What Would Happen If The D&D Dragon Deities Pantheon Were In DC Or Marvel Universe?

[Ramza00]

I don't know about the Marvel one, but the Wall of the Faithless was introduced in the Avatar series of Realms novels, published in the early 90s. One of the later ones I believe, but I'm not sure atm.

If I were betting, I'd expect the Marvel one came before that, just because a lot of weird comic stuff predates that.

DC one not Marvel, Jack Kirby did the Source Wall for the DC worlds and later multiverse in the 70s (can not recall without reading, what specific attributes the source wall has when like when did it become former promethean gods and so on? for lore increases over time)

the clip is from the last episode of Justice League Unlimited with Lex Luthor plus Metron



So sounds like the forgotten realms wall of the faithless was inspired by Kirby if it was the 90s? Or a different author inspiration, perhaps it is original?

[Keltest]

A god and a mortal can hold a conversation with each other in the same language and understand each other completely.

Even if you're proposing levels of sapience, they're obviously in the same one.

I definitely disagree with this metric. For starters, mortals can't comprehend omniscience. They anthropomorphize the gods because they have to in order to even get close to thinking of them as beings, but they factually and explicitly don't operate on that level except for the sake of interacting with mortals. There are a couple of forgotten realms novels that go into more details, but the short version is that gods have to avoid thinking like mortals in order to be able to do their jobs as gods.

[Rater202]

Imean, it sounds like you believe if we're the top of the food chain, then it's fine to eat what's under us, but if others are at the top of the food chain, then they're parasites and it's Evil for them to eat what's under them.

1: To the best of our knowledge nothing we eat is as intelligent as we are or can speak to us and we understand each other.

It's not about being on the top of the food chain, it's about not eating things that are obviously people and justifying it by being stronger tan they are. My sibling in non-denominational figure of reverence, the argument you're making could be easily used to apply to an adult human who eats babies.

If I farmed and ate babies and justified it by saying "well adult humans are smarter and stronger than babies" you'd be calling me evil.

2: Even if we did... We eat flesh. Gods 'eat' souls in a process that first erases all traces of memory and identity form the original in question. Presuming that souls exists IRL and animals have them, the existence of that chicken you just ate is preserved after the death and consumption of its flesh. Not the case of a petitioner who goes through the whole process and becomes one with Bahumut.

3: We do not tell or imply to the chicken or pig that the farm is its eternal reward for being a good pig/chicken as we're preparing it for the slaughter. The Gods... Kind of do. The whole point of an afterlife is th promise of an eternal existence beyond your physical death. The afterlife in standard D&D cosmology ends with your existence being erased before the raw materials of your being are consumed or recycled.

[Peelee]

1: To the best of our knowledge nothing we eat is as intelligent as we are or can speak to us and we understand each other.

In D&D, anyone who can cast Speak With Animals can talk to animals, and both parties can understand the other. Same for Speak with Plants, for that matter. If "we can speak with and understand them" is an issue, then in D&D i can only assume you've only ever played Evil characters or you played characters who refused to eat any plants or animals.

D&D gods can talk to humans just as easily as D&D humans can talk to chickens. Are all D&D humans Evil? All beings at all that survive on food other than magically created, for that matter?

3: We do not tell or imply to the chicken or pig that the farm is its eternal reward for being a good pig/chicken as we're preparing it for the slaughter. The Gods... Kind of do. The whole point of an afterlife is th promise of an eternal existence beyond your physical death.

Citation needed.

[Rater202]

In D&D, anyone who can cast Speak With Animals can talk to animals, and both parties can understand the other. Same for Speak with Plants, for that matter. If "we can speak with and understand them" is an issue, then in D&D i can only assume you've only ever played Evil characters or you played characters who refused to eat any plants or animals.

Not naturally and it doens't make the animals any more able to communicate ideas or ask questions than they already were.

Citation needed.

Afterlife is literally defined as "life/existence after death" depending on the specifc dictionary you're looking at. Thus, the existence of an afterlife is inherently a promise of continuous existence after physical death.

Given that total loss of memory and death of personality are part and parcel of the process that petitioners go through, 'you' cease to exist well before your soul is processed and refined into raw materials for the sustenance of the god/plane.

[Peelee]

Not naturally and it doens't make the animals any more able to communicate ideas or ask questions than they already were.

From the animals' point of view, it's natural enough, and they are able to communicate what they wish. Same as for the humans' point of view, talking to the gods is natural enough and humans are able to communicate what they wish. So if the gods had capabilities above the humans roughly equivalent to how humans have capabilities above chickens, then of course you won't think it odd or think there are any barriers to communication and everyone can understand each other perfectly fine. Because you're the chicken to the god's human, and you're insisting that the humans cannot possibly have greater mental capabilities than we chickens because every so often we can talk to a human perfectly fine.

Afterlife is literally defined as "life/existence after death" depending on the specifc dictionary you're looking at. Thus, the existence of an afterlife is inherently a promise of continuous existence after physical death.

Ok, so either
1.) Nothing in D&D claims it's eternal, and this is only your own insistence that it should be, and when the system doesn't work out the way you think it should, then the system is wrong, not your ideas on how it works. Or
B.) Gods are literally defined as greater than humans, thus the existence of gods is inherently predicated on them being superior to humans as humans are superior to chickens.

Pick one, because either way, your argument is that the gods are bad for doing what you do without being bad. Except what you do is worse because the chicken dies before it would otherwise whereas the gods at least have the decency to let the soul meld in its own time. Imean, really, your entire issue is predicated on the afterlife being one of the biggest scams ever, in a world where people can and do not only talk to the dead but physically visit them in the afterlife, and tell the future, and gain knowledge of secret lore, and somehow nobody has ever discovered this. And if they have, it's not a big deal to them and they accept it perfectly fine but they're all wrong because you know better.

You basically have a human-supremacy ideology where if we do it, it's fine, and if something else does it to us, it's horrible and they're parasites and Evil.

[Razade]

Cause you know, mass soul-eating is kind of an inherently evil thing to do.

Probably ends with Doctor Strange sealing all the Dragon Gods in a pocket dimension outside of space-time, given that dealing with this kind of thing is literally his job.

Yeah, agree with Rater, here. Though they do align themselves with a cosmological force called "Good", all D&D gods do, at the end, live by devouring thousands of souls, thereby erasing conscious beings from existence. All gods are, fundamentally, monsters that need to be stopped, and once they figure that out, one would hope the DC and Marvel heroes would put a stop to them.

Since we're now throwing around [citation needed] can we get a citation on this whole thing that kicked off the discussion? What gods eat souls? It's not the Forgotten Realm gods. It's not the Grayhawk Gods. Are we conflating that souls merge with their plane of existance as the Gods eating people? Because that's not what is happening. I'm sure there are some evil Gods that eat souls but that's ya know, evil Gods. Where, what manual, what book, what version of D&D, are we discussing here with this claim because it's directly countered by at least two other editions and four other settings.

[Rater202]

The "souls merge with th eplne thing" is only one end result o the process, with another being ""the soul, once it's eroded down to just ti's alignment and a gods values, is absorbed by the god.

This is one of the forms of sustenance of the gods, in addition to worship, and absorbing someone's soul for sustenance is um... Eating their soul.

It's been discussed and cited on this very forum multiple times, I'll go digging but even the Giant has cited the idea when clarifying things that happened in-comic.

[Peelee]

The "souls merge with th eplne thing" is only one end result o the process, with another being ""the soul, once it's eroded down to just ti's alignment and a gods values, is absorbed by the god.

This is one of the forms of sustenance of the gods, in addition to worship, and absorbing someone's soul for sustenance is um... Eating their soul.

It's been discussed and cited on this very forum multiple times, I'll go digging but even the Giant has cited the idea when clarifying things that happened in-comic.

He has indeed. He's also characterized humans as being akin to cockroaches compared to the gods.

So, again, the two choices are:
A.) Your view on eternal souls is wrong, souls are not eternal, and you are upset because you think they should be, or
2.) Your view eternal souls is right, but gods are above humans as humans are above chickens, and it is not Evil (just as humans eating chickens is not evil).

Again, pick whichever one you want, Either way, your objection is predicated on you being supreme despite that you are the metaphorical chicken. It's a "rules for thee but not for me" mentality. Humans can do it to lesser species but greater species can't do it to us. It's not ethically consistent.

Also, you're completely entrenched in this and I'm not going to change your mind, so feel free to have the last word.

[Rater202]

Your mistake is assuming that th eGods being as far beyond humans as humans are beyond roaches is 1: Referring to sapience (the very fact that Thor and Durokon can have a conversation and understand each other without outside supernatural aid or one's intelligence being altered to match the other disproves this) or 2: Mral compelity(and the fact that Thor left out some major details when explaining the afterlife and felt compelled to deny that the material plane was just a soul farm suggests that, at least in the Giant's version, the Gods know they don't hold a high ground) and not just a factor of size and raw power.

I can acknowledge that the gods are "beyond" humans and still feel the need to condemn them for their treatment of mortals. Much the same way I condemn say, the vampires in Twilight(and by extension Stephanie Meyer) for thinking that it's okay to eat humans if you're stronger, smarter, or more beautiful than humans.

And regardless, even if I have some of the details off... In a case where Gos from D&D end up in Marvel or DC, the callous way that they treat mortal souls would, in fact, put them on the **** lists of the heroes and if any of them tried to justify it the way you are attempting to justify it right now, as I previously stated, someone like Thor would attempt to kill them all on principle.

[Eldan]

Unless you can cite the exact passage in canonical DnD where Gods are explicitly stated to be a level of awareness above sapience specifically comparable specifically to animals and details how that works, No. The metaphor has to be intentional and unambiguous.

The differences between humans and other animals are extremely gradual. With recent advances in cognitive and behavioural science, I really can not think of many qualitative differences anymore. Almost anything a human can do, a corvid, parrot, monkey, dolphin or rat can too, though usually not as well, and they lack hands quite as dextrous as hours to use it.

As for Gods in D&D, even the dumbest God has intelligence orders of magnitude above hours. By second and third edition books at least, every god has perfect precognition weeks ahead where their portfolio is concerned, for example, and they can casually cast reality-rearranging epic magic and recall entire libraries of facts.

So, I'm quite comfortable to say that at least the higher D&D gods are easily as far above us in cognition as we are above, say, Alex the Grey Parrot. A God, with their intelligence 30+, plane-wide awareness of facts and weeks of foreknowledge talking to a human is really not that much difference than a human having a conversation with a grey parrot about shapes and colours.

[Eldan]

Also your position:
If you don't want to defend things others said, then don't jump on their bandwagons. You put yourself in the position of defending what Rater said, it's hardly unfair to press you on that.

Excuse me? I was asleep or commuting for the last twelve hours. How have I failed to defend my position? Excuse me for being asleep at 3am while you attack my position?

I consider gods devouring human souls ethically wrong. I also consider humans eating animals ethically wrong, though sometimes unavoidable. Gods are arguably worse, because humans at least leave animal souls intact, though of course souls don't exist in our reality.

[Eldan]

Since we're now throwing around [citation needed] can we get a citation on this whole thing that kicked off the discussion? What gods eat souls? It's not the Forgotten Realm gods. It's not the Grayhawk Gods. Are we conflating that souls merge with their plane of existance as the Gods eating people? Because that's not what is happening. I'm sure there are some evil Gods that eat souls but that's ya know, evil Gods. Where, what manual, what book, what version of D&D, are we discussing here with this claim because it's directly countered by at least two other editions and four other settings.

The souls worshipping gods specifically merge not with the plane, but with the god's domain, and the god's domain is part of the god's essence.

[Errorname]

Order of the Stick absolutely portrays what the gods are doing as something akin to a farm, and Durkon is clearly a little saddened by the revelation that his people are ultimately just livestock to the gods. The story's written by a vegetarian, so I don't see much hypocrisy in being mad about being treated like farm animals, but even if you aren't a vegetarian, I don't think anyone expects the Gazelle to be grateful for the Lion. This is not a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved parties, farming and hunting are predatory behaviours. Something that wants to eat you might not be evil, but that doesn't mean you should just accept that it's going to and be grateful for your fate.

I don't know how well that applies to the Forgotten Realms as a setting. I'm not the biggest fan and am not super deep into the lore, and from what I recall the souls of dead mortals generally become things? Like there's the Protection Racket of "better worship someone so you don't get trapped in the wall of eternal torments" but my understanding is that most mortal souls end up getting used to create new outsiders.

[Lord Raziere]

Excuse me? I was asleep or commuting for the last twelve hours. How have I failed to defend my position? Excuse me for being asleep at 3am while you attack my position?

I consider gods devouring human souls ethically wrong. I also consider humans eating animals ethically wrong, though sometimes unavoidable. Gods are arguably worse, because humans at least leave animal souls intact, though of course souls don't exist in our reality.

I apologize for apparently breaking whatever weird magical debate etiquette this forum runs on that no one explains to me, to make people somehow confuse you for me (which I am not particularly happy about, even with the apology) and thus make you come under fire like that.

[Eldan]

Oh. Well, that's weird. I suppose I should read the entire thread before hip-firing annoyance, too.

[Anymage]

According to Thor, souls "just sort of slowly power the outer planes and the afterlives over time". This and The Giant's description sound like souls fading into the planes is a property of the planes themselves instead of something the gods are imposing, and would be something that would still happen even if all the gods were dead. It might not be the ideal afterlife if you're looking forward to a persistent youness that goes on forever, but that's just the nature of the planes instead of something externally imposed. Good stickverse gods are not eating you.

The Wall of the Faithless is a mess, but that's one setting and it's widely recognized as accidental cosmic horror.

Aside from The Wall, I'm curious what settings exist where gods eat the souls of their followers, whether actively or just by hastening the souls' dissolution, and are still presented by the books as Good. Otherwise I'm not sure how much I can actually call default D&D gods all a bunch of soul eating jerkwads.

[Peelee]

I consider gods devouring human souls ethically wrong. I also consider humans eating animals ethically wrong

Then you're ethically consistent and i have no objection!

Gods are arguably worse, because humans at least leave animal souls intact, though of course souls don't exist in our reality.

I would say humans are arguably worse, since the gods don't actively take the soul and instead just let it feed them in its own time of seemingly natural decay, whereas humans cull the livestock as needed. Also, if we want to use OotS as a measure (which i generally have no objection to because minute-to-minute exacting rules adherence aside, it's written by someone who authored D&D sourcebooks and thus is likely quite in tune with what is probably the case), then we also know that generally all creatures, even those who get to Good afterlives, prefer life to the afterlife. So early culling of life vs natural absorption of afterlife doesn't carry any issues for me.

[Eldan]

In which case, Xykon's position of "I will kill everyone if I have to, just to live forever", is clearly the only justified position, then

[Peelee]

In which case, Xykon's position of "I will kill everyone if I have to, just to live forever", is clearly the only justified position, then

Only for those obsessed with existing forever. As i told Rater, either the D&D worlds rely on a massive conspiracy theory that nobody has ever been able to figure out despite having the direct tools to do so, or they know the arrangement and for the most part don't care.

I would assume not the massive-conspiracy-theory-that-literally-everyone-ever-is-too-stupid-to-figure-out-and-expose explanation, but that's just me.

[Mordar]

What is the functional definition of sapience for this discussion? Most I find (OED, MW) imply a scalar *and* a binary (self awareness). Pretty sure chickens are self-aware. Cows and pigs are, for sure. As such, I have to assume the binary definition is not the one in use.

I liked Marvel's presentation of Thor et al and Hercules better when they were, well, mythologically divine. I think the transition to "Nope, just aliens!" while understandable was a disappointment. As such, I think the dragon divinities (I didn't know there were so many!) would be treated in the same fashion...but my driving question is how would this apply absent actual dragons in the comic universe?

The very few I've seen are treated as sort of celestial or spiritual already, so who are these gods served by/serving? Absent that, aren't they just monsters/aliens?

- M

[Peelee]

What is the functional definition of sapience for this discussion? Most I find (OED, MW) imply a scalar *and* a binary (self awareness). Pretty sure chickens are self-aware. Cows and pigs are, for sure. As such, I have to assume the binary definition is not the one in use.

I liked Marvel's presentation of Thor et al and Hercules better when they were, well, mythologically divine. I think the transition to "Nope, just aliens!" while understandable was a disappointment. As such, I think the dragon divinities (I didn't know there were so many!) would be treated in the same fashion...but my driving question is how would this apply absent actual dragons in the comic universe?

The very few I've seen are treated as sort of celestial or spiritual already, so who are these gods served by/serving? Absent that, aren't they just monsters/aliens?

- M

That's a good question! Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly fine with taking OotS as guide or example, as has already been done here. We have Thor explicitly talking about "mortal limitations" and Minrah and Durkon not being able to understand Thor without him severely simplifying by their own request. And, of course, the author's comments comparing mortals to termites or dust mites (not cockroaches, i apologize for misremembering).

Each of those links alone isnt hard proof, but taken together they certainly indicate that the gods are clearly superior to mortals in much the same way humans are superior to chickens.

If, of course, we want to use OotS as an example.

[InvisibleBison]

Each of those links alone isnt hard proof, but taken together they certainly indicate that the gods are clearly superior to mortals in much the same way humans are superior to chickens.

No, they don't. The first link establishes that Thor has a flawless memory, and other unstated abilities that mortals lack. The second link establishes that Durkon and Minrah are not well-educated about how gods work (note that they're confused by the jargon, not the concepts). The third link uses the exact analogy whose use you are trying to justify. Only the first link bears any sort of resemblance to support for your position, and it's pretty weak. Adding together a weak piece of evidence, a non sequitur, and an instance of circular reasoning does not result in any sort of indication that your position is correct.

[hamishspence]

What is the functional definition of sapience for this discussion? Most I find (OED, MW) imply a scalar *and* a binary (self awareness). Pretty sure chickens are self-aware. Cows and pigs are, for sure. As such, I have to assume the binary definition is not the one in use.

I like the Little Fuzzy discussion of sapience as distinct from animal intelligence:

Not just "using tools" or even "making tools" but "making tools to make tools with" like saws.
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-15-of-86/


Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-75-of-86/


The ability to symbolise (as opposed to just signalling), generalise, think abstractly, associate, and so on.

[Peelee]

No, they don't. The first link establishes that Thor has a flawless memory, and other unstated abilities that mortals lack. The second link establishes that Durkon and Minrah are not well-educated about how gods work (note that they're confused by the jargon, not the concepts). The third link uses the exact analogy whose use you are trying to justify. Only the first link bears any sort of resemblance to support for your position, and it's pretty weak. Adding together a weak piece of evidence, a non sequitur, and an instance of circular reasoning does not result in any sort of indication that your position is correct.

Again, you're the chicken in this scenario. If you lack the capability for abstract thought, then no explaining of what abstract thought is will make sense to the chicken. If you are not a god, then no amount of explaining godly mental abilities mortals innately lack will make sense. Examples like those listed are the best you'll get.

And also, what do you think circular reasoning is? I made a claim, someone else brought up Order of the Stick, and i pointed out "hey the OotS writer makes a shockingly similar comparison" (and, if anything, my claim is much more generous to mortals). That's not circular reasoning at all.

[Mordar]

I like the Little Fuzzy discussion of sapience as distinct from animal intelligence:

Spoiler: For brevity

Show

Not just "using tools" or even "making tools" but "making tools to make tools with" like saws.
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-15-of-86/


Mallin described difference between conscious and unconscious thought pretty well later in the trial:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-71-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-72-of-86/

and Ybarra provided a summary of sapience in general:

http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-74-of-86/
http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/...-day-75-of-86/

The ability to symbolise (as opposed to just signalling), generalise, think abstractly, associate, and so on.

Cannot review right now...but does this support scalar or binary?

Thanks!

- M

[hamishspence]

It takes the approach of a binary - either an entity thinks consciously by habit, or it doesn't - either an entity generalises, by default, or it doesn't.


In D&D rules, all sapient beings are INT 3 minimum, all "animal intelligence" beings are INT 2 or less.

That said, even sapient beings are characterised as thinking consciously only about 10% of the time and unconsciously 90% of the time - but the conscious thought is still considered to be "by habit".

[Rater202]

Then you're ethically consistent and i have no objection!


I would say humans are arguably worse, since the gods don't actively take the soul and instead just let it feed them in its own time of seemingly natural decay, whereas humans cull the livestock as needed. Also, if we want to use OotS as a measure (which i generally have no objection to because minute-to-minute exacting rules adherence aside, it's written by someone who authored D&D sourcebooks and thus is likely quite in tune with what is probably the case), then we also know that generally all creatures, even those who get to Good afterlives, prefer life to the afterlife. So early culling of life vs natural absorption of afterlife doesn't carry any issues for me.

In the Forgotten Realms at least, if the FR wiki is accurate, the process of becoming a petitioner isn't automatic. You don't naturally go to the Outerplanes, either. There's a specific realm of the dead and the gods have worked out a system to claim the souls of their worshipers with very lax definitions of "worshiper" with it being noted than many gods will go out of their way to find loopholes in order to get a claim on souls that would otherwise go unclaimed or "rightfully belong" to another god.

the gods or their representatives then have to physically travel to the Fuge Plane and manually transport the souls they've claimed to their respective planes/god realms where the soul in question is first transformed into a petitioner.

It's apparently specifically the process of becoming a petitioner that starts the process of "soul decay" given that being a petitioner is what causes you to unable to be resurrected after a certain amount of time has passed. And given that you don't automatically become a petitioner, that mans that it's not a natural process but something that the gods are doing on purpose.

Now that's only one setting, of course, but...

[hamishspence]

Celestials and fiends are usually promoted from the ranks of the petitioners (though some were never mortal souls in the first place) - so a petitioner isn't automatically going to be absorbed into their deity or their plane.


And while most souls within a deity's domain will be petitioners, not all will. Deity domains don't necessarily occupy the entirety of an Outer Plane either - so, like Roy in Celestia, you could have "souls that aren't petitioners" - a Lantern Archon is a bottom-rank petitioner - but Roy is not one himself when dead, possibly because he's not strongly devoted to any particular deity or similar patron.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/di...tm#petitioners

Petitioners
Some spirits demonstrate their devotion to their deity by traveling to the deity’s home plane. Those that survive the journey across the planes become servants of their deity. While a few may remain disembodied spirits, most become petitioners through the divine will of their patron deity.

Become One with The Plane: The vast majority of souls in the afterlife silently experience their final destination, whether it's a place of great beauty such as Elysium or a place of mad cruelty such as The Abyss. As time passes, they become more like the plane, taking on its qualities and caring less about their time among the living. At some point they cease to have an independent existence and become one with the fabric of the plane itself. Essentially, souls eventually become abstract quanta of the good, evil, law, chaos, or neutrality they lived with when alive.

This process is why every rich individual in the D&D world doesn't come back from the dead repeatedly. Whether they're good or evil, most souls find resonance in the afterlife - they have a sense that they are where they're supposed to be. Only souls with strong force of personality and unfinished business among the living (which includes many adventuring PCs) respond to the call of a raise dead or resurrection spell.

Get A New Body: Some individual souls come to the attention of the gods and powerful outsiders that inhabit the planes, either because the souls were exceptionally good or wicked in life or because the deity sees great potential in an otherwise unremarkable soul. These souls are granted new bodies and become outsiders called petitioners. Most petitioners are 2 Hit Dice outsiders with abilities similar to those of the outsiders that inhabit their particular plane. Lemure devils and dretch demons are typical petitioners, for example. Petitioners serve gods or outsiders that created them; many are promised promotion to more powerful forms (whether demonic or angelic) if they serve well. In this way, the deities replenish the ranks of their hosts.

[Rater202]

Celestials and fiends are usually promoted from the ranks of the petitioners (though some were never mortal souls in the first place) - so a petitioner isn't automatically going to be absorbed into their deity or their plane.

That's not much better given that there's no continuity between you and the outside made from he raw materials of your soul and that your soul still needs to be rendered down into raw materials first.

You are still denied the existence after death that is implicitly promised by the very existence of an afterlife.