Evil"

[lylsyly]

Don't you think it's more interesting to have different sects, perhaps because of alignment differences, worshipping the same god in different ways? I think that's much more fun than everyone having a different real god to worship.

Different Sects with Alignment Differences? Never thought of that, may have to try it the next time I reboot. I do however have Different Orders. For Instance ... The God of Magic has a Protective Order comprised of Paladins, Fighters, Clerics, and Mages whose function is protection of the Temples, Members of this Order usually are also the churches Messengers. A teaching/evangelizing Order, these folks spend their time spreading the word (when traveling, they are usually guarded by members of the protective order)and helping people in need. There is also a trickster Order, these are the evil ones (usually) that foment strife, seek power for it's own ends, ect.


We need one of those emoticons with its jaw on the floor. I’m lucky if my players’ schedules allow for one full session a month.

Not has uncommon has it may seem. Have a link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?546513-How-many-RPG-sessions-do-you-play-in-(Weekly-Monthly-Whatever)). One of us was fortunate in picking her parents. Got a 5000 square foot place on the beach. We play 3 or 4 hours Friday night (my long running Traveler Campaign), 2 long sessions on Saturday (usually start around 9 am and run, with breaks, until Midnight or so, then a 5 or 6 hour session on Sunday Mornings. We all spend the weekend there. Taking a break? Go for a swim. I moved from Fort Lauderdale to Orlando last month, but I still go back on weekends to play.