# New Design and Development: Pantheon



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 30, 2007)

A New Design and Development: Pantheon by James Wyatt. Corellon, Bahamut and Bane are in the PHB.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Bane is a terrible name, whether for a Batman villain or for a god.



			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> 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.



I figured that out about 30 seconds after Heironeous was introduced in the Sorcerer's Scroll. Bahamut has tons more flavor than Paladingod the Paladin God ever did. Having a brother isn't flavor.


----------



## Masquerade (Oct 30, 2007)

> 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.



This is my favorite part. One step toward making new races easier to introduce.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 30, 2007)

Meh, what's wrong with Bane?  It gets the point across.  Then again, I'm not a Realms follower, so, it doesn't come with any baggage for me.  Isn't he the one that got whacked in the Time of Troubles?


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meh, what's wrong with Bane?  It gets the point across.  Then again, I'm not a Realms follower, so, it doesn't come with any baggage for me.  Isn't he the one that got whacked in the Time of Troubles?



Yeah. You can't keep a good god dead.

And when I say good, I mean bad.  So bad, it's good.  For plot hooks.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 30, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> This is my favorite part. One step toward making new races easier to introduce.



Not to mention we no longer have the "Dwarven god of just war" and the "Human god of just war" and the "Gnomish god of humorous war machines" etc. etc. absurd starting condition.

I much prefer Corellon as a "King of All Fey."  

_Hail! my Lord Oberon._


----------



## Miles Pilitus (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meh, what's wrong with Bane?  It gets the point across.  Then again, I'm not a Realms follower, so, it doesn't come with any baggage for me.  Isn't he the one that got whacked in the Time of Troubles?



He got better.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 30, 2007)

Design & Development said:
			
		

> 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.




  Anyone want to bet that they were in this phase of design when they talked about use of elements like Thor back at GenCon, and later on decided to trim things back to a unified 'core' pantheon?


----------



## Hairfoot (Oct 30, 2007)

I can't migrate my account.  Looks like Hairfoot's days of posting at the wizboards are over!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meh, what's wrong with Bane?  It gets the point across.



So would Ebil Badass, but I don't like that name either.

The professional settings should have names better than those thought up by 12 year old DMs.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 30, 2007)

> *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.



Okay, the elf/eladrin fighting the death knight is most likely a paladin of Bahamut.


----------



## Roman (Oct 30, 2007)

I like what I am hearing on this one and I mean everything I am reading in this article. Ultimately, I will most likely end up creating and using my own gods, as I usually do, but it still sounds nice.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 30, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Anyone want to bet that they were in this phase of design when they talked about use of elements like Thor back at GenCon, and later on decided to trim things back to a unified 'core' pantheon?




Sounds likely. I noticed there weren't any real world gods in the article.

The thing didn't I notice was any goddesses. Are they all bachelors gay, or are there some women around?

(Idea: there's only one goddess. All the men "compete for her favours". ie, they're her harem. I don't think Wizards will go that way though...))


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

I always thought Heironeous meant the quality of being Heironic.


Hong "more Heironic than you" Ooi


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 30, 2007)

It's alright, but I'd prefer getting some more mythological guys -- Thor instead of Kord, Oberon instead of Corellon, Set for yuan-ti/nagas, etc, etc.

Bahamut I do like, though he's a mythological figure as well (albeit one significantly changed from his original Arabic roots).


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 30, 2007)

> 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.



I *really* hope this doesn't mean that specific gods are hard-coded into the rules somehow.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm probably going to create my own pantheon, so it doesn't particularly matter, but whenever I will say the word 'Bane,' I will do it with a raspy accent, as though I'd been a smoker all my life. If you want to try it yourself, say 'Bane' while pretending you're Solid Snake or Wolverine.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

I pronounce it Bäne. I am so metal.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 30, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> It's alright, but I'd prefer getting some more mythological guys -- Thor instead of Kord, Oberon instead of Corellon, Set for yuan-ti/nagas, etc, etc.



Set is not a snake god! >_<


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I *really* hope this doesn't mean that specific gods are hard-coded into the rules somehow.




Nah, I think the art department didn't want "Insert Symbol Here" blocks on their paladin's chests....


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I *really* hope this doesn't mean that specific gods are hard-coded into the rules somehow.




  Probably only about as much as they're hard-coded into 3E, I'd guess.  Besides, what I've seen of 4E feels broader than 3E did.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 30, 2007)

> 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?






> 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.




We were like, we can have cake.... and eat it too!

If they were going to go for the revisions, and the planes and great wheel are already changed, go all the way. Stop with the half hearted measures.

How it reads to me.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> We were like, we can have cake.... and eat it too!
> 
> If they were going to go for the revisions, and the planes and great wheel are already changed, go all the way. Stop with the half hearted measures.
> 
> How it reads to me.



 If they change it a lot, I will complain. If they change it a little, I will complain.

How it reads to me.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Meh, what's wrong with Bane?  It gets the point across.  Then again, I'm not a Realms follower, so, it doesn't come with any baggage for me.




Agreed.  It would be hard to find someone who likes the Realms less than me, but I have no heartburn with grabbing Bane for the PHB.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Could someone post the article for those of us who can't get to it?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 30, 2007)

I think I'd rather have Hextor than Bane.   

Given the sweeping revisions (of which I am a fan) the comment that 'Hextor makes no sense without Heironious' holds no merit as that part could be revised as well.
So, a non-evil society engaged in prolonged war will increase its worship of Bane? :\ 

Also, no mention of Tiamat. I think we already got confirmation of her presence in another article.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Could someone post the article for those of us who can't get to it?




Here you go:




			
				WOTC said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Oct 30, 2007)

Dangit. Too slow.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I think I'd rather have Hextor than Bane.
> 
> Given the sweeping revisions (of which I am a fan) the comment that 'Hextor makes no sense without Heironious' holds no merit as that part could be revised as well.
> So, a non-evil society engaged in prolonged war will increase its worship of Bane? :\
> ...



Well, the defining mark of Hextor is that he's the evil brother of Heironeous. Sure, he's the god of evil and tyranny and related bad stuff, but there's plenty of those gods to choose from. So if you remove Heironeous, there's no longer any reason to choose Hextor over anyone else.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Zehir and Torog sound very Gygaxian. Anyone we know named Gorot? Rihez?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I always thought Heironeous meant the quality of being Heironic.



I've always just called him "Erroneous" and considered him a useless god.

I like what I've read about the new pantheon so far. Bahamut is much cooler than "Paladingod the Paladin god."


----------



## grimslade (Oct 30, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Sounds likely. I noticed there weren't any real world gods in the article.
> 
> The thing didn't I notice was any goddesses. Are they all bachelors gay, or are there some women around?
> 
> (Idea: there's only one goddess. All the men "compete for her favours". ie, they're her harem. I don't think Wizards will go that way though...))




The new pantheon are The Smurfs?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I *really* hope this doesn't mean that specific gods are hard-coded into the rules somehow.



Read the next few sentences after the portion you quoted. The art director was worried that they'd just end up with generic EEEEEEEEEVIL temples in the art and GOOOOOOOOOOOD GUY heroes.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Oct 30, 2007)

I do like the sound of this article, and I really like the idea of Bahamut as god of all Paladins, but I am wondering one thing... Who on earth are Zehir and Torog, and why are their names so bland? Ok, Zehir isn't that bad, but Torog is not a very good name for anything, especially a deity.

I just hope that this pantheon makes some kind of great cosmological sense as a unified pantheon, but considering this is D&D I am talking about, I doubt it will. Oh well. I like homebrewing stuff anyways.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> Set is not a snake god! >_<




Yeah, well, he's a snake god in Conan, and Conan could kick Egyptian mythology's ass.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I do like the sound of this article, and I really like the idea of Bahamut as god of all Paladins, but I am wondering one thing... Who on earth are Zehir and Torog, and why are their names so bland? Ok, Zehir isn't that bad, but Torog is not a very good name for anything, especially a deity.




Heresy! Next you'll be saying that Tenser is a bad name. Or, heaven forfend, Zuggtmoy.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, the defining mark of Hextor is that he's the evil brother of Heironeous. Sure, he's the god of evil and tyranny and related bad stuff, but there's plenty of those gods to choose from. So if you remove Heironeous, there's no longer any reason to choose Hextor over anyone else.




I guess I like the name Hextor better.
And Blood Golems!

New poll idea: Tyrannical God Name: Bane or Hextor!
(Incoming! Take cover!)


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> The thing didn't I notice was any goddesses. Are they all bachelors gay, or are there some women around?



I'm certain we'll have a Goddess of Love/Fertility/Chainmail Bikinis. Don't think there's a pantheon that lacks it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Other evil gods don't like blood or golems?


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> If they change it a lot, I will complain. If they change it a little, I will complain.
> 
> How it reads to me.



Oh snap.

I'm iffy on Bane name-wise (it's a little bland), but I'm down with his portfolio. I've always thought the FR pantheon was much more flavorful than Greyhawk's. And I like the idea of broadening the gods' appeal beyond race.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 30, 2007)

I prefer Heironeous to Bahamut. For all that he appears in final fantasy I, to me he's still a big silvery dragon. But then, I wasn't a big fan of the above mentioned Prestige class, so maybe he's not meant for me.


----------



## Valiantheart (Oct 30, 2007)

Reaper Steve said:
			
		

> I guess I like the name Hextor better.
> And Blood Golems!
> 
> New poll idea: Tyrannical God Name: Bane or Hextor!
> (Incoming! Take cover!)





Banextor!












God that sounds like a He-Man villain...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 30, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> This is my favorite part. One step toward making new races easier to introduce.



Hear Hear, I can't stand 'racial pantheons' and esp the 3E rule that you have to be an elf to be a cleric of an 'elf god' but not vice versa for all the other (human?) gods left


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 30, 2007)

I like racial gods. Not because I think races should be pigeonholed, but simply because it seems logical there would be a few.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hear Hear, I can't stand 'racial pantheons' and esp the 3E rule that you have to be an elf to be a cleric of an 'elf god' but not vice versa for all the other (human?) gods left




I think it's fine for the "default" game, as it is indeed better than a bunch of placeholder names, but for a developed campaign world, it really doesn't make sense. In real life, human beings had a hard enough time agreeing on religions and reducing pantheons, so having honest-to-goodness different races have different pantheons makes much more sense to me. Even Dragonlance in its later source material came up with different names and aspects for different peoples to worship the same set of gods, because one pantheon known to all peoples and races by the same names, over thousands of years, really stretches a sense of suspension of disbelief too far for me.

Now, as for the info on Bane being a "default" deity? YES! WOOHOO! My gaming group will be happy to hear that.  (I'm playing a Crusader of Bane in an FR game even now.)


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, he's a snake god in Conan, and Conan could kick Egyptian mythology's ass.



 QFT.

Set is an excellent snake god because people tend to think he is a snake god. Historical accuracy can kiss my Druid's Wildshape.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DandD (Oct 30, 2007)

Well, there's a difference between Set, and Seth.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Set is an excellent snake god because people tend to think he is a snake god. Historical accuracy can kiss my Druid's Wildshape.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Game, set, match.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well, there's a difference between Set, and Seth.



Usually because whenever I hear the name "Seth", I think a guy who's got tattoos and wants to crash on my couch, or someone who makes really funny tv shows.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Usually because whenever I hear the name "Seth", I think a guy who's got tattoos and wants to crash on my couch, or someone who makes really funny tv shows.




I seem to remember some story about Conan defeating Seth Green.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I think it's fine for the "default" game, as it is indeed better than a bunch of placeholder names, but for a developed campaign world, it really doesn't make sense. In real life, human beings had a hard enough time agreeing on religions and reducing pantheons, so having honest-to-goodness different races have different pantheons makes much more sense to me. Even Dragonlance in its later source material came up with different names and aspects for different peoples to worship the same set of gods, because one pantheon known to all peoples and races by the same names, over thousands of years, really stretches a sense of suspension of disbelief too far for me.




To me it depends on whether the gods have an existence independent of their worshippers. 

If there is only one pantheon of real gods that answers prayers then it makes sense that most people would call them the same names. 

Cleric: "Mighty Zeus heed my pra..."
God: "That's Dyeus Pitar, heretic! ZAP!"

After all, in D&D-land the most powerful priests can go and meet their gods.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 30, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> To me it depends on whether the gods have an existence independent of their worshippers.
> 
> If there is only one pantheon of real gods that answers prayers then it makes sense that most people would call them the same names.
> 
> ...




Oh, any priest can go do that. It's the return trip that's the bitch.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 30, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I seem to remember some story about Conan defeating Seth Green.



It was a full moon.


----------



## DandD (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Usually because whenever I hear the name "Seth", I think a guy who's got tattoos and wants to crash on my couch, or someone who makes really funny tv shows.



Of course. Many ancient names that were once meant for gods and such from before are now used as normal names today, because we don't feel that much religiously rooted to it anymore. 
After all, mexican people do use the name Jesus as their first names too, as do some people in Spain. 

However, for the pulp fiction D&D-implied setting, the dark gods of snake taken out from Conan, Set, is absolutely viable, compared to the evil god of the desert, strenght and earthquakes, Seth.


----------



## Kez Darksun (Oct 30, 2007)

This reveal is the one I've liked the least.  To me, Bahamut will always be a draconic deity, and not one worshipped by mortals.  As far as Bane goes, I'm not especially opposed to the idea, I just hate having to sacrifice Hextor & Heironeous to see them replaced by Bane & Bahamut.  I never really read into the Greyhawk lore to know a ton about the brothers H, but my experiences in a campaign with my character coming to follow Heironius in remembrance of fellow soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save him dying when the keep they were occupying was overrun, made me rather partial to Heironius.  Sure, I can adapt to the changes, but it just wont feel the same to me.  

As far as the racial gods being less concentrated on the races, and their influence broadened a bit more, I'm not entirely thrilled with that, but hopefully there still will eventually be pantheons released for the various races.  One thing I enjoyed about the previous editions was that each race eventually had their own deities, and and weren't just having to worship the human deities.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> compared to the evil god of the dessert, strenght and earthquakes, Seth.



I knew desserts were fattening, but EVIL? 

Aw man.


----------



## Gloombunny (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Set is an excellent snake god because people tend to think he is a snake god. Historical accuracy can kiss my Druid's Wildshape.



I'm just saying, it's amusing to see someone asking for more historical gods instead of fictional ones, and then mentioning snake-Set as an example of the former. ^_^


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> To me it depends on whether the gods have an existence independent of their worshippers.
> 
> If there is only one pantheon of real gods that answers prayers then it makes sense that most people would call them the same names.
> 
> ...




Are a campaign's gods really going to go around zapping people who are so much as mispronouncing their names? I haven't seen one yet that does, and hopefully not. If they care that much, there probably won't be any imbalance of good or evil for mortals to take care of, either -- the gods will take care of the whole thing.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Are a campaign's gods really going to go around zapping people who are so much as mispronouncing their names?



Well, I think Zeus would want people to pronounce their baby daddy's name correctly. You take the time to appear as a golden shower to someone, the least they can do is get it right when they cry your name out.

I just hope all the Gods are interesting. I open my 3e PHB and it's just "Yawn". No more Jeff, God of Biscuits or Simon god of hair-dos.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 30, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> After all, mexican people do use the name Jesus as their first names too, as do some people in Spain.




And the USA. Joshua is another form (Jesus is the Greek version).


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, it's amusing to see someone asking for more historical gods instead of fictional ones, and then mentioning snake-Set as an example of the former. ^_^



 That is an excellent point.

(Wait, you mean Conan isn't from the Bible?!)

Hyborians 3:14, -- N


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> (Wait, you mean Conan isn't from the Bible?!)
> 
> Hyborians 3:14, -- N



And Lo, he did come unto them with his axe. He cleaveth their false idol the big ass snake guy. And he did ravish their scantily clad women. And it was good.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

"Conan, what is best in life?"

"To slay the enemies of the LORD; to see them driven from the land of Canaan; and to hear the lamentation of their false idols."

Hyborians 4:20, -- N


----------



## spunky_mutters (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm pretty ambivalent about these. I like Bane more than Bahamut, but neither very much. They're fine for their roles, though. I'm more interested in how they will fill out the pantheon, though. About the only new god from 3e that I can say I liked was Morning Glory, but I don't see her being broad enough for PHB inclusion.


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, it's amusing to see someone asking for more historical gods instead of fictional ones, and then mentioning snake-Set as an example of the former. ^_^




replace historical with "fantasy pop culture"


----------



## The Human Target (Oct 30, 2007)

It all looks awesome to me.

Oh, and I love Bane so much it hurts.

So that news is just freaking amazing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Hear Hear, I can't stand 'racial pantheons' and esp the 3E rule that you have to be an elf to be a cleric of an 'elf god' but not vice versa for all the other (human?) gods left



That's not a rule. You just have an ass for a DM.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> If there is only one pantheon of real gods that answers prayers then it makes sense that most people would call them the same names.



Yes, because millennia of myth and religion have never suggested that the gods are ever anything other than 100 percent rational.


----------



## shadewest (Oct 30, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> Oh, and I love Bane so much it hurts.




And yet you display the symbol of Cyric as your avatar.  Be careful.  Both of those gods seem the jealous type.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Are a campaign's gods really going to go around zapping people who are so much as mispronouncing their names? I haven't seen one yet that does, and hopefully not. If they care that much, there probably won't be any imbalance of good or evil for mortals to take care of, either -- the gods will take care of the whole thing.



Just to supplement what Henry said, but in history _many_ if not all deities had multiple names and epitaphs by which they were called and there are still many scholarly battles as to whether or not certain deities mentioned were distinctive or aspects of other deities.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> That's not a rule. You just have an ass for a DM.



 ? You do have to be an elf to be a cleric of an elf god.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 30, 2007)

I do not use the D&D pantheon (I've got my own: one good god and one evil one). However, I say keep the stench of FR out of core D&D. Also, I prefer Heironeous to Bahamut.


----------



## hong (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I think it's fine for the "default" game, as it is indeed better than a bunch of placeholder names, but for a developed campaign world, it really doesn't make sense. In real life, human beings had a hard enough time agreeing on religions and reducing pantheons, so having honest-to-goodness different races have different pantheons makes much more sense to me. Even Dragonlance in its later source material came up with different names and aspects for different peoples to worship the same set of gods, because one pantheon known to all peoples and races by the same names, over thousands of years, really stretches a sense of suspension of disbelief too far for me.




Exactly. Dragonlance --> same underlying god, but with different names. As opposed to lots and lots of different gods.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. Dragonlance --> same underlying god, but with different names. As opposed to lots and lots of different gods.




As it should be. Even vanilla Kalamar got that one right.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 30, 2007)

> 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.



I like this, too. 
People adopting some God of another exotic pantheon was commonplace in history (eg : Isis; Mithra in Rome).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ? You do have to be an elf to be a cleric of an elf god.



Weird. My brain filtered that rule out, it's so stupid. I just went and checked the PHB, and sure enough, there the rule is, tucked into the default pantheon text.

Thanks, brain!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 30, 2007)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> I'm just saying, it's amusing to see someone asking for more historical gods instead of fictional ones, and then mentioning snake-Set as an example of the former. ^_^




Yeah, like another poster said, "fantasy pop culture" would be a far better term -- including well-known deities that most fantasy readers are likely to have some familiarity with doesn't sound like a terrible idea. Pairing them works well too, so that clerics always have another religion to hate on.

Osiris/Set, Thor/Loki(or Thrym, perhaps), Bahamut/Tiamat, Pelor/Vecna(or Nerull, but Vecna is cooler) -- it's a good way to give DMs easy plothooks.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> No more Jeff, God of Biscuits or Simon god of hair-dos.



Take an "executive transvestite" point, there.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Osiris/Set, Thor/Loki(or Thrym, perhaps), Bahamut/Tiamat, Pelor/Vecna(or Nerull, but Vecna is cooler) -- it's a good way to give DMs easy plothooks.



*Thor/Thrym* - "You stole my name!" -- "NO YOU STOLE MINE!"
*Bahamut/Tiamat* - "You gave me a hickey!" -- "YOU GAVE ME FIVE HICKIES!"

Yeah, there's some potential there. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 30, 2007)

I've never used default pantheons, although I've played in some games that have used them.

I'm SO glad to see the end of Heironymawhatcit (most unpronounceable battlecry), and Hextor just sounded like a 'He Man' villain. "Oh, he's a bad guy, so we'll use Hex. That's too short. Well I liked the name of Skeletor, why don't we tack -tor on the end? That's fine. Hex-tor" Yuck.

Bane works for me (I've got no idea about FR background), but it is short and not campy.

Bahamut is a great example for a default paladin god (although we pretty much know that there are going to be paladins of other gods too, right?)

Cheers


----------



## delericho (Oct 30, 2007)

Not keen on Bane. I have in the past run several games of varying length using the core pantheon. That works fine, since they're currently all Greyhawk gods. However, if you switch out a few of the Greyhawk gods for a couple of Forgotten Realms gods, maybe an Eberron god or two, and Thor, you get a mess that I can't use for that purpose. The admixture is jarring to me, and my FR-phile player is bound to comment on it at length. In short, it is sufficient distraction from the game that I will have to homebrew.

It's not a big issue, since I was planning on homebrewing anyway, but I would have preferred something that could be used straight from the books. I wish they had either stuck with the existing pantheon, or adopt the FR gods wholesale, or created an all-new pantheon that didn't reuse names from multiple settings.


----------



## Vigilance (Oct 30, 2007)

Wow, it's a 4e thread that's like, positive, and funny and readable.

This is almost approaching the old ENW I loved and can barely remember. 

AWESOME!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm just gonna finish filing the serial numbers and call Bahamut Paladine.  

And Bane rocks.  Best FR God ever.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 30, 2007)

I haven't used 'racial pantheons' in my home game since 2002.

More evidence that 4e is my house rules document re-written by smart people.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Oct 30, 2007)

I really like this move to a more diversified template for a world mytholgy. I'm glad they are finally fixing the clunky slapdash method of religion-to-race of previous versions. It always struck me odd that there was all this superfluous domain coverage... and worse, a sort of divine apartheid.

—————

They are finally accepting that in D&D, were the gods _actually exist_, using our real-world structure—a multitude of unrelated, humanocentric, artificially created, culture-based pantheons—fails to satisfy any real scrutiny.

In the real world, the gods (assuming they actually do exist) don't commune with their preists or grant them spells, so we've been free to create them in our own image based on our various cultures. Each with a numerous number of names and domains, with worshippers subject to a vast array of conflicting dogma.

In D&D the gods aren't subjective; one doesn't really have the option to disbelieve in them or completely disregard their goals. Here, clerics' prayers _are actually answered_; they can summon celestials and infernals, and the very gods themselves walk the earth in avatar form.

In the real world Gaia is only a story, created by the Greeks, unrecognized by any culture beyond the Mediterranean. 

In D&D Gaia _IS_ the earth. She might be known by various names due to language, but every culture and race with a priest-class capable of communing with the gods would know her to exist. Thus her history and her philosophy would be represented in all religions. She would be worshipped (or at least acknowledged) by everything from Aboleth to Yuan-Ti.

If Corellon really exists and has taken part in the history of the cosmos, it would seem to follow that just about every intelligent creature would know of him despite what name they used or how they depicted him. It's equally possible that some dragon or even a reformed orc might even pay homage to him.


As for the printed names in the PHB... I couldn't care less. I see no reason to use a mongrelized bunch of names drawn from various designer's homebrew campaigns.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 30, 2007)

Hey, maybe Heironeous is an old name for Bahamut in a smaller sect. And to them Tiamat was a six-armed humanoid, not a five-headed dragon.



And I SO called the elf chick fighting the death knight as holding a holy symbol of Bahamut!


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 30, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> In D&D Gaia _IS_ the earth. She might be known by various names due to language, but every culture and race with a priest-class capable of communing with the gods would know her to exist. Thus her history and her philosophy would be represented in all religions. She would be worshipped (or at least acknowledged) by everything from Aboleth to Yuan-Ti.




Or they could go the RuneQuest route and have seven or eight creation myths that are all contradictory _and _ are all true at the same time 

Depends on how they work it. In Eberron, the gods might exist, they might not. Clerics still get spells because they get them from the belief in the god, not the god itself. That way, things like Vol (a millenia-old lich) can have worshippers with spells when she herself is not a deity.


----------



## Aristotle (Oct 30, 2007)

Lots of IP invested in those names. I'm guessing this makes my hope for a core pantheon that can be easily used in 3rd party adventures less likely.

I do like the direction this has gone. I've played it both ways (and down the middle) in my own campaigns: I've had campaigns with a single, non race specific, pantheon; campaigns where individual cultures that weren't easily accessible to one another had their own complete pantheons; and campaigns where individual cultures had their own pantheons but the deities in each were just aspects of one master pantheon.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 30, 2007)

They dumped Hextor? NooooOOOO! They can have my Hextor when they pry him out of all six of my cold dead hands!

I've had virtually no complaints about 4e until this. Bane? That's not a god, that's a word. It's like having a god called "Help."  They said that it didn't make sense to include Hextor because they didn't include Heironius. Well, I don't think it makes sense to include Bane unless you include the rest of the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 30, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I like racial gods. Not because I think races should be pigeonholed, but simply because it seems logical there would be a few.




Yeah, but any time they make a human god of humanness he's always an eeeeevil bigot Nazi type.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> ...In real life, human beings had a hard enough time agreeing on religions and reducing pantheons, so having honest-to-goodness different races have different pantheons makes much more sense to me....



I'll try to be careful with my language, but, um, that's because in real life there is no proof that any deity actually exists.

In D&D there _is_ proof. Or at least evidence.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Oct 30, 2007)

I wish I could read the link, because even though I've been a D&D insider Subscriber for quite some time, my name and/or Password is not recognised AND I can't re-subscribe because my name and/or password is already registered.
DAMN YOU D&D CUSTOMER SUPPORT!!!


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Lord Xtheth said:
			
		

> I wish I could read the link, because even though I've been a D&D insider Subscriber for quite some time, my name and/or Password is not recognised AND I can't re-subscribe because my name and/or password is already registered.
> DAMN YOU D&D CUSTOMER SUPPORT!!!



Enter your email instead of your name.

Also, someone posted the article on the first page.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

> 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.




Seems like Paladine from Dragonlance has made it into the 4e core. Damn Right! Props to the greatest paladin god ever!!     This "Bahamut" might not be called Paladine, but he *is* Paladine and anyone who is a DL fan or knowns anything about this god will be able to see it. 

Of course Paladine was based on Bahamut but in DL he transcended his purely draconic generic D&D background and became the very creature that 4e designers are describing.

Paladine is a god who is generally perceived as draconic but not universally so. He is the god of honor, justice, and protection, is the god of knights and paladins. Though he can apear as the Platinum Dragon, he is just as likely to appear in another form among non-draconic worshippers.

::sniffle:: Its good to see you back buddy ::sniffle::

Heiron....i...who?   



Sundragon


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 30, 2007)

I'd prefer pantheons but there's a long established tradition in D&D (and the fantasy fiction which inspired it) of the worship of individual gods, seemingly divorced from their pantheons, such as Crom, Mithras and Set in the Conan tales.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

Jettisoning racial dieties....oh sweet jeebus they are reading my mind. I always hated the idea of racial pantheons and have only used them in FR because they were a part of the landscape and were tied so intimately to the spiritual background of the setting. However whenever I homebrewed I created a pantheon of gods who were known by different names and different forms by various cultures, races, species and peoples.

Good stuff from 4e.   



Sundragon


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I'll try to be careful with my language, but, um, that's because in real life there is no proof that any deity actually exists.
> 
> In D&D there _is_ proof. Or at least evidence.




Oh, I understand what you're saying, but someone on these forums pointed out to me years ago, and it stuck with me, that existance of gods or god-like beings still doesn't mandate worship, because of all the other god-like beings running around, like wizards, or Clerics of philosophies instead of deities (which some DMs don't allow, I know), or Bards who can heal, too.

In other words, unless you do have beings who smite you if you so much as get their name or doctrine wrong, which bring its own different set of campaign problems, then because of the nature of mortals, and humans in particular, you WILL get different gods, sects, names, and heresies for even the exact same beings over thousands of years. That an Elf will call Bahamut "Bahamut" and a human will call him "Bahamut" doesn't ring my credibility bell.

(Then again, they probably wouldn't be using the same currency, either, but that's for another thread.)

Again, for the default game, it's fine - D&D out of the box, so to speak, needs some conventions to make it play, and if that includes a unified currency, religious pantheon, and languages, then so be it.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'd prefer pantheons but there's a long established tradition in D&D (and the fantasy fiction which inspired it) of the worship of individual gods, seemingly divorced from their pantheons, such as Crom, Mithras and Set in the Conan tales.




In general I am in 100% agreement with you. However when it comes to the non-setting setting of core 4e D&D a interconnected pantheon would be a bad idea. I say this because pantheons are complex things that require a rich backstory if the pantheon is going to be more than a sloppy mishmash of gods (like REH's Hyboria...though I love the setting and the D20 game). The problem is that rich backstories are ultimately tied to a setting and the setting's assumptions. D&D 4e isn't going to have a setting so I don't see a intricate, consistant pantheon being a possibiliy or even preferable in this case.


Sundragon


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Oh, I understand what you're saying, but someone on these forums pointed out to me years ago, and it stuck with me, that existance of gods or god-like beings still doesn't mandate worship, because of all the other god-like beings running around, like wizards, or Clerics of philosophies instead of deities (which some DMs don't allow, I know), or Bards who can heal, too.
> 
> In other words, unless you do have beings who smite you if you so much as get their name or doctrine wrong, which bring its own different set of campaign problems, then because of the nature of mortals, and humans in particular, you WILL get different gods, sects, names, and heresies for even the exact same beings over thousands of years. That an Elf will call Bahamut "Bahamut" and a human will call him "Bahamut" doesn't ring my credibility bell.
> 
> ...




I like how Dragonlance did it in regards to gods having different names dependant on the culture in question. Lets use Paladine:

*Paladine*

Other names: 

Bahamut
Bah'Mut 
Celestial Paladin
Draco Paladin 
Dragonlord 
E'li (elves)
the Great Dragon
the Platinum Dragon 
Skyblade
Thak the Hammer (dwarves)
Valthonis


This is IMO as it should be.


Sundragon


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 30, 2007)

RPG_Tweaker said:
			
		

> SNIP
> They are finally accepting that in D&D, were the gods _actually exist_, using our real-world structure—a multitude of unrelated, humanocentric, artificially created, culture-based pantheons—fails to satisfy any real scrutiny.
> 
> In the real world, the gods (assuming they actually do exist) don't commune with their preists or grant them spells, so we've been free to create them in our own image based on our various cultures. Each with a numerous number of names and domains, with worshippers subject to a vast array of conflicting dogma.
> ...




There is nothing wrong with this approach to D&D. But it is not the only way. There are many variations. 

And, while we can't really get into this here, some people (like a majority) believe prayers are answered and certain individuals have divine power. I am just saying.


----------



## (contact) (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> (Wait, you mean Conan isn't from the Bible?!)




He is, they just called him "Samson."


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 30, 2007)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> Banextor!




Banetor!

Love is a battlefield...


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Oct 30, 2007)

Miles Pilitus said:
			
		

> He got better.




Thanks for the "lol".


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 30, 2007)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Banetor!
> 
> Love is a battlefield...



 Oh lord this is going to play havoc with my comic !


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 30, 2007)

> They dumped Hextor? NooooOOOO! They can have my Hextor when they pry him out of all six of my cold dead hands!
> I've had virtually no complaints about 4e until this. Bane? That's not a god, that's a word. It's like having a god called "Help." They said that it didn't make sense to include Hextor because they didn't include Heironius. Well, I don't think it makes sense to include Bane unless you include the rest of the Forgotten Realms.



 I couldn't agree more. What they seem to be going with seems more like a 'buffet pantheon'. I'm sure it'll be laughable when put up against their old vanilla GH pantheon. If all they need is placeholder names why not make them all completely new gods?


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 30, 2007)

It's obvious that many of us will houserule/homebrew/domiciledecree our own pantheons. Here's mine:

Bahamut (I like this inclusion)
Pelor
Hextor
Moradin
Wee Jas
Diathalese, God of Fire Beetles
PirateCat

I think I  have all the bases covered, right?


----------



## med stud (Oct 30, 2007)

I like all changes of dietys that consists of taking away Greyhawk dietys. I really didn't like the names of those. I also like that they didn't use real dietys after seeing how they were handled in Dietys and Demigods.

All in all I'm really satisfied with this update


----------



## sidonunspa (Oct 30, 2007)

Ok this was ok, but come on, are we ever going to see any Mechanics?


----------



## Riley (Oct 30, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> What they seem to be going with seems more like a 'buffet pantheon'... If all they need is placeholder names why not make them all completely new gods?




Heh.  The Forgotten Realms pantheon is itself a 'buffet pantheon,' and is held up as an example of such by some guy named Ed Greenwood in an article called "Down-to-Earth Divinity: One DM's design for a mixed & matched mythos" way back in Dragon Magazine #54.

it's a great idea to pick and choose the best gods from various sources.  I love Greyhawk, but its core evil gods have never done much for me.  Maybe that's why so many classic modules reference lesser evils like Tharizdun and 'Elemental Evil' rather than Hextor, Erythynul, or that other one I can't even remember the name of right now.

I've never run a Forgotten Realms campaign, but I can remember Bane, Shar, Loviatar, and Malar (among others) far more easily than any of Greyhawk's evil gods.

Just like when 3e elevated Vecna to a god of secrets, it's a good idea to bring the good ideas (and names) to the fore, and let the less useful stuff go in the wastebin.*

*: Of course, if you've got a good use for Hextor, you should keep him in your own campaign.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Oct 30, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> It's obvious that many of us will houserule/homebrew/domiciledecree our own pantheons. Here's mine:
> 
> PirateCat
> 
> I think I  have all the bases covered, right?




Making a Patheon from EnWorld names?  PREPOSTEROUS!

--Charwoman Gene, God(dess?) of Confusion and Gender Ambiguity


----------



## eve_of_dante (Oct 30, 2007)

try google!

zehir means poison in Turkish, while Torog means troll in Tolkein's sindarin, apparently...


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 30, 2007)

Actually I know I will never actually use this D&D core pantheon because I prefer my own pantheon. However, in principle I like where the designers are taking the core D&D game. I never liked the GH gods because they always seemed eminently forgettable except for Vecna whose bodyparts seemed to litter the multiverse.   



Sundragon


----------



## allenw (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm certain we'll have a Goddess of Love/Fertility/Chainmail Bikinis. Don't think there's a pantheon that lacks it.




  Well, there's the default 3e pantheon.  In which a love-starved male deity looking for an equal female partner gets to choose between Wee Jas and Yondalla (both of which choices are kinda squicky, for different reasons, though in my campaign Hextor and Wee Jas are a couple).  I'm not counting Ehlonna, since she strikes me as the "virgin goddess" type, what with the unicorns and all.
  Which reminds me:  has there ever been an official "half-Deity" template?  It's, well, "classical," but doesn't seem to come up much in D&D.


----------



## Kraydak (Oct 30, 2007)

Wee Jas is the only GH god I find intriguing taken alone.  However having Heironeous and Hextor as brothers battling for her favors (and possibly offering up the souls of their dead heroes as offerings to her, she is a dead goddess after all) is quite flavorful.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Osiris/Set



Mithra/Set, please!


----------



## Kraydak (Oct 30, 2007)

allenw said:
			
		

> ...
> Which reminds me:  has there ever been an official "half-Deity" template?  It's, well, "classical," but doesn't seem to come up much in D&D.




Lvl 10+ PCdom works as a half-Diety template


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

allenw said:
			
		

> I'm not counting Ehlonna, since she strikes me as the "virgin goddess" type, what with the unicorns and all.



Once you get past the unicorns, it's a totally different story, that's all I'm saying.

Raaaaar.


----------



## mhensley (Oct 30, 2007)

sidonunspa said:
			
		

> Ok this was ok, but come on, are we ever going to see any Mechanics?




No we are not.  And you can pin the blame on those damn preview books they want to sell.  I bet that until those come out we aren't going to see anything about mechanics.


----------



## Falstaff (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm hoping to see Orcus in the default pantheon. Actually, I'd like to see all demon-princes serve as the evil side of the D&D pantheon.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Falstaff said:
			
		

> I'm hoping to see Orcus in the default pantheon. Actually, I'd like to see all demon-princes serve as the evil side of the D&D pantheon.



Orcus is the evil god/demon prince worshipped in the first 4E module, so I think you're all set.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> No we are not.  And you can pin the blame on those damn preview books they want to sell.  I bet that until those come out we aren't going to see anything about mechanics.



Nope.  Preview books won't contain mechanics either.  We'll see mechanics in the online Dragon, but probably not till much closer till the game's release.


----------



## Derren (Oct 30, 2007)

I wonder how the new phanteon will affect the monsters in 4E. For example with Bahamut now being the (a) universal, beloved paladin deity the metallic dragons will be regarded much differently by humans than in 3Ed.
Even if the humans only think that Paladin is not a dragon himself but carries the title Platinum Dragon out of respect, they will regard metallic dragons (especially nearly platinum looking like silvers) much more friendly (look messenger/servant of Bahamut!) than how many DMs played them in 3Ed (Eeek! A big dragon!).


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 30, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> It's obvious that many of us will houserule/homebrew/domiciledecree our own pantheons. Here's mine:
> 
> ... Hextor, ... PirateCat
> 
> I think I  have all the bases covered, right?



Looks to me like you have one of you bases covered twice.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> (Then again, they probably wouldn't be using the same currency, either, but that's for another thread.)



Gold is gold, in the forest or the mine.  A "gold piece" is an agreed upon standard measure of weight; the fact that the Dwarven Thrak is square and weighs twice what a Shire Pince does is irrelevant to the merchant's scales.  Like HP, it's an abstraction.

But everyone speaking Common? Yeah, that makes no sense.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Seems like Paladine from Dragonlance has made it into the 4e core. Damn Right! Props to the greatest paladin god ever!!  This "Bahamut" might not be called Paladine, but he *is *Paladine and anyone who is a DL fan or knowns anything about this god will be able to see it.



Sure, I see it.  But if any D&D designer comes within a *mile *of mentioning the name "Fizban", or that Bahamut is often seen in the company of a precocious "halfling" in a rabbit-fur vest, I will personally beat them to within an inch of -10 HP.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 30, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Diathalese, God of Fire Beetles




Diathalese just made my top 5 favorite gods.


----------



## Draumr (Oct 30, 2007)

Pffft. This cross-bred pantheon holds about as much appeal as roadkill (and is about as useful). They should have stuck with generics in the PHB and rather have given the DM some advice on coming up with a decent pantheon in the DMG. Generic adventures could have used sidebars to suggest setting-specific deities and the art department could have used any one of those for thematic elements.
This is quite the most off-putting element of 4E for me thus far. The core books should be setting neutral. They should inspire creativity, not stifle it with such poorly executed ideas.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> But if any D&D designer comes within a *mile *of mentioning the name "Fizban", or that Bahamut is often seen in the company of a precocious "halfling" in a rabbit-fur vest, I will personally beat them to within an inch of -10 HP.



You know what bothers me about that vest? It's inside out. Its insulating properties work best if it's flipped over and has the ability to shut a little tighter.

I think the little bastard just likes killing rabbits, and wasn't cold at all.


----------



## PeterWeller (Oct 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You know what bothers me about that vest? It's inside out. Its insulating properties work best if it's flipped over and has the ability to shut a little tighter.
> 
> I think the little bastard just likes killing rabbits, and wasn't cold at all.




Wasn't his knife called "Rabbit Killer?"


On topic, I'm really glad they're doing this.  From a generic pantheon standpoint, everything sounds on point.  The generic pantheon should be buffet drawn from all D&D IPs.  Out of the box D&D should have a pantheon covering all the bases, and that pantheon should connect with the settings' pantheons.  I'm also really glad they're divesting the racial gods of their dedicated racial associations and instead making them deities that would particularly appeal to certain races, but are worshiped/worshipable by all races.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 30, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Diathalese just made my top 5 favorite gods.



I wish I could take credit for it, but it came from the DM of a group I played 2e with very briefly. I played a dwarven cleric and the DM assigned me Diathalese as a deity because I joined the game while the party was in a dungeon and they had recently found a shrine to Diathalese.  I was like "what the heck?!!?" at first but quickly came to really like this deity. The DM didn't have any info on him other than his name, so I made up liturgy and theology. To cast spells/turn undead/invoke Diathalese you wiggle your fingers on your head like they're antennae.  Also, Diathalese was inexplicably Lawful Good, so I said "just like the fire beetle, a priest of Diathalese must bring the Light of Goodness into Dark Places."


			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> a precocious "halfling" in a rabbit-fur vest,



What about a rabbit in a hobbit-fur vest?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 30, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Sure, I see it.  But if any D&D designer comes within a *mile *of mentioning the name "Fizban", or that Bahamut is often seen in the company of a precocious "halfling" in a rabbit-fur vest, I will personally beat them to within an inch of -10 HP.




  I wouldn't worry.  After the Soth Incident, I don't expect that _anything_ DL-specific will be included as part of the core D&D cosmos ever again.  Actually, I don't think any DL-originated creatures even made it into the 3E monster books.


----------



## Davelozzi (Oct 30, 2007)

I'm not a fan of the mix & match core pantheon, but the current line-up seems like an improvement over the previous one that included Thor, Athena, etc alongside existing D&D gods.  I didn't really like the Greyhawk-lite core pantheon of 3e, but I got used to it as placeholder names.  

I wish they had not opted to include Bane though, I think he is pretty much comical as a god.  And Planesailing, while I can agree with you that Hextor is sort of a campy name, I think Bane is hokier name still.

Oh well.  Not the end of the world, most of my campaigns will probably use some other pantheon anyway.

On the upside, between this newly revised core pantheon and the Pathfinder pantheon, Sean K Reynolds should have plenty of work for the next several years.  Perhaps it is all an evil plot on his part...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 30, 2007)

While I didn't favour racial pantheons completely, I do favour multiple pantheons in a world.  Because that's how it was in the real world.


----------



## Kelon (Oct 30, 2007)

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.


After that quote, I believe that Hobgoblins are a PHB race.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 30, 2007)

I hate racial pantheons. So "yay" on that front.

However, I also hate evil gods.

Gods with no alignment, just conflicting value systems? That'd be awesome. But a god flat-out wearing a black "I AM EEEEEEVIIIIIIIL" t-shirt is lame.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 30, 2007)

Kelon said:
			
		

> After that quote, I believe that Hobgoblins are a PHB race.




I wouldn't even dare to dream such a glorious possibility.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 30, 2007)

While it won't make up for dumping gnomes, replacing half-orcs with hobgoblins in the PHB1 would be amazingly cool.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 30, 2007)

Cool? It would roxxor my soxxors.  If that would be true, i foresee a cool Hobgoblin Samurai in my next Eberron Campaign, he. (Of course, i have one in THIS campaign, but not as a PC).


----------



## fuindordm (Oct 30, 2007)

The FR Pantheon was about as mix & match as you can get--it doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it adds a bit of verisimilitude. In a setting where humans live alongside nonhumans but the gods are real, I would expect to see a lot of cross-pollination among the races' myths.


----------



## Cam Banks (Oct 30, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry.  After the Soth Incident, I don't expect that _anything_ DL-specific will be included as part of the core D&D cosmos ever again.  Actually, I don't think any DL-originated creatures even made it into the 3E monster books.




Not overtly, but Dragonlance's influence is wide and far-reaching.

Also, it's interesting that Paladine is no longer a god in Dragonlance, given that this new Bahamut in 4e is almost exactly the DL Paladine.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## StarFyre (Oct 30, 2007)

*Jazerian*

I can't spell it right, but I was hoping Jazerian would make it into the Pantheon. The move of Asmodeus as a god is how I use him somewhat in my cosmology, since I do use Asmodeus, Lady of Pain, Jazerian, Mediator, a few others as those ancient beings that predate the gods.  Essences of space, time, and reality themselves so more powerful than any gods could or would be..similar to the Hindu Philosophy of reality actually.

Anyways, Asmodeus in 2E and hinted in 3E was such a being..the Elder Brethren..so was hoping they would kinda use that.

Oh well 

Sanjay


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I think it's fine for the "default" game, as it is indeed better than a bunch of placeholder names, but for a developed campaign world, it really doesn't make sense. In real life, human beings had a hard enough time agreeing on religions and reducing pantheons, so having honest-to-goodness different races have different pantheons makes much more sense to me. Even Dragonlance in its later source material came up with different names and aspects for different peoples to worship the same set of gods, because one pantheon known to all peoples and races by the same names, over thousands of years, really stretches a sense of suspension of disbelief too far for me.




"No, you idiots.  My name is Pelor.  Paaaaaa-lor."

Not that much of a stretch when the deities are real, personal, and meddle in mortal affairs.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

Valiantheart said:
			
		

> God that sounds like a He-Man villain...



Hextor LOOKS like exactly like a he-man villian with his name would.

*Can He-Man defeat the many arms of...
HEX-TOR​​*






http://wizards.com/dnd/images/war_drums_gallery/Aspect_of_Hextor.jpg​


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2007)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry.  After the Soth Incident, I don't expect that _anything_ DL-specific will be included as part of the core D&D cosmos ever again.  Actually, I don't think any DL-originated creatures even made it into the 3E monster books.









 The kapak and bazz made it into the minis game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Oct 30, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I'm just gonna finish filing the serial numbers and call Bahamut Paladine.
> 
> And Bane rocks.  Best FR God ever.



I'm not an FR person, so bear with me, but what's so cool about Bane?


----------



## allenw (Oct 30, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Once you get past the unicorns, it's a totally different story, that's all I'm saying.
> 
> Raaaaar.




  And let's not forget Tiamat!  Boy, can she give... nevermind.


----------



## Aloïsius (Oct 30, 2007)

Kelon said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> 
> After that quote, I believe that Hobgoblins are a PHB race.



Hum... That would fit the new cosmology/setting, I guess, as hobgobelins are more "fey" than orcs.


----------



## PeterWeller (Oct 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'm not an FR person, so bear with me, but what's so cool about Bane?




His dogma centers around tyranny and dictatorial rule instead of just being an evil god of war.  He also has a strong iconography and image.  In FR, he's the baddest of the bad, a master of direct conflict and a consummate manipulator.  He's also one of the most consistently successful and influential evil deities in the Realms, having even cheated death.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'm not an FR person, so bear with me, but what's so cool about Bane?




I was sold on BANE as the ultimate villain god back in the old Grey Box days of FR

I don't know about current 'continuity', but to me he'll always be the _BANE the Black Hand, God of Tyranny and Hatred and Fear._ He sits on a black pimp throne and he has the Nazi Mafia on speed dial.

He's Darth Hitler.


----------



## Henry (Oct 30, 2007)

For PeterWeller's and Wormwood's reasons, I've always liked Bane as a depiction. I remember him described as less demonic-looking in early FR material, and more of the ultimate warlord (pre-4e) type; he definitely has a lot more material on him than Hextor ever had.

I'm playing a Crusader of Bane in an FR game right now; it's 16 years in the future, and due to the chaos of Shar's ascension and Mystra's death (which the DM came up with before the Grand History of the Realms was out), my character (Lawful Neutral) envisions Bane as the ultimate figure of Law, Order, Authority, and Punishment. Order is needed in these chaotic times, and Both Tyr and Torm have failed, so Bane is naturally the one to turn to. 

Heck, I've had the Monk of Ilmater in the group agree with me more often than not.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 30, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> He's Darth Hitler.



You mean he has something like _force-and-lightsaber-wielding gestapo stormtroopers_ at his disposal... oh, wait, that sounds like clerics!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## PeterWeller (Oct 30, 2007)

Additionally, Bane represents the right to rule.  He can be worshiped by nobles and lords who see their "divine" right as ownership of their lands instead of a service to their people.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Hextor LOOKS like exactly like a he-man villian with his name would.
> 
> *Can He-Man defeat the many arms of...
> HEX-TOR​​*
> ...



 ... and that is GOOD!

We should have more He-Manisms is D&D!


----------



## Irda Ranger (Oct 30, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Heck, I've had the Monk of Ilmater in the group agree with me more often than not.



You allow an Ilmaterite to travel with you? Fzoul is coming here, and he is most displeased with your apparent lack of zeal. 

P.S. - "Darth Hitler"  Awesome.


----------



## Kesh (Oct 30, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> No we are not.  And you can pin the blame on those damn preview books they want to sell.  I bet that until those come out we aren't going to see anything about mechanics.



 That's funny, considering that it has been stated the preview books will contain no mechanics.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 30, 2007)

Kesh said:
			
		

> That's funny, considering that it has been stated the preview books will contain no mechanics.




Perhaps we'll start seeing Design & Development articles online that discuss mechanics after the preview books come out. Did I just blow your mind?


----------



## Rechan (Oct 30, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Gods with no alignment, just conflicting value systems?



I would eat that with a frickin' spoon.

I just don't really ever see it happening.

Even in Eberron, the "Shades of Grey" setting, you got "This is a good god" and "This is a bad god". 

My dream pantheon is basically something that looks like Hinduism; Three Gods, their wives and avatars, and sects devoted to each, and everyone arguing that the specific avatar of their specific God is the that rules over all the other gods and avatars. Naturally you're going to have different interpretations, and churches devoted to different aspects of the Diety. The Sustainer of Life god will, naturally, have undead because their life is sustained - which usually angers the Destroyer, who is all about snuffing things out.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Oct 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'm not an FR person, so bear with me, but what's so cool about Bane?



He has good flavor text. (Any evil god depicted "as a looming, brooding black hand ready to crush the world in its palm, as an empty black throne, or as a shadowy, vaguely human-shaped figure garbed in garments of black streaked with red sitting on a throne of skulls" gets the bad@$$ vote in my book.) Plus, in the FR at least, he backs a number of "legitimate" rulers and powerful societies, so his temporal reach is quite vast (contrast with, say, Hextor in Greyhawk). Lastly, the schism between Bane's Orthodox and Transformed churches gives you a more evil-flavored version of the inquisitions and religious wars of Europe's Middle Ages/Renaissance/Reformation period.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 30, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Even in Eberron, the "Shades of Grey" setting, you got "This is a good god" and "This is a bad god".




True, but it is a bit more flexible in Eberron than other settings.  Because good people can worship elements of evil gods and evil people can worship elements of good gods.

"I'm a person who feels the pain of the injured, the downtrodden, the weak!  I give thanks to The Fury for the passion of my feelings!"  (ie: A CG person worshiping a NE goddess.)

"I'm a person who believes in my community and the links we have forged together.  I will also messily and horrifically murder anyone who even speaks out against those I consider my friends.  It's Us against Them.  I worship Boldrei, goddess of the community."  (A LE person worshiping a NG goddess.)


The best way to bring such things into the game world is for non-interventionist deities like in Eberron.  I really like that about the setting.  Moral ambiguity in the religions.

But if you must have walking-the-world deities, you can add colour to their religions by making the deities somewhat... vague... in their explanations of doctrine.

*Cleric:*  I cast Commune.  My deity, is doing _X_ a sin in your eyes?

*Voice From Beyond:* No.

*Cleric:* Is doing _Y_ a sin in your eyes?

*Voice From Beyond:* No.

*Cleric:* But this can't be!  _X_ and _Y_ are in direct conflict with each other!

*Voice From Beyond:* It makes sense to me.  Figure it out for yourself, mortal.


----------



## StarFyre (Oct 30, 2007)

*powers*

are the gods going to give unique powers to their worshippers?

it be awesome if clerics, paladins got very unique sstuff from each god. but even other followers, mages, warriors, etc could even get some powers from them every few levels or constantly from the start.

Sanjay


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, the defining mark of Hextor is that he's the evil brother of Heironeous. Sure, he's the god of evil and tyranny and related bad stuff, but there's plenty of those gods to choose from. So if you remove Heironeous, there's no longer any reason to choose Hextor over anyone else.




Why not going that Hextor has finally killed Heironeous and took his stuff?


----------



## (contact) (Oct 30, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I will personally beat them to within an inch of -10 HP.




Since 3e, that's been five feet.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

Remember, the gods aren't required to give mortal-useful answers to _commune_:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The entities contacted structure their answers to further their own purposes.



Someone with a brain the size of a moon, metaphysically speaking, can surely find a way to give an answer that doesn't give followers a literal guide to life, since free will is presumably worth something to many gods, especially the non-lawful ones.


----------



## Nifft (Oct 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Someone with a brain the size of a moon, metaphysically speaking, can surely find a way to give an answer that doesn't give followers a literal guide to life, since free will is presumably worth something to many gods, especially the non-lawful ones.



 I'm reminded of my favorite _augury_ result:

DM: "Does the god of war, strength and bloody battle think it's a good idea to go through that door? By all the hells, yes! Weal! WEAL!"

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm reminded of my favorite _augury_ result:
> 
> DM: "Does the god of war, strength and bloody battle think it's a good idea to go through that door? By all the hells, yes! Weal! WEAL!"



Ha! You gotta like it when the players occasionally lob a slow one right over home plate for you.


----------



## GVDammerung (Oct 31, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> . . .  Bane? That's not a god, that's a word. It's like having a god called "Help."




EXACTLY!  "Bane" is lazy, unimaginative fantasy naming.  

Or meet the new pantheon:

Lawful Good Deity =  Weal
Chaotic Good Deity = Capricious
Neutral Good Deity = Help
Lawful Evil Deity = Bane
Chaotic Evil Deity = Psycho
Neutral Evil Deity = Woe
Lawful Neutral Deity = Obedient
Chaotic Neutral Deity = Random
True Neutral = Balance

Or Concept deities:

Deity of Agriculture = Cornucopia
Deity of War = Strife
Deity of the Sun = Sol
Deity of the Moon = Luna
Deity of Storms = Tempest
Deity of Lovers = Amore
Deity of Dogs = Canine
Deity of Cats = Feline

You get the idea.  So simple even a "professional" game designer can do it!  

One more nick in 4e's "coolness."  A grab bag core pantheon.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> . . . That an Elf will call Bahamut "Bahamut" and a human will call him "Bahamut" doesn't ring my credibility bell.




Precisely, it is incredible, counter intuitive and against anything resembling verisimiltude that there is one pantheon for everybody.  It is simpler, yes, in a dumbed down kind of simplicity but it rings of zero coolness.

YMMV  But then  . . .


----------



## Green Knight (Oct 31, 2007)

Nine pages in this thread, and I haven't read them all, so forgive me if I'm repeating something someone already mentioned. 

Anyway, so Bahamut is supposed to be Bane's archnemesis in the generic D&D setting. Wouldn't that be something of a lopsided pairing, though? After all, Bane is a Greater God, while Bahamut is a Lesser God. Either Bane is gonna need to be downgraded bigtime, or Bahamut is gonna need to be buffed up. 

This, incidentally, is the same issue I have with Torm/Bane in the Forgotten Realms. I like that the Realms view Torm/Bane as archnemesis. What I don't like, however, is that Torm is still sucking wind as a Lesser God. Ah, what I wouldn't give for Torm to lay claim to both Tyr and Helm's portfolios in the 4th edition Realms and getting boosted to Greater God status. It'd be so nice to finally be rid of that interloping schmuck Tyr. Go back to Valhalla, Asgard, or wherever the hell it is you came from, jerk. 

One other thing on the subject of Bahamut and Bane. Isn't Tiamat Bahamut's nemesis? Wouldn't it make better sense to pair her up against Bahamut, rather than Bane? Or to get some other god and pair them up against Bane? The way I see it, Bahamut/Tiamat are as tied together as Heironeous/Hextor, but then again, maybe that's just me.


----------



## Baduin (Oct 31, 2007)

I think myself real gods are simply much more interesting - their myths are deeper, their symbolic less one-sided etc.

God of Paladins: Mitra:

The great god from the East, Invincible Mithra, is the god of light and law. He is the Judge of Souls, destroyer of darkness, hunter of evil spirits, protector and saviour of good, defender of truth and enemy of error. His weapons are the bow, knife and sword. 

The cult of Mithra admits only men as its members.  All prospective initiates must first undergo severe trials, which test their endurace and courage.  The tests take place in the underground cave-like Mithraeum, the temple of Mithra. After the trials the initiates swear a terrible oath, promising to keep hidden the mysteries of the cult and to conduct themselves as becoming the soldiers ot the god.  They are marked with the sign of Mithras and taught how to recognize other initiates, to whom they are obligated to offer assistance if necessary. There are seven grades of initiates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra

For a god of tyranny and conquest, I would suggest Ashur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur_(god)
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/ASSYRIA.HTM


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 31, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'm not an FR person, so bear with me, but what's so cool about Bane?




Nothing. He is a cheap knockoff with a lousy name (like most FR gods).


----------



## FireLance (Oct 31, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Lawful Good Deity =  Weal
> Chaotic Good Deity = Capricious
> Neutral Good Deity = Help
> Lawful Evil Deity = Bane
> ...



Cool!  Let me add to your list:
Deity of Death = Death
Deity of Delirium = Delirium
Deity of Desire = Desire
Deity of Despair = Despair
Deity of Destiny = Destiny
Deity of Destruction = Destruction
Deity of Dream = Dream


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Oct 31, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Precisely, it is incredible, counter intuitive and against anything resembling verisimiltude that there is one pantheon for everybody.  It is simpler, yes, in a dumbed down kind of simplicity but it rings of zero coolness.
> 
> YMMV  But then  . . .




Some of the ancient greeks, assuming I understand Herodotus correctly, were of the opinion that all people worshipped variations of the same deities, so the Greek's might call the chief god Zeus and the Egyptian's Ra.
So in world where there is a 'common' tongue it should hardly come as a surprise that all races would call them by the same names, if nothing else for convenience (both in and out of game).

That said I prefer better names than...bane.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Anyway, so Bahamut is supposed to be Bane's archnemesis in the generic D&D setting. Wouldn't that be something of a lopsided pairing, though? After all, Bane is a Greater God, while Bahamut is a Lesser God. Either Bane is gonna need to be downgraded bigtime, or Bahamut is gonna need to be buffed up.



You're assuming that gods will function like they do now. Given how many other changes we've seen with 4E, I think that's a risky assumption to make.


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

Actually, I don't have a huge problem with Bahamut being a lesser god and Bane being a greater god (assuming such categories even make sense in 4E). Nothing says everything has to be nicely symmetric on an alignment basis. It's called "points of light", after all, not "balanced pools of light and darkness".


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You allow an Ilmaterite to travel with you? Fzoul is coming here, and he is most displeased with your apparent lack of zeal.




Fzoul has enough of his own problems leading the defense of Zhentil Keep against the invading armies of Thay. Me, I'm just trying to figure out why Darkhold suddenly claims they have an alliance with those damned treacherous Thayans, so I can root out those Heartland backstabbers and put them to the stakes.  The Ilmaterite at least wants an end to the Chaos and suffering, as do I, so that the Firm Hand of Bane can set order from Chaos and impose proper Order and Punishment on the lawless!

*HAIL BANE!* _*drums*_


----------



## Green Knight (Oct 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You're assuming that gods will function like they do now. Given how many other changes we've seen with 4E, I think that's a risky assumption to make.




It's possible. But I imagine that they'll remain mostly as they are, in that they'll be able to fight and kill each other (And the deific rankings appear to be staying, as the only deific realms that survive the spellplague are the ones which belongs to Greater Gods. And in 4E, there is a change which seems to reinforce the concept of the divine rankings, as Lesser and Intermediate gods are just servitors to the Greater Gods). 

After all, the changes made to the Forgotten Realms are predicated on the idea that gods can kill each other. Cyric was able to kill Mystra. Tyr killed Helm. By comparison, Bane killing Bahamut would be a comparatively easy task. And if Bahamut is supposed to be Bane's primary foe, then he needs to be able to stand up against him in case Bane shows up on his doorstep of a mind to commit some deicide. And if the only reason Bahamut is able to survive is because Bane's got bigger and meaner opponents to worry about, then Bahamut isn't really his nemesis, then, is he? And if he's a Lesser God, then what Greater God does he serve?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 31, 2007)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Nine pages in this thread, and I haven't read them all, so forgive me if I'm repeating something someone already mentioned.
> 
> Anyway, so Bahamut is supposed to be Bane's archnemesis in the generic D&D setting.




   I'm not seeing it.  Yes, Bahamut takes Heironeous' place to a large extent, and Bane does the same with Hextor, but I don't see that the centrality of the conflict between the two they replace necessarily carries over to the new folks.  There's definitely a level of opposition--Bahamut being about 'protect the weak, liberate the oppressed, and defend just order' while Bane is the patron of tyranny and evil war--but I don't know that they're diametric opposites.

  The interesting thing is that you really shouldn't have Bahamut without Tiamat, and yet Bane takes a lot of Tiamat's non-draconic schtick.  Anyone up for a reconceived Chaotic Evil-style Tiamat as patroness of greed, destruction, and betrayal?


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Fzoul has enough of his own problems leading the defense of Zhentil Keep against the invading armies of Thay. Me, I'm just trying to figure out why Darkhold suddenly claims they have an alliance with those damned treacherous Thayans, so I can root out those Heartland backstabbers and put them to the stakes.  The Ilmaterite at least wants an end to the Chaos and suffering, as do I, so that the Firm Hand of Bane can set order from Chaos and impose proper Order and Punishment on the lawless!
> 
> *HAIL BANE!* _*drums*_



 "I've got a dagger of hail bane! It's +6 vs weather effects!"


----------



## Nifft (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> "I've got a dagger of hail bane! It's +6 vs weather effects!"



 "Does it work with Flurry?"

, -- N


----------



## Mr.Black (Oct 31, 2007)

I like Bahamut as a god of paladins and revered by good dragons, but he doesn't seem like Bane's archnemesis.  Bahamut works best when paired against Tiamat.  I wonder if Tiamat would work better as the goddess of tyrants.

I think Tiamat redone as a chaotic evil dragon goddess could also work, but then she may become too much like Lolth.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 31, 2007)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> I think Tiamat redone as a chaotic evil dragon goddess could also work, but then she may become too much like Lolth.




  Maybe, but they've been positioning the core drow as Neutral Evil for a while now, so maybe Lolth will have an emphasis on scheming, Unseelie fey, and dark magic as opposed to her more mad Chaotic version.


----------



## Rechan (Oct 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You're assuming that gods will function like they do now. Given how many other changes we've seen with 4E, I think that's a risky assumption to make.



I will hereby not assume that in 4e, up is up, down is down, and halflings steal things. There's just no guarantee!


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2007)

Baduin said:
			
		

> The cult of Mithra admits only men as its members.



There's a reason right there to avoid some of the baggage that real-world religions bring with them.




			
				Baduin said:
			
		

> For a god of tyranny and conquest, I would suggest Ashur:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur_(god)



Again, this might raise issues for contemporary Assyrians. Why call out one of many historical empires (in that and other parts of the world) as the paradigm of tyranny? After all, Mithraism was a favoured religion of Roman soldiers - another conquerring and tyrannical culture. Why do the Romans get to be LG?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> After all, Mithraism was a favoured religion of Roman soldiers - another conquerring and tyrannical culture. Why do the Romans get to be LG?



Because it was the good guy religion in Conan?


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 31, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Because it was the good guy religion in Conan?



And, like the snake-cult of Set, had nothing to do with the real Mithraism. Howard wanted cool and evocative names he could build his worlds around, not realism or historical accuracy. 

As for Tiamat, making her a CE opposite of Bahamut and a patron goddess of rapacious greed, vanity and destruction sounds good to me.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Why do the Romans get to be LG?




They are in my game. (They aren't Mithraists, though.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I will hereby not assume that in 4e, up is up, down is down, and halflings steal things. There's just no guarantee!



Was the term "Apple and Orang Utans" from you, or am I just confusing posters?


----------



## hong (Oct 31, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Why do the Romans get to be LG?




Exactly. What have the Romans ever done for us?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. What have the Romans ever done for us?



Dunno... what has hong ever done for us? 



Spoiler



Sorry, I just had to


!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Oct 31, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> The new pantheon are The Smurfs?




Just the Fey pantheon…


----------



## Aristotle (Oct 31, 2007)

I think a little language theory is enough to hand wave a lot of these complaints. 

Bahamut is "Bahamut" in more than one culture because he is a real, proven to exist, deity. He has told people his name and continues to do so. There isn't necessarily a murky past where his name was translated from one language to another several times over without any definitive source to clarify the pronunciation.

If we assume common = english (which is a little arrogant, but is the connection most American gamers make in my experience) then we could also assume that Bahamut's name is not in common. It's a name from some other, possible dead, root language that has merely been integrated into common. One again the presence of a proven, and active, deity saying "this is my name, respect me and get it right if you want my aid" is more than enough to keep it from becoming garbled by translation.

All imho of course. I've run games where gods were known by different names in different cultures, but the gods were significantly less active in day-to-day life than the bar set by the typical D&D setting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 31, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> And, like the snake-cult of Set, had nothing to do with the real Mithraism. Howard wanted cool and evocative names he could build his worlds around, not realism or historical accuracy.



Good enough for me!


----------



## Gold Roger (Oct 31, 2007)

Well, at this point I'm pretty sure I won't be using the default Pantheon when I DM. Still, I want to point out how awesome it is they chose Bane as a Core deity. He's pretty much the best thing ever created for FR and unlike most of the setting, got just more awesome through time.


----------



## Henry (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. What have the Romans ever done for us?




Other than the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, very darned little!



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> There's a reason right there to avoid some of the baggage that real-world religions bring with them.



I've never minded if real-world past and present religions were in my table games, but for a published rules setting, I've always been a bit more skittish, because at the table I know what to expect from my regular gaming group, and we're able to solve differences in a mature fashion.


----------



## JohnSnow (Oct 31, 2007)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Gold is gold, in the forest or the mine.  A "gold piece" is an agreed upon standard measure of weight; the fact that the Dwarven Thrak is square and weighs twice what a Shire Pince does is irrelevant to the merchant's scales.  Like HP, it's an abstraction.
> 
> But everyone speaking Common? Yeah, that makes no sense.




Well, I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I had to respond to this comment.

Common is one of those D&Disms that was ripped straight from the Professor (Tolkien, that is).

In Middle-Earth, everyone spoke Westron. The hobbits and the Rohirrim used to speak something different, as did the men of Dale, there are two elven tongues, and the dwarves use their language in secret only. But Westron is the language spoken by all the peoples of Middle-Earth.

It's an abstraction that makes for easier gameplay. It's also done for the same reason that Tolkien "translated" Westron as modern English and Rohirric as Old English in _The Lord of the Rings_ - to make it comprehensible.

The "common" of medieval Europe was latin. That's why old empires (fallen or not) are so handy - they give you an excuse for a widely-used "common tongue."


----------



## Nifft (Oct 31, 2007)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The "common" of medieval Europe was latin. That's why old empires (fallen or not) are so handy - they give you an excuse for a widely-used "common tongue."



 I used exactly this in my game. First Empire = Latin, and the three major human nations speak French, Spanish and Italian. Gives me a nice source of names, too. 

Also IMC, Draconic = Greek, and that's why you get so many Arcane spells with Greek-derived names.

(The classical linguist in my group was very amused when they found an off-world wyrmling who spoke Draconic Linear-B. I love being able to throw in hints like that.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Transit (Oct 31, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. What have the Romans ever done for us?





			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Other than sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, very darned little!



And don't forget that they also invented the D20.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 31, 2007)

Mr.Black said:
			
		

> I like Bahamut as a god of paladins and revered by good dragons, but he doesn't seem like Bane's archnemesis.  Bahamut works best when paired against Tiamat.  I wonder if Tiamat would work better as the goddess of tyrants.
> 
> I think Tiamat redone as a chaotic evil dragon goddess could also work, but then she may become too much like Lolth.



 The problem here is that you're assuming that Bahamut and Bane have the same relationship as Heironeous and Hextor (archnemesis). As stated in the article, Bane is a war deity that could have visible temples in several human and hobgoblin areas. Bahamut is Rule with Righteousness. Bane is Rule with Ruthlessness.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Oct 31, 2007)

I would hope that Tiamat becomes the major goddess she should be. She has more cache in the D&D tradition and more traction than nearly any other evil personage. Make her the goddess of avarice, evil dragons, hatred, etc. and turn her into the greater goddess she should be. I never quite understood how, though dragons have been the iconic creature of the game, their gods have been (outside of Io who people really liked) crap.

Hopefully 4e will give the Dragonqueen some props.



Sundragon


----------



## pemerton (Oct 31, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> I've never minded if real-world past and present religions were in my table games, but for a published rules setting, I've always been a bit more skittish, because at the table I know what to expect from my regular gaming group, and we're able to solve differences in a mature fashion.



Agreed. I use real-world religions in my game, but think WoTC are sensible to avoid them in the core pantheon - and are especially sensible to avoid labelling various historical cultures as good or evil.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Why do the Romans get to be LG?





			
				Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> They are in my game.



Is Roman society in your game a society based on mass slavery? I find that aspect of historical Rome difficult to reconcile with the game's definition of Lawful Good.

In fact, most actual historical societies are difficult to reconcile with the game's definition of Lawful Good, which is (to me) another good reason for the core pantheon to be fictional rather than historical.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 31, 2007)

> In fact, most actual historical societies are difficult to reconcile with the game's definition of Lawful Good, which is (to me) another good reason for the core pantheon to be fictional rather than historical.




Word.

I'm all for adapting historical deities to the D&D melieu (in my high school game, we appropriated the Greek gods all the freakin' time), but it's an ADAPTATION, meaning that there will be (and ought to be) some deep differences to reflect that it is a deity for a game and not for the world.

That irks the purists, though I'm not sure they're worth not irking. 

The core pantheon should be fictional, and they should be flavored from D&D's rich history. And then I can inject detail into them later (one of my favorite little indulgences is mythographically analyzing the fictional deities, dismantling them and revealing the mythic strata they stand atop)


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Nov 1, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Is Roman society in your game a society based on mass slavery? I find that aspect of historical Rome difficult to reconcile with the game's definition of Lawful Good.




No. I use the Late Roman Empire as a model and there are no slaves. (Idealized, I know, but it is an exercise in fantasy after all!) There are probably _coloni_ (tenant farmers) though.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 1, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So would Ebil Badass, but I don't like that name either.
> 
> The professional settings should have names better than those thought up by 12 year old DMs.




Ebil Badass is an angry god and doesn't like people criticising his name.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 1, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> Set is an excellent snake god because people tend to think he is a snake god. Historical accuracy can kiss my Druid's Wildshape.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Which is funny, because I think most people would in order of decreasing probability:

(a) not know who Set was.
(b) know that he's an god of the Egyptian pantheon.
(c) know that he's a god mentioned in Conan.

Now . . . Thulsa Doom on the other hand . . .


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 1, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Usually because whenever I hear the name "Seth", I think a guy who's got tattoos and wants to crash on my couch, or someone who makes really funny tv shows.




Your couch, or your Seti? (ok settee, but what do you expect in a pun)


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 1, 2007)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I would hope that Tiamat becomes the major goddess she should be. She has more cache in the D&D tradition and more traction than nearly any other evil personage. Make her the goddess of avarice, evil dragons, hatred, etc. and turn her into the greater goddess she should be. I never quite understood how, though dragons have been the iconic creature of the game, their gods have been (outside of Io who people really liked) crap.
> 
> Hopefully 4e will give the Dragonqueen some props.
> 
> ...




I like to treat Tiamat as Waukeen's hidden side


----------



## Ripzerai (Nov 8, 2007)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Some of the ancient greeks, assuming I understand Herodotus correctly, were of the opinion that all people worshipped variations of the same deities, so the Greeks might call the chief god Zeus and the Egyptians Ra.




(Serapis is the Hellenistic fusion of Zeus and Osiris, actually; Ra was associated with Helios or Apollo).

Anyway, the Greeks were _wroooooong_. Blasphemous, arrogant Greeks! The great sun god has nothing in common with their hen-pecked god of clouds!

Like the heretics who claim that mighty Hextor is an aspect of the false god Bane! The faithful of Hextor will destroy the idols of the Northern abomination! Even the Banites' alliance with the cultists of Abbathor will not save them. 

I don't understand the desire for ultra-simplified pantheons, really. I _like_ the idea that different cultures (and elves certainly have a different culture than humans) would have different pantheons. More gods are better than less gods. That way, you can have inter-pantheonic wars and alliances - more intrigue, more plot hooks, more divine realms in the Outer Planes to visit, and more player choice! It's win-win, and also win-win-win. It is made of elemental win. The DM and players can select their favorites from a larger list, and ignore the others. More choices makes for better games!

I guess more personally, I thought _Monster Mythology_ was one of the very best supplements for 2e - Carl Sargent was a talented mythmaker, at his best when he wasn't leaning on Roger E. Moore's earlier creations.

I definitely liked that so many 3e supplements would introduce new deities to the game. No one had to use them _all_, but lots of them were interesting, and many of them came from racial pantheons. If there's an artificial ceiling on how many "core" deities can exist, I shall be very disappointed.


----------



## Wanderer20 (Nov 8, 2007)

Zehir?

  I think 4E dev played too much Heroes of Might and Magic V (though the character is a nice one...)


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 8, 2007)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I guess more personally, I thought _Monster Mythology_ was one of the very best supplements for 2e - Carl Sargent was a talented mythmaker, at his best when he wasn't leaning on Roger E. Moore's earlier creations.



While the rest is fashioned from win as well, I'd like to cast my specific support for this thought right here.


----------

