New 4E Design & Development Article - Deities

[RTGoodman]

I didn't see one of these on here yet, and I'm not sure who usually starts the threads when the new articles are posted, so I thought I'd go ahead and post it. (If someone else did this, mods feel free to get rid of it.)

Here's a link (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071029) to the article, or for those who can't sign in, check here:

The family of gods for 4th Edition is a mix of old and new. You'll see familiar faces like Corellon, Moradin, and Pelor, and some new faces as well, like Zehir, Torog, and Bane.

Yes, Bane.

Before I explain what the Forgotten Realms' god of tyranny and war is doing rubbing shoulders with Pelor, let me say a bit about our thinking when we created a pantheon in the first place.

There was a time when the team working on "the world" of D&D thought we could get away with creating general rules useful to clerics regardless of which pantheon existed in the campaign, and then presenting a variety of fictional and historical pantheons for DMs to adopt or adapt as they saw fit. I believe it was Stacy Longstreet, the senior D&D art director, who pointed out that this solution would leave us in a bit of a bind.

When we wanted to put a temple in an adventure, what god would it be dedicated to? We could make Generic Evil Temples™, but that would sap a lot of the flavor out of our adventures, and rob us of specific plot hooks and story lines based on the portfolios and histories of these gods.

When we wanted to illustrate a cleric in one of our books, what holy symbol would the cleric hold? Again, we could rely on a stable of generic symbols (maybe the Zapf Dingbat font?), but at the cost of a lot of flavor.

We ended up creating a new pantheon. At first, we used some of the gods from 3rd Edition as placeholder names -- we thought we'd come up with new names for [Pelor] the sun god and [Moradin] the god of the forge. Ultimately we decided that using some familiar faces was preferable to giving our players a whole new set of names to learn. Besides, if a god looks like an elf and took out the orc-god's eye like a certain well-known elf god, why not call him Corellon?

Corellon: The elf god is a good example of a god who kept his well-earned place in the D&D pantheon. But "the elf god" shouldn't be taken to literally. Sure, he's often depicted as an elf or an eladrin, and many eladrin in particular revere him. But he's equally popular among human wizards, and even dwarves who practice the finer arts are prone to offering him prayers. One of our goals with the new pantheon was to loosen the tight associations between gods and races that has in the past led to the creation of whole pantheons full of elf, dwarf, orc, and goblin deities. Corellon is still associated with elfy things like arcane magic and the Feywild, and he still hates Lolth and the drow. But his appeal is a little broader now.

Bahamut: Here's another example of a familiar, draconic face showing up in a somewhat new light. Maybe it was the Platinum Knight prestige class in Draconomicon that did it, but something convinced me a long time ago that Bahamut was a much cooler god of paladins than Heironeous ever was. Like Corellon, Bahamut's not just for dragons any more. He's the god of justice, protection, and honor, and many paladins of all races worship him. Many metallic dragons revere him as well, thinking of him as the first of their kind. Some legends about Bahamut describe him as literally a shining platinum dragon, while others describe him as a more anthropomorphic deity, who's called the Platinum Dragon as a title of respect. Exhorting his followers to protect the weak, liberate the oppressed, and defend just order, Bahamut stands as the exemplar of the paladin's ideal.

Bane: Here's another god whose placeholder name just stuck, despite some reservations. We wanted an evil war god in the pantheon, and without Heironeous, Hextor didn't make a lot of sense. We wanted the kind of heavily militaristic god whose temples you might find among non-evil societies who have spent long years at war, as well as among hobgoblins. We wanted a god who embodied just the sort of tyrannical dictatorship that Bane stands for in the Forgotten Realms. We started calling him Bane as a placeholder. He went through a number of different, unsatisfying names. Finally, someone said we should just call him Bane. So Bane he remained.

Like chocolate and peanut butter, we think Bane and Bahamut are two great tastes that taste great together. Does that mean you have to use them in your 4th Edition game? Of course not. But we think that, when you see these gods in action in our core books and adventures, you'll agree that they belong in their new places of honor in the pantheon of the D&D game.

So, how do you guys feel about this mix-n-match system for creating a new pantheon? I like the idea of Bahamut as not necessarily a dragon, but rather a personification of justice who may or may not be related to them (I mean, "The Platinum Dragon" is a cool nickname, even if you aren't a real dragon).

On the other hand, I think there could be some sort of problem if they keep some old names but change too much - that's just going to confuse people who've been around for a while.

Thoughts? Comments? Wild screams of protest?

[Tyger]

Well, the pantheons and politics are usually the very first things to go when ever I am whipping up any new campaign. And my experience with DMs in general is that seems to be a common trend.

For a stable, easy to use pantheon that people who don't want to create entire new worlds go, so far they sound pretty good though.

At the end of the day, stuff like this is pure fluff though, so its hard to get worked up about it all that much. Personally, I like it. Easy, already has its roots planted, why mess with it too much hmm?

[Hario]

I don't see a huge problem since most games I know that aren't strict core generally have players mix and matching gods from other books. We once had a cleric of Tamara (sp? 'pelor' dragon goddess) in an eberron campaign, no huge difference, the only problem is when you overlap gods in games which pelor and tamara do, the only difference is one is the sun and one is a dragon which embodies the sun:smallsigh:

[Person_Man]

Sounds like they're pulling a classic comic book publisher trick. Take your most popular characters and shove them together in one book, even if they exist in different times/planes/genre/etc and it makes no sense for the characters to be together.

Ugh.

I'm not hugely concerned with this, since 80% of my games end up in my homebrew world. But I think they're actually shooting themselves in the foot here. They're going to re-write the cosmology of EVERY D&D WORLD for the past 30 years, rather then just building upon their impressive accomplishments. Fans will be pissed. And it limits their ability to niche market - some people like FR, some Greyhawk, some Ebberon, some Ravenloft, etc. Each has a different feel, different fans, different critiques. By shoving them all together, you destroy the uniqueness of each of them.

[Matthew]

I like the fact that they are divorcing their Deities from specific Races. That is the approach I also took with my Home Brewed Campaign Setting.

It does sound a bit disruptive, though. On the other hand, it also sounds like 4e is going to be more Adventure Module orientated (or maybe this is just Dungeon they have in mind here?)

[Catch]

I rather like the unity, actually, especially because I always felt limited by the standard PHB pantheon and pigeonholing deities into a generic race/alignment/class template is a more than a little confining. Mixing it up is a welcome change, at least for me, and if what I see between the lines is accurate, then 4E religion--and clerics, by extension--won't be so cookie-cut.

As far as iconoclasts go, I really don't see this as more than a hiccup. A lot of folks homebrew, and many of us like FR or Greyhawk or Eberron or Ravenloft or what have you, and I don't see 4E replacing those existing settings and pantheons. Instead, the new edition, for me at least, is a new base to start from. With all the splatbooks that have modified what we know as 3.5, the standard core flavor feels rather boring. Change is good!


It does sound a bit disruptive, though. On the other hand, it also sounds like 4e is going to be more Adventure Module orientated (or maybe this is just Dungeon they have in mind here?)

I don't think you're alone in this view. From what I've read, 4E is shaping up to be a very streamlined easy-to-play system that isn't so, well, arcane when it comes to incorporating new players. With fewer rules, history and minutiae, I'm getting the distinct feeling that 4E is definitely intended to be simpler, less time-intensve gaming experience, much more akin to the casual atmosphere of the module.

[Green Bean]

Sounds like they're pulling a classic comic book publisher trick. Take your most popular characters and shove them together in one book, even if they exist in different times/planes/genre/etc and it makes no sense for the characters to be together.

Ugh.

I'm not hugely concerned with this, since 80% of my games end up in my homebrew world. But I think they're actually shooting themselves in the foot here. They're going to re-write the cosmology of EVERY D&D WORLD for the past 30 years, rather then just building upon their impressive accomplishments. Fans will be pissed. And it limits their ability to niche market - some people like FR, some Greyhawk, some Ebberon, some Ravenloft, etc. Each has a different feel, different fans, different critiques. By shoving them all together, you destroy the uniqueness of each of them.

It isn't like it matters, really. The deities in a setting are one of the easiest things to change, mainly because there are next to no mechanical issues involved (unless it's a really epic game). Honestly, unless there are incredibly serious changes to the cleric class, then adding and removing deities, or even just using old edition pantheons is as easy as picking names off a list. Whether the local Sun God is Pelor or Ra won't make that much difference.

[Golthur]

I always homebrew my religions anyway, so this one is one that (for once) really has no impact on me one way or another. :smile:

[Mewtarthio]

Note that metallic dragons are apparently still the good guys. I just thought it merited pointing out.

[brian c]

Sounds like they're pulling a classic comic book publisher trick. Take your most popular characters and shove them together in one book, even if they exist in different times/planes/genre/etc and it makes no sense for the characters to be together.

Ugh.

I'm not hugely concerned with this, since 80% of my games end up in my homebrew world. But I think they're actually shooting themselves in the foot here. They're going to re-write the cosmology of EVERY D&D WORLD for the past 30 years, rather then just building upon their impressive accomplishments. Fans will be pissed. And it limits their ability to niche market - some people like FR, some Greyhawk, some Ebberon, some Ravenloft, etc. Each has a different feel, different fans, different critiques. By shoving them all together, you destroy the uniqueness of each of them.


I got the impression reading the article that this mish-mashing was just for the PHB and core setting, as opposed to how Greyhawk is basically the core setting in 3e. All indications are that FR, Eberron, etc will still exist in 4e with their own pantheons. WotC would never stop doing those settings, that's an extra thing to sell ;)

[RTGoodman]

Here's a question - does anyone have any idea about what these two other deities (Torog and Zehir) could be? Mythological characters? Completely new gods? My google-fu brought about definitive results for neither of them...

[Behold_the_Void]

Interesting take on Bahamut. He's a lot like Paladine from the Dragonlance setting now. Although he probably isn't prone to taking the form of a befuddled old wizard with a penchant for pitching fireballs around.

[Fax Celestis]

THANK GOD FOR THE END OF RACIAL DEITIES.

That being said, I also like the Hodgepodge Deity System. Why? Because bleed-through happens all the time in my games anyway, where we either use a homebrew pantheon or merely tack on the deities to the pantheon that we need.

And after all, if belief is a powerful force (which it is), and if the force of a deity is directly correlated to the amount of faith behind it (which the article doesn't say or imply, but is my own personal opinion), then why shouldn't a deity exist if you think it does?

[AslanCross]

Interesting take on Bahamut. He's a lot like Paladine from the Dragonlance setting now. Although he probably isn't prone to taking the form of a befuddled old wizard with a penchant for pitching fireballs around.

Agreed. I do think Bahamut's a more interesting paladin god than Heironeous, who is basically a stereotypical hero-type.

I'm fine with Bane finding his way in. Bane is practically Hextor, anyway. They have similar aesthetic preferences (So do their clerics.), and their agendas and MOs are practically the same thing.

[horseboy]

Well, that does make Spelljamming priests easier to work with. :belkar:

[TheOOB]

My position is simple, I don't care as long as they don't waste too much space on their deities. If I'm running a game, it will either be in a premade campaign setting which has it's own deities, or a home brewed setting, in which I'll either make my own deities or rip off a few real world pantheons (the greek and norse pantheons are far better then anything I could ever make)

It's nice to have good built in fluff in D&D, to give everyone an even ground to start on, but I care more about the core rulebooks having a good system then anything else.

[TheThan]

I actually like the idea of mixing up the pantheons I HATED the general dnd pantheon presented in the player'’ handbook. It just seemed far too mix and match to me.

For example they have a god of evil badness, a good of holy goodness, and then just for kicks the god of candy making… (Exaggeration of course but you get the idea). It always left me going WTF.


I don’t particularly care if they throw in gods from other campaign settings, just as long as all the gods make some sort of sense as far as a representational feel.

[JadedDM]

You know, back in my day, D&D core books had no mention of any gods whatsoever. It was just assumed you would use the standard deities from whatever setting you were playing in (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms) or in the case of homebrew, make up your own. There was no need to clutter up the core books with information on gods.

Yep.

*goes back to whittling in his rocking chair*

[Behold_the_Void]

My stance on gods in the PHB, just as a cosmology in the PHB or DMG, is that there are a lot of spells, monsters and classes (such as clerics and outsiders in general) that are designed to work with otherworldly beings and settings. There needs to be some kind of gods there so that they can demonstrate how abilities work, especially if they're going to keep or even expand the domain system. You don't have to use them, but I think they need to be there, if for no other reason than to give people an example of how things work mechanically. Plus, it gives new players a great starting point for a world, and the new core books seem to be moving more in the direction of giving the basic building blocks to homebrew your own setting instead of presenting pre-existing settings.

[Kompera]

The decision works well for them. They needed a pantheon, but removing racial deities allows them to craft a slimmed down set of placeholder gods for use in their illustrations and modules. They stated the need to have some kind of pantheon, and making it as minimalistic as is possible will hopefully allow them to devote more pages to other content. And the minimalistic approach should encourage DMs to ditch them in favor of a little creativity on their own part,

On a personal level, whenever I've run a campaign I've had my own pantheon, so I could care less what kind of pantheon WotC throws together for 4e. (Oh, and I'm not planning to purchase 4e either, so I've got an additional level of "don't care" built in.)

[Tallis]

Interesting take on Bahamut. He's a lot like Paladine from the Dragonlance setting now. Although he probably isn't prone to taking the form of a befuddled old wizard with a penchant for pitching fireballs around.

In older editions Bahumat did have a tendency to take the form of an old man. Didn't necessarily have a penchent for fireballs, but he could have if he wanted to.

Mixing and matching gods is tradition in D&D. Both Greyhawk (the basis of the core pantheon) and FR use a mix of real world and original dieties. As has been pointed out, older editions didn't have dieties in the PHB. I think they belong more in the DMG anyway since they are fairly likely to get homebrewed away.

I do like the fact that they're getting rid of racial dieties. That idea never worked for me.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Well, if I ever start reading the core stuff again (or playing the core stuff) it'll be weird to have gods like Bane in two different continums, one where he's dead, one where he's not. But hey, whatever! I don't even care about anything WotC publishes anymore (outside of the core stuff of course, which could change to). It's Paradigm Concepts I follow (and if I ever homebrew a campaign, I am so basing the gods off of the alignmentless statless system used by Paradigm for their gods). So what if I want to play a CE cleric that follows the god of civilization, glory, and pride (along with lots of other aspects, those are just the ones he chooses to follow). All of those aspects can be made chaotic and evil. Also I don't want my over powered characters bitch slapping my gods avatars (ala Living City), rather the gods should be beings of powers that no mortal can ever hope to attain (ok, maybe your 50th level character might be starting to get close to being able to become a god himself). Basically everything a god does should be cinematic, not stated out.

I also hate the concept of the Paladin. I'd make a new class called "the divine champion" or some such which would kill the paladin and the black guard and take their stuff. In place of the oath, he'd have to take an oath to uphold the tenents of the god (or with alignmentless gods the church) that he is championing. Why are good and evil gods the only ones that get champions? Why can't my true neutral god(dess) of nature or farmers get a champion? Maybe I'd switch out a few spells on the list to better reflect the god being followed, but maybe not.

[0oo0]

I actually like the idea of mixing up the pantheons I HATED the general dnd pantheon presented in the player'’ handbook. It just seemed far too mix and match to me.

For example they have a god of evil badness, a good of holy goodness, and then just for kicks the god of candy making… (Exaggeration of course but you get the idea). It always left me going WTF.


I don’t particularly care if they throw in gods from other campaign settings, just as long as all the gods make some sort of sense as far as a representational feel.

Um, how is what they're doing anything different from making a grab bag of deities who fit those basic roles? In fact this seems even more mix and match to me, because they are taking the generic pantheon and adding/replacing from other sources to make a random mix of gods who fit the stereotyped roles that WotC feel need to be filled in a basic pantheon.

Personally, I'm with the the camp that doesn't really care what pantheon they put in core. We've never had much focus on gods, and used a whatever deity you feel fits your character best, wherever you might find it approach, or FR, where there is a deity for practically everything

[Dhavaer]

I'm happy to hear about the end of racial deities.

[Swooper]

Never used or wanted to use the core pantheon, and this doesn't change that.

[Matthew]

And after all, if belief is a powerful force (which it is), and if the force of a deity is directly correlated to the amount of faith behind it (which the article doesn't say or imply, but is my own personal opinion), then why shouldn't a deity exist if you think it does?

You know, I used to really like that idea (I think I was introduced to it via a Thunder Cats episode where Lion-o meets a Deity who is no longer worshipped), but in recent years I have come to completely reject it and its pseudo post modern connotations. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that Mortals create Deities, which is a role reversal I find perplexing in a mythological game like D&D.
In the Forgotten Realms, the role of belief as empowering Deities is a direct result of the Time of Troubles and Ao's say so (who doesn't need any form of belief to exist). I find that sort of relationship between Worshipper and Deity to be troubling. I preferred the earlier situation where Deities have power because they are powerful otherworldly beings. It just makes better sense to me and it's a bit more 'Lord of the Rings'.

In short, I hope they dump the whole Mortal Belief = Divine Power concept.

[Dausuul]

You know, I used to really like that idea (I think I was introduced to it via a Thunder Cats episode where Lion-o meets a Deity who is no longer worshipped), but in recent years I have come to completely reject it and its pseudo post modern connotations. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that Mortals create Deities, which is a role reversal I find perplexing in a mythological game like D&D.
In the Forgotten Realms, the role of belief as empowering Deities is a direct result of the Time of Troubles and Ao's say so (who doesn't need any form of belief to exist). I find that sort of relationship between Worshipper and Deity to be troubling. I preferred the earlier situation where Deities have power because they are powerful otherworldly beings. It just makes better sense to me and it's a bit more 'Lord of the Rings'.

Yeah, I tend to agree. Belief-fuelled deities just seem like inferior deities to me; I prefer the old kind that run on raw elemental world-creating power and spite.

[Morty]

Bah. I don't care much about core pantheon anyway, my group plays in FR. But this mix-match doesn't look very good. All in all, this article tells us even less than the ones before it.


I find that sort of relationship between Worshipper and Deity to be troubling. I preferred the earlier situation where Deities have power because they are powerful otherworldly beings. It just makes better sense to me and it's a bit more 'Lord of the Rings'.

I've personally always preferred directly opposite approach, one I used in my homebrewed setting, i.e dieties that exist only because mortals belive in them. The personality of the diety depends on who worships him/her.
And what do everyone have against racial dieties?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Interesting. This will probably go with mixed feelings for everyone. I love that Bahamut is now not only draconic (Thought the Dragonborn of Bahamut = Pwnzorzizing coolness), but the bad thing is that, if Bane is the new Hextor, and Bahamut the new Heironeous, it's bye bye for Tiamat. Which is really bad, when has any incarnation of Bahamut (From the age old myths to the more current FF, to D&D itself) lacked a Tiamat?

[Starbuck_II]

I also hate the concept of the Paladin. I'd make a new class called "the divine champion" or some such which would kill the paladin and the black guard and take their stuff. In place of the oath, he'd have to take an oath to uphold the tenents of the god (or with alignmentless gods the church) that he is championing. Why are good and evil gods the only ones that get champions? Why can't my true neutral god(dess) of nature or farmers get a champion? Maybe I'd switch out a few spells on the list to better reflect the god being followed, but maybe not.

Well, you are inm luck, Divine Champion is the new cleric. You can be a Paladin of Asmodius (an evil god).

[hewhosaysfish]

And what do everyone have against racial dieties?

For me it's a mirror of the problem I have with many non-human characters.
Characters in DnD are frequently archetypal, stereotyped, cliched or some combination of the three. But with the humans there is at least some variety: cliched bookish wizard is very different from cliched kleptomaniac rogue - as different as Boccob is from Olidammara, in fact.
The non-humans, though, have precisely one personality per race (less in the case of the 'savage humanoids', who only get two between them). And at the pinnacle of the homogeneous heap, are the racial gods.
In game, you can say that Moradin created dwarves in his image, which is why they all have beards and hammers (or axes, I'll admit) and are all expert craftsmen despite being constantly drunk. Literally another dwarf straight out of the dwarf factory.
But out of game its the other way round: Moradin is just another symptom of the disease.

[Aquillion]

There was a time when the team working on "the world" of D&D thought we could get away with creating general rules useful to clerics regardless of which pantheon existed in the campaign, and then presenting a variety of fictional and historical pantheons for DMs to adopt or adapt as they saw fit. I believe it was Stacy Longstreet, the senior D&D art director, who pointed out that this solution would leave us in a bit of a bind.Translation: We realized that we make our money from product identity, and that we were just going to throw away our chance to establish some of the most valuable product identity around. Horrors!

[Jarlax]

i like the new pantheon so far. good to see some classics in there as well as a few newcomers. i defiantly like the departure from racial gods, who i always felt cluttered the pantheon with unnecessary additional gods.

i like the new bahamut as a paladin god, heironeous for me was always just "that good god who pairs up to that evil god, you know, the ones with practically the same symbols"

seems like Gruumsh is still kicking around, whether he is a core PC god or an evil NPC god, we dont know. but their description of corellon larethian outlined "if a god looks like an elf and took out the orc-god's eye like a certain well-known elf god, why not call him Corellon?"

i dont care either way about adding a god named bane, like they said it was just a name that stuck, its not like FR doesnt already share gods like Corellon and Moradin with the Core Pantheon.

what i really want to see is less gods who kind of overlap too much. obad-hai and ehlonna, who more or less share nature with basically the same alignment. or nerull and wee jas who share death. there is enough stuff out there that gods profiles should not need to step on each others toes.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

You know, back in my day, D&D core books had no mention of any gods whatsoever. It was just assumed you would use the standard deities from whatever setting you were playing in (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms) or in the case of homebrew, make up your own. There was no need to clutter up the core books with information on gods.

Yep.

*goes back to whittling in his rocking chair*

Ah, the good ol' days, when bein' a druid meant you had human blood, and those rotten halflings couldn't become wizards. Back then, unless your DM defined a pantheon or had one made up for him, we had someone playing a "Cleric", only he wouldn't be able to tell you just who he worshipped. How embarassing!

Me, I found that the majority of the changes I see make me less-than-thrilled. This one just makes me ambivalent. Considering that I never used the stock 3.x deities, I doubt this change will affect me all that much. Still, this could eventually be the edition that helps me break the roleplay habit.

[Draz74]

I like some of the concepts here: racial deities actually getting portfolios, and therefore having a little flavor. And having ... flexible purposes (like the LE war god being worshipable by non-evil societies, if they're just desperately involved in war).

But I think they should have stuck with the idea of "making a whole new Pantheon for 4E Core." Even if, in many cases, that just meant finding a new name to stick to an old deity.

I have no problem with the new core Bane's personality or in-game purpose, or his "difference" from Hextor. But "let's just keep calling him Bane"? Please. You could come up with something better than that, and remove the awkward connection to FR at the same time.

I admit it's hard to come up with a cooler name than "Bahamut," and this name is pretty iconic (more so, IMHO, than Pelor or maybe even Corellon). Maybe it would be sorta acceptable to keep deific names from previous editions if the relevant gods weren't strongly tied to a particular setting.

[Morty]

For me it's a mirror of the problem I have with many non-human characters.
Characters in DnD are frequently archetypal, stereotyped, cliched or some combination of the three. But with the humans there is at least some variety: cliched bookish wizard is very different from cliched kleptomaniac rogue - as different as Boccob is from Olidammara, in fact.
The non-humans, though, have precisely one personality per race (less in the case of the 'savage humanoids', who only get two between them). And at the pinnacle of the homogeneous heap, are the racial gods.
In game, you can say that Moradin created dwarves in his image, which is why they all have beards and hammers (or axes, I'll admit) and are all expert craftsmen despite being constantly drunk. Literally another dwarf straight out of the dwarf factory.
But out of game its the other way round: Moradin is just another symptom of the disease.

That's a good point, and I know the problem all too well, but there's nothing inherently wrong with racial gods, as long as you have more than one of them. Though it may be better to call them "cultural" gods in such case.

[Wulfram]

All hail the Divine Toerag! I'm rubbish at names too, but no one's paying me to come up with them.

The whole mix and match deities could get very confusing. Though I suppose we survived Corellon being in both Greyhawk and FR.

I was amused to notice that arcane magic was considered an "elfy thing", when the Elf article said that "They prefer the magic of the natural world to arcane magic." Have they changed their minds, or is the whole elf/eladrin already getting confusing?



For me it's a mirror of the problem I have with many non-human characters.
Characters in DnD are frequently archetypal, stereotyped, cliched or some combination of the three. But with the humans there is at least some variety: cliched bookish wizard is very different from cliched kleptomaniac rogue - as different as Boccob is from Olidammara, in fact.
The non-humans, though, have precisely one personality per race (less in the case of the 'savage humanoids', who only get two between them). And at the pinnacle of the homogeneous heap, are the racial gods.
In game, you can say that Moradin created dwarves in his image, which is why they all have beards and hammers (or axes, I'll admit) and are all expert craftsmen despite being constantly drunk. Literally another dwarf straight out of the dwarf factory.
But out of game its the other way round: Moradin is just another symptom of the disease.

If not done right, this change could make things worse.

If done right, then worship of Bane, Bahamut et.al will be as appropriate to elven and dwarven society as human, and there might be some more variety in the non-human races.

If done poorly, then we'll just be going from having a selection of elven deities to having Corellon as the token Elf in an essentially human pantheon. As well as making the game even more annoyingly human focused, this could make elves even more pigeon-holed.

Personally, I've always been reasonably happy with the racial gods. The problem was the Human gods getting special treatment.

[horseboy]

Interesting. This will probably go with mixed feelings for everyone. I love that Bahamut is now not only draconic (Thought the Dragonborn of Bahamut = Pwnzorzizing coolness), but the bad thing is that, if Bane is the new Hextor, and Bahamut the new Heironeous, it's bye bye for Tiamat. Which is really bad, when has any incarnation of Bahamut (From the age old myths to the more current FF, to D&D itself) lacked a Tiamat?

I guess that makes Bane the new Tiamat. :smallconfused:

[hewhosaysfish]

I guess that makes Bane the new Tiamat. :smallconfused:

White wyrmling: Mama!
Bane: Get away from me you freak!

[SpikeFightwicky]

As long as Vecna's around somewhere, I'll be happy.

BTW, I'm not sure if it's just me, but this whole 'out with the old, in with still old but better' motif seems to have a Magic: The Gathering vibe. Everytime they make a new core set, they swap out some old staples to be replaced by cards that came out in expansions that fill the niche better, or are just more interesting.

[warmachine]

Gah! They got rid of Hieroneous. As an atheist, or rather a humanist, the idea of following a god merely because he/she/it's powerful leaves a bad taste in the mouth. A dragon Bahamut has that flavour whereas an ascendant, human Hieroneous has the 'original and best exemplar for the noble and good' flavour which makes paladins the self-righteous gits that they are.

St Cuthbert, if he still exists, might fulfill the self-righteous gittiness but he prefers law over principle, which loses out in the holier-than-thou attitude.

Pelor, alas, has Sun and Healing in his domains, detracting from the 'higher, abstract principles than you, peasant' smugness.

Maybe there'll be an elf-like god of snootiness and arrogance.

[Starsinger]

That's a good point, and I know the problem all too well, but there's nothing inherently wrong with racial gods, as long as you have more than one of them. Though it may be better to call them "cultural" gods in such case.

But then you have the problem of each race having duplicate pantheons, with the only difference being that they also involve race. So you've got the elven god of nature, and the dwarven god of nature, and the halfling god of nature, and the gnome god of nature, and the orcish god of nature, and the mermaid god of nature, and the other myriad racial gods of nature, and then you have Obad-Hai, Ehlonna, and whatever minor nature deities have you.. And the pantheon becomes a cluttered, convoluted mess, where you literally have a deity with any combination of domains and portfolio elements that you want if you dig deep enough... And at that point, deities themselves become unnecessary..

[JadedDM]

Back then, unless your DM defined a pantheon or had one made up for him, we had someone playing a "Cleric", only he wouldn't be able to tell you just who he worshipped. How embarassing!

Hey, the way I see it, is if the DM is too lazy, stupid, or merely unimaginative to come up with his own pantheon for a homebrewed world, then he shouldn't be DMing in the first place (or he should just go out and purchase a pre-made campaign setting like Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms).

[Behold_the_Void]

Hey, the way I see it, is if the DM is too lazy, stupid, or merely unimaginative to come up with his own pantheon for a homebrewed world, then he shouldn't be DMing in the first place (or he should just go out and purchase a pre-made campaign setting like Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms).

So new DMs should be required to spend more money on tons of books instead of being able to buy the core rulebooks, grab a few friends and start playing? I was glad to have things like already-defined pantheons and cosmology when I started DMing, even with the pre-made stuff I still had a hell of a time keeping track of it all right at first and it made my job a hell of a lot easier.

[Sledge_bro]

My Paladin of Heironeous, his arch enemy cleric of hextor BBEG and his sister BBEG the arch-archon of tiamat, just all died :smalleek:

all taken out in one shot !

Bahamut is cool, but I liked the Big H's :smallfrown: nice and black-and-white :smalltongue: And I liked tiamat.. now MM4 is even less useful :smallfurious:

:miko: (The closest smiley to Arinth the Paladin) Diassaproves.

[hamlet]

So new DMs should be required to spend more money on tons of books instead of being able to buy the core rulebooks, grab a few friends and start playing? I was glad to have things like already-defined pantheons and cosmology when I started DMing, even with the pre-made stuff I still had a hell of a time keeping track of it all right at first and it made my job a hell of a lot easier.

And, just out of curiosity, at what point do we just call it a board game instead of an RPG?

At what point does it stop being D&D and start being Monopoly? Actually, a more fitting example would be the new Talisman, but I don't want to slander that game.

[Green Bean]

And, just out of curiosity, at what point do we just call it a board game instead of an RPG?


Perhaps when playing it requires an actual board? :smalltongue:

[JadedDM]

So new DMs should be required to spend more money on tons of books instead of being able to buy the core rulebooks, grab a few friends and start playing? I was glad to have things like already-defined pantheons and cosmology when I started DMing, even with the pre-made stuff I still had a hell of a time keeping track of it all right at first and it made my job a hell of a lot easier.

He could just make up his own deities. That requires no money at all.

[Behold_the_Void]

He could just make up his own deities. That requires no money at all.

Of course. But from my experiences with early DMing, it was so much easier to use the established deities, cosmologies, and basic worldviews which allowed more time to be spent on, you know, actually planning the adventure. Especially when there were rules governing the mechanics for deities, especially with regards to clerics and the like.

Honestly, I don't see what the massive problem with this is. Is it so bad that they give the option of using pre-made deities? Especially when they're trying to make the game more accessible to new players? Should the game require people to either make up their own world or fork over another $30-$90 to get access to a premade one in order to play the game? Personally, I'd say no. That doesn't seem like sound game design to me. Nobody's saying YOU have to use them, but why should those who want to use them be derided for it?

[Dausuul]

And, just out of curiosity, at what point do we just call it a board game instead of an RPG?

At what point does it stop being D&D and start being Monopoly? Actually, a more fitting example would be the new Talisman, but I don't want to slander that game.

What, tired of the MMORPG comparisons? Hey, how about we compare D&D to War (the card game, that is)? I mean, that game is really mindless, and there's about as much justification for saying D&D is going to turn into it. War is a card game, and Wizards of the Coast makes card games, so obviously D&D is going to turn into War. Or maybe craps? How about roulette?

D&D is turning into roulette!

[Fax Celestis]

My Paladin of Heironeous, his arch enemy cleric of hextor BBEG and his sister BBEG the arch-archon of tiamat, just all died :smalleek:

all taken out in one shot !

Bahamut is cool, but I liked the Big H's :smallfrown: nice and black-and-white :smalltongue: And I liked tiamat.. now MM4 is even less useful :smallfurious:

:miko: (The closest smiley to Arinth the Paladin) Diassaproves.

Do note: they have not said that Tiamat does not exist. I would expect that she does. Bahamut/Tiamat draconic duality is too much fun to pass up.

[Morty]

But then you have the problem of each race having duplicate pantheons, with the only difference being that they also involve race. So you've got the elven god of nature, and the dwarven god of nature, and the halfling god of nature, and the gnome god of nature, and the orcish god of nature, and the mermaid god of nature, and the other myriad racial gods of nature, and then you have Obad-Hai, Ehlonna, and whatever minor nature deities have you.. And the pantheon becomes a cluttered, convoluted mess, where you literally have a deity with any combination of domains and portfolio elements that you want if you dig deep enough... And at that point, deities themselves become unnecessary..

Well, I have to say my view on gods don't mix well with D&D mechanics. I guess that in the world where gods are real and active, having one diety of nature/war/something is indeed better. Then you can just have various cultures worship him/her differently. But I still think there's nothing wrong in there being divine patrons of every race, including humans.

[Quietus]

Well, I have to say my view on gods don't mix well with D&D mechanics. I guess that in the world where gods are real and active, having one diety of nature/war/something is indeed better. Then you can just have various cultures worship him/her differently. But I still think there's nothing wrong in there being divine patrons of every race, including humans.

That's kind of what I was thinking, as well. There's only one Ehlonna, but when you're in a human city, at her temples, she looks like a human. Elves, however, worship her and see her as being more slender and willowy, with pointed ears. Dwarves might see her as shorter than the human version, with a broader body and braided hair. Same deity, but each race recognizes them differently.

[Rex Blunder]

You know, I used to really like that idea (I think I was introduced to it via a Thunder Cats episode where Lion-o meets a Deity who is no longer worshipped)

Sounds like an awesome episode of Thundercats. I wish there were more episodes that tackled theoretical theology. Cheetara and Snarf debate the evidence for a pre-indo-european matriarchal society in Europe! Panthro wonders, "Are Ares and Mars two different gods, or two names for the same god? Is Zeus the same god as the Egyptian Amon-Ra, as Herodotus claims?" Lion-o fights an animated copy of Whitehead's "Process and Theology!"

If only there had been a fifth season.

[Matthew]

I did a bit of searching for it afterwards and I discovered that it was this episode: Lion-O's Anointment Final Day: The Trial of Evil (http://www.mad-bassist.com/gate/episodes/season1-3.htm). The Deity in question was Maftet. Who would have guessed that there were 130+ episodes of Thunder Cats?

[MrNexx]

I like the fact that they are divorcing their Deities from specific Races. That is the approach I also took with my Home Brewed Campaign Setting.

This is something I didn't like. Why should alien peoples worship the same gods?

[Skjaldbakka]

As long as they keep Fharlaghn and Wee Jas, I'm happy. Which means I don't think I am. :smallfurious:

Oh well, it shouldn't be hard to put them back in.

[Jack Mann]

This is something I didn't like. Why should alien peoples worship the same gods?

Depends on why the gods exist.

I mean, if the gods exist purely because people believe in them, then it makes sense for a lot of pantheons to exist. Humans create human gods, dwarves create dwarf gods, flumphs create flumph gods.

But if gods exist regardless of people's beliefs, then why shouldn't the humans, the dwarves, and the flumphs worship the same pantheon? Sure, the dwarves will be more drawn to the god of the forge, the flumphs to the god of flumphing, but there's no reason for there to be special gods for each group.

If the gods are not created by people, then why does there need to be a separate pantheon for each culture? Does there really need to be a human and an elven god of magic? Do we need separate halfling and elf gods of nature?

If you go with gods as fundamental forces of the universe, then it makes more sense for a consolidated pantheon.

Remember, in D&D, the existence of the gods is a proven fact. Going around saying, "Your gods aren't real!" isn't going to get you very far when you've got clerics channeling the power of that deity. There's every reason to have a more universal pantheon, even if they aren't worshiped the same way by every culture.

[Matthew]

This is something I didn't like. Why should alien peoples worship the same gods?

They don't have to. The point is only that the Deities are not divine reflections of the races [i.e. they are not racially aligned].

[KillianHawkeye]

If the gods are not created by people, then why does there need to be a separate pantheon for each culture? Does there really need to be a human and an elven god of magic? Do we need separate halfling and elf gods of nature?

If you go with gods as fundamental forces of the universe, then it makes more sense for a consolidated pantheon.

Remember, in D&D, the existence of the gods is a proven fact. Going around saying, "Your gods aren't real!" isn't going to get you very far when you've got clerics channeling the power of that deity. There's every reason to have a more universal pantheon, even if they aren't worshiped the same way by every culture.

It's funny how people who are seeing this angle are happy about the elimination of "racial" deities, but there isn't the same joy about mixing gods from different campaign settings, when it's really the same thing.

Personally, I never understood why the gods all decided at the beginning of time to split up and only rule over a single world on the whole vastness of the Material Plane. Except for Corellon, Moradin, and Gruumsh, who for some reason can go anywhere they damn well please? Seriously, the gods are so powerful and massive that they can easily manage their affairs anywhere in the multiverse and still have time to wage war on the lower planes or whatever else they need to be doing with their time.

[Thinker]

It's funny how people who are seeing this angle are happy about the elimination of "racial" deities, but there isn't the same joy about mixing gods from different campaign settings, when it's really the same thing.

Personally, I never understood why the gods all decided at the beginning of time to split up and only rule over a single world on the whole vastness of the Material Plane. Except for Corellon, Moradin, and Gruumsh, who for some reason can go anywhere they damn well please? Seriously, the gods are so powerful and massive that they can easily manage their affairs anywhere in the multiverse and still have time to wage war on the lower planes or whatever else they need to be doing with their time.

Most of the settings that I have seen assume that there is one material plane and that is where the world is. There aren't vast quantities of planets throughout space. Even in Spelljammer each sphere contains its pantheon because the gods cannot traverse the spheres (or are powerless outside their own sphere, I can't remember which). In short, the campaigns are not connected in a multiverse.

[Keld Denar]

Here's a question - does anyone have any idea about what these two other deities (Torog and Zehir) could be? Mythological characters? Completely new gods? My google-fu brought about definitive results for neither of them...

Zehir (I believe) is a god from Greyhawk. One of the human subraces (Oridian or Flan, can't remember which) nature god who's portfolio includes wind.

Torog, who knows....I did a quick google search on Torog, but didnt' come up with anything...anyone else?

[AtomicKitKat]

Personally, I've always been reasonably happy with the racial gods. The problem was the Human gods getting special treatment.

My sentiments exactly. This whole thing smacks of anti-non-Human-ism.

Edit: Seriously, I don't see the problem with racial gods.:smallfurious:

Think for a second here before you jump all over me with "But it's so frigging hard to remember them all!".

Ao=Everything.
Other deities are merely facets of his being. Death, Life, Fecundity, whatever.
Breaking it down, we have Obad-Hai and Ehlonna, who are aspects of the Nature facet.
The Elves have *insert Elf Nature Deity here*, the Dwarfs have *Dwarf Nature Deity here*, and so on.
These "Racial Nature Deities" are merely further aspects of the same concept that splits into Obad-Hai and Ehlonna, and the concept itself is merely a facet of Ao.

What's the problem?

Edit 2: Or to put it another way, the Elven Nature Deity merely reflects the Elven viewpoint of Nature(Trees are so huggable!), Dwarven Nature Deity reflects Dwarven viewpoint of Nature(I wanna git wit tha rock!), and so on.

[Fax Celestis]

My sentiments exactly. This whole thing smacks of anti-non-Human-ism.

Edit: Seriously, I don't see the problem with racial gods.:smallfurious:

Think for a second here before you jump all over me with "But it's so frigging hard to remember them all!".

Ao=Everything.
Other deities are merely facets of his being. Death, Life, Fecundity, whatever.
Breaking it down, we have Obad-Hai and Ehlonna, who are aspects of the Nature facet.
The Elves have *insert Elf Nature Deity here*, the Dwarfs have *Dwarf Nature Deity here*, and so on.
These "Racial Nature Deities" are merely further aspects of the same concept that splits into Obad-Hai and Ehlonna, and the concept itself is merely a facet of Ao.

What's the problem?

Edit 2: Or to put it another way, the Elven Nature Deity merely reflects the Elven viewpoint of Nature(Trees are so huggable!), Dwarven Nature Deity reflects Dwarven viewpoint of Nature(I wanna git wit tha rock!), and so on.

The problem is that it doesn't make feasible sense for two gods to willingly divide their power between each other merely because different races are too prejudiced to look beyond the race of the deity.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Also, I wouldn't say AO is everything, AT ALL. AO is NOT "our" God, Yaweh, Ala, or whathaveyou. AO is just a supervisor for the other gods. A nice example of this is that the Platonic Incarnation of Good has a divine rank 4 points higher than AO. Not what you'd expect from a deity that encompasses "all", right?

[MCerberus]

I hope they have more "Gray Area" alignment gods like Cuthbert and Pale's (Greyhawk Theocracy) Pholtus. While they are very lawful, they are slightly bent towards good, leading them to sit on the line between LN and LG.

[Artanis]

This is something I didn't like. Why should alien peoples worship the same gods?
Because Gods are actual beings who probably don't like to share their portfolios.

Say every race had its own pantheon. Let's use Forge Gods as an example. One way or another, the Dwarf Forge God would be the strongest Forge God, either by virtue of being the Dwarvish one or by virtue of beating up the previous one in order to get all the worship that Dwarves give their Forge God. He'd look around and see Hammergolas, the Elf Forge God, who's a pansy, and in true DnD tradition say, "hey, I can profit by beating him up and taking his stuff". So he'd do so, and take the spot, becoming the Forge God of both Dwarves and Elves...the Elves may call him "Hammergolas", but he's still the same god that the Dwarves worship.

Repeat this a few zillion times over for various portfolios and racial pantheons, and you wind up with the strongest god becoming every race's version of that god. The Elvish god of archery would also be worshiped by all archers because he beat up their archer-gods and took their stuff. The Orcish god of baby-eating rampages would be worshiped by all baby-eating barbarians because he beat up their baby-eating-rampage gods and took their stuff. And so on.

And voila, one pantheon.

[hewhosaysfish]

Because Gods are actual beings who probably don't like to share their portfolios.

Why would there even be 2 gods sharing the same portfolio in the first place?
It depends on the nature of gods in the setting:
If gods a created by the beliefs of mortals then, yes, you could have 2 groups of people anthropomorphising the same phenomenon/concept as 2 separate beings and, yes, either of these beings could "beat the other up and take their stuff" by tempting away the others congregations over the generations.
If the gods are, on the other hand, primal embodiments of phenomena/concepts regardless of human belief then there seems to be little justification for doubling them up. You could claim that there was a god who was the primal embodiment of "Orc", who created orcs and so is worshipped by them... but if "Orc" includes strength/ferocity/ugliness then he will end up being worshipped by non-orcs who value strength/ferocity/ugliness and we end up with a single, unified pantheon. And if "Orc" doesn't include anything other than just being an orc then orcs won't need to worship him because they're orcs already and will go to join the flock of the war god, relegating poor Primal Orc to the status of Legendary Monster rather than God.

[Fhaolan]

Agreed. The Dwarven God of the Forge is not actually a Dwarf. It's a god that appears to the dwarven worshipers as a Dwarf because... well, could you image what would happen if the God of the Forge always looked like a Elf? Do you honestly think any self-respecting Dwarf would continue to worship a pansy Elf-god?

That same entity would appear to Elves as an Elf, Orcs as an Orc, etc.

It's a *GOD* for pity's sake. It can look like whatever it feels like, and can appear to be different races to the eyes of different people *simultaneously*. They are not members of any mortal race.

That's why the gods in my campaign are all described by titles, rather than names, because the name, appearance, gender, whatever, varies from region to region, worshipper to worshipper. My god of agriculture is called 'Mother Corn' (or less often 'Father Corn'), my god of trickery and travel is 'The Wanderer', my god of storms is 'The Tempest', the god of the afterlife (and the moon) is 'The Watcher', etc.

[Renx]

Who cares? Pantheons are malleable enough, and if your group is going to be playing Forgotten Realms, you'll just use that pantheon anyway.

[Keld Denar]

I hope they have more "Gray Area" alignment gods like Cuthbert and Pale's (Greyhawk Theocracy) Pholtus. While they are very lawful, they are slightly bent towards good, leading them to sit on the line between LN and LG.

I agree!

Although Pholtus in particular is a fun one, because some of the more fanatical worshipers of Pholtus actually border more on LE than LG or LN. These inquisition minded folks are the cause of a lot of tensions between the Pale and her neighbors. Other Pholtite bastions (such as Bright Sentry in the Shieldlands) tend to be regarded with mistrust. Most governments are unsure whether the "One True Path" (TM) includes them or not, or whether they themselves could be subject to holy inquisition. Lucky most of the time there is a "Greater Evil" (TM) to fight, cause those Pholtites like to muck everything up.

[MCerberus]

I agree!

Although Pholtus in particular is a fun one, because some of the more fanatical worshipers of Pholtus actually border more on LE than LG or LN. These inquisition minded folks are the cause of a lot of tensions between the Pale and her neighbors. Other Pholtite bastions (such as Bright Sentry in the Shieldlands) tend to be regarded with mistrust. Most governments are unsure whether the "One True Path" (TM) includes them or not, or whether they themselves could be subject to holy inquisition. Lucky most of the time there is a "Greater Evil" (TM) to fight, cause those Pholtites like to muck everything up.

I personally find it hilarious that the followers of what might be the two most similar gods completely hate each other.

[AtomicKitKat]

The problem is that it doesn't make feasible sense for two gods to willingly divide their power between each other merely because different races are too prejudiced to look beyond the race of the deity.

Sure it does. They may not "willingly" do it, but they are compelled to by the overarching demi-urge. Elvish God of Death, and Dwarven God of Death, both essentially feed into the deific essence of Death.


Also, I wouldn't say AO is everything, AT ALL. AO is NOT "our" God, Yaweh, Ala, or whathaveyou. AO is just a supervisor for the other gods. A nice example of this is that the Platonic Incarnation of Good has a divine rank 4 points higher than AO. Not what you'd expect from a deity that encompasses "all", right?

That's BS. Ao has no rank.

[MrNexx]

Because Gods are actual beings who probably don't like to share their portfolios.

You see, I take the basic premise "Gods are actual beings" and come up with a completely different interpretation.

First of all, it assumes that they even care about the other groups. Why should a dwarven god of the forge care about the elven forgecraft? Or the orcish forgecraft, except insofar as it will be used against his people?

Secondly, if they met, why would they necessarily be hostile? Are you seriously telling me that Yondalla and Berronar Truesilver are going to try to fight it out over who gets to hold the "family" portfolio? Or are these real beings, with real personalities, going to sit down and talk for a couple centuries? Some portfolios, of course, are likely to result in strife between the two, but you'll have a fair number who will find common ground or friendly rivalry which is more enjoyable than simply beating.

Lastly, you've got the preset pantheons from which this supposed over-pantheon is going to spring. Sure, the Faerunian and Oerthian pantheons are scattered and not closely inter-related, but do you think Clangeddin Silverbeard will stand idly by while another God tries to take forging away from Moradin... or will he go to war? Are the Lords of the Nine Hills going to let someone take forests off of Baeravar, or will they stand with their brother and call in alliances?

Any pantheonic war to consolidate portfolios would, I think, be far more likely to result in World War I... large numbers of gods, allied by mutual interests, getting pulled into a full-scale conflict no matter where it starts, and the resolution of it is unlikely to leave anyone happy, and the losers ready to start it again in a generation.

[Fax Celestis]

Any pantheonic war to consolidate portfolios would, I think, be far more likely to result in World War I... large numbers of gods, allied by mutual interests, getting pulled into a full-scale conflict no matter where it starts, and the resolution of it is unlikely to leave anyone happy, and the losers ready to start it again in a generation.

Maybe. See the whole Iyatchu Xvim debacle.

[Azerian Kelimon]

AO has a divine rank of 21, the minimum for overdeity. Just check the srd d20. Be prepped for a shock.

[MrNexx]

Maybe. See the whole Iyatchu Xvim debacle.

He was somewhat of a special case. For one thing, that happened entirely in a "constructed" pantheon... one put together by game designers, which then had a pretense of holistic reality applied afterwards. Also, it mostly took place in portfolios that are likely to lead to conflicts between those that hold them... two gods with the tyranny portfolio will always be at loggerheads, no matter how similar their philosophies. Xvim came out of Bane came out of Xvim... but that's more the machinations of Bane, within his own portfolio.

[Fax Celestis]

He was somewhat of a special case. For one thing, that happened entirely in a "constructed" pantheon... one put together by game designers, which then had a pretense of holistic reality applied afterwards. Also, it mostly took place in portfolios that are likely to lead to conflicts between those that hold them... two gods with the tyranny portfolio will always be at loggerheads, no matter how similar their philosophies. Xvim came out of Bane came out of Xvim... but that's more the machinations of Bane, within his own portfolio.

Still, interdeity conflict doesn't necessarily facilitate deific warfare. Corellan Larethian and Moradin don't get along all that great, but they certainly don't take godly potshots at each other three days a week.

[MrNexx]

Still, interdeity conflict doesn't necessarily facilitate deific warfare. Corellan Larethian and Moradin don't get along all that great, but they certainly don't take godly potshots at each other three days a week.

True, but neither is going to be eager to help their subordinate gods usurp portfolios that fall under the purview of a subordinate of their opposite number... Thard Harr is the dwarven god of hunting, and Solonor Thelandira is the elven god of the same. Both also have wilderness survival in their portfolio (though Thard Harr specializes in jungles, and Solonor does not). However, I don't see Corellan backing Solonor if he decided to take out Thard Harr, or Moradin supporting Thard Harr in a bid to remove Solonor... because they are real individuals, not simply digesters of power, with the blind acquisition of power being their only concern.

[Fax Celestis]

True, but neither is going to be eager to help their subordinate gods usurp portfolios that fall under the purview of a subordinate of their opposite number... Thard Harr is the dwarven god of hunting, and Solonor Thelandira is the elven god of the same. Both also have wilderness survival in their portfolio (though Thard Harr specializes in jungles, and Solonor does not). However, I don't see Corellan backing Solonor if he decided to take out Thard Harr, or Moradin supporting Thard Harr in a bid to remove Solonor... because they are real individuals, not simply digesters of power, with the blind acquisition of power being their only concern.

Without the idea of gods as actual individuals instead of merely analogous conceptual effigies of their portfolios being confirmed as the way things are in any supplement, your statement is merely conjecture--which is unfortunate, since that's how I envision the gods interacting too, but with a fiercer need to acquire followers to maintain deific status.

[MrNexx]

Without the idea of gods as actual individuals instead of merely analogous conceptual effigies of their portfolios being confirmed as the way things are in any supplement, your statement is merely conjecture--which is unfortunate, since that's how I envision the gods interacting too, but with a fiercer need to acquire followers to maintain deific status.

The argument was proceeding from the assumption that they were actual individuals, as opposed to anthropomophisms of abstract ideals. If they're AoAIs, then what a God is called is largely irrelevant... a Gnome worshiping the gnomish God of nature and an elf worshiping the elvish god of nature will still be feeding the same AoAI.

[AtomicKitKat]

No mention of Ao anywhere in the SRD section on Divine Ranks. I'd like to see evidence of this so-called "Platonic Incarnation of Good.":smallannoyed:

[Jack Mann]

Also, I wouldn't say AO is everything, AT ALL. AO is NOT "our" God, Yaweh, Ala, or whathaveyou. AO is just a supervisor for the other gods. A nice example of this is that the Platonic Incarnation of Good has a divine rank 4 points higher than AO. Not what you'd expect from a deity that encompasses "all", right?

So, which book is Yahweh statted up in? Deities and Demigods?

[why123]

I like the fact that they are divorcing their Deities from specific Races. That is the approach I also took with my Home Brewed Campaign Setting.

It does sound a bit disruptive, though. On the other hand, it also sounds like 4e is going to be more Adventure Module orientated (or maybe this is just Dungeon they have in mind here?)

[Azerian Kelimon]

That's the whole point. AO is NOT "Tah pwnzorzizing gawd", but merely a supervisor who obeys another one. This has been repeatedly stated, and jokes have it to be Gary gygax.


Oh, my bad. I confused the srd with another source. Lookin for it...

[Mewtarthio]

That's the whole point. AO is NOT "Tah pwnzorzizing gawd", but merely a supervisor who obeys another one. This has been repeatedly stated, and jokes have it to be Gary gygax.

Yes, but as far as we mortals are concerned, Ao is pretty much omnipotent. He's basically a god who has divinity as his portfolio.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Aye, divinity is more or less known as the "supreme" domain (And THAT one IS in the SRD. Well, mentioned there, thought not described). You'd more or less need to be the LoP or something that powerful to blast him.