# The New 4th Edition God-Killing Rules



## JackSmithIV (Nov 19, 2008)

I have always been fascinated by the idea of being able to fight a god. I imagined we'd see rules and information regarding the fighting of gods in the Manual of the Planes. But it seems Christmas has come early...

The first Draconomicon, released the other day, includes stats for Tiamat, the goddess whom at the sundering of Io split off and became the antithesis for Bahamut and the patron deity of chromatic dragons (zing). Not an aspect, mind you, the god, pure and simple. The stat block is enourmous, and has almost an entire column dedicated to it (the opposite column to her 5 heads; she has such a cool way of fighting). It only took a few moments to notice the two little columns added in.

The first describes the deity's special rules. There's a few nifty things like not being able to be attacked by anyone not in the epic tier, being able to do a savings throw against any effect immediately, and then the bit about "Discorporation". Discorporation is an ability that gods have (represented in their stat block) that allow them to, when bloodied, essentially retreat from the fight immediately and go into a sort of spiritual rehab on the Astral Plan, no longer able to take physical form for anywhere between a few weeks to a year, essentially making them immortal. Unless (!!) you meet specific set of requirements...

This leads to the second column, called "Destroying Tiamat". It contains 3 hooks for quests that once completed, allow you to truely destroy her. Put together, they're simply some of the most epic, badass quest hooks I've seen for epic-level play in a long time, including a plot to use a treasure recovered from a githyanki shipwreck on the astral sea to draw her into a domain of bahamut, killing her consorts and fashoning their bones into weapons, etc...

Now, the tricky thing is that the language is vague, and sometimes infers that if these conditions are met, she is (instead of discorporated) killed when reaching bloodied value. I _think_ what the designers meant to do was to infer that this ability is *disabled*, and that you still have to bring her the rest of the way to 0 hp, instead of only halfway to 800-something. If anyone can shed light on this, let me know.

Anyhow, I thought someone else might have an opinion on this, and want to discuss. I am merely super-excited. It think it's epic, awesome, and totally friggin' cool, and wish I'd thought of it first.

Discuss!


----------



## Wootz (Nov 19, 2008)

Freakin sweet. It's a shame I don't have the same sort of money I used to, or I would definitely buy this book.


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Nov 19, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> I _think_ what the designers meant to do was to infer that this ability is *disabled*, and that you still have to bring her the rest of the way to 0 hp, instead of only halfway to 800-something.




That is what we meant. I'm glad you like Tiamat and the quests, and I hope you look forward to the other deities that are on their way!


----------



## blargney the second (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow, that sounds amazing.  I really like that deicide involves epic quests in addition to the ginormous slugfest that one would hope for.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 19, 2008)

blargney the second said:


> Wow, that sounds amazing.  I really like that deicide involves epic quests in addition to the ginormous slugfest that one would hope for.




Man, I haven't killed a god since 1st edition.  This is a part of the game that we seriously needed to return to.  3rd edition Deities and Demigods was a mess of useless and gigantic statblocks, but I can see a 4th edition Deities & Demigods reading like a menu of epic murder.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 19, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> That is what we meant. I'm glad you like Tiamat and the quests, and I hope you look forward to the other deities that are on their way!




Thanks a bunch for clarifying! I think it's an incredibly testiment to epic 4E play... can't wait for more!


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 19, 2008)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> I can see a 4th edition Deities & Demigods reading like *a menu of epic murder*.



That's a nice turn of phrase, there.

I'm going to use it the next time I eat at some really bad fast food place.


----------



## Derren (Nov 19, 2008)

So, when do you think will the CharOp board find a way to either 1 hit kill Tiamat or solo Tiamat?


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 19, 2008)

Way to turn the fantastic into the prosaic...


----------



## Mallus (Nov 19, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Way to turn the fantastic into the prosaic...



A perfect tag line for D&D if I've ever heard one.

"D&D... turning the fantastic into the prosaic since 1974!"

(Didn't most of the deities and demigods in the original Deities and Demigods go down like a bunch of chumps? Even Thor didn't have too many HP...).


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 19, 2008)

Shem, how would you prefer the game handle deicide? If we are starting with the assumption that some GMs want to run a game where the PCs have a chance to kill a god, how do you think it should go?


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 19, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Shem, how would you prefer the game handle deicide? If we are starting with the assumption that some GMs want to run a game where the PCs have a chance to kill a god, how do you think it should go?




Without resorting to treating them like end-level boss monsters at the end of a planar dungeon. And if they really truly want a PCs vs Deity roll for initiative style fight, make the stats to fit their needs, because at that end of things, the numerical stats tend to be an absolutely ludicrous block of numbers that you might as well make them up arbitrarily for your game.

Full blown deity stats are a waste of page space IMO (and I really do adore Erik Mona's comments on deity stat blocks after he had to write a ton of them for 3.x FR's Faiths&Pantheons) because they set as standard the idea of using such beings as even bigger monsters, rather than as anything more fantastic and removed from the mundane world of human vs orc, etc.

Avatars can have their uses certainly, but for actual conflict with a god, you can avoid the grossly mundane standup fight with the always fun use of artifacts and such Macguffins, playing the tricky game of planar politics and pitting gods against one another, or dragging planar lords like archfiends into the mix if you really want to get your hands dirty.

I've had deicide in my games before, but never once has a PC rolled to hit Thor with a +35 axe of overkill or anything similar. It's just not a playstyle I care for, and certainly one that makes me sigh to see implicitly promoted in 4e. As much grief as I've been prone to give WotC, I'd like to see them make a damn good planar book because it promotes the sub-genre of gaming that's my personal favorite. But if they're giving deity stats for PCs to fight, that's a step towards a vision of planar beings that's just about anathema to my own.

More coherent and possibly less unintentionally offense comments on this later tonight. At work, typing in between things as I can.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 19, 2008)

But that is simply one play-style for one style of campaign, what if a person wants a campaign where the gods aren't so high and mighty and away from the world. 

Hell, I have run both types of campaigns in a essentially Planescape world. One where the gods are distant and essentially unkillable (besides other gods obviously). In another while the gods are certainly powerful you see in the newspaper the next morning that one was stabbed to death while engaging in a chess match with some crazy, ass devil for instance.

It is easier to take away something like full-blown God stats then it is too create it. So if I have a campaign where the Gods don't die I don't need the stats, if it is a campaign where they do I need the stats.


----------



## Phoenix8008 (Nov 19, 2008)

I remember my god hunting days of glory in 1E. Took Odin out without much effort. Just kept teleporting him to places I didn't know until the roll came up that he wound up underground and auto-killed. Then went and dug up his spear and shield.  Ahhh, the good old days.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 19, 2008)

The talk of how things seem to work reminds me a bit of the D&D cartoon, specifically where they decide to go on the offensive against the "bad guy", even making a deal with Tiamat.

That is what it sounds like. You have the epic portion of the campaign where the god has taken notice of the adventurers and is basically using their divine influence to try to stop the party ... it eventually reaches the point where the party takes on the quest to basically force the god to fight them on their terms. There may be a way to stop the god without directly confronting it ... but the god can show up and try to stop them from accomplishing the goal ...

While the god stat blocks encourage DMs to use 'em as a big bad end boss ... the attached "quest to be able to kill, and not just bloody and scare off" plot hooks can give the kind of campaign where it's not just a fight to kill the god. A fight may take place to finish the job ... but you have to get it to that point in the first place.


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Nov 19, 2008)

I'd like to address a couple of Shemeska's comments, because they tie into the philosophy we had designing deities for 4E. 



Shemeska said:


> Without resorting to treating them like end-level boss monsters at the end of a planar dungeon. And if they really truly want a PCs vs Deity roll for initiative style fight, make the stats to fit their needs, because at that end of things, the numerical stats tend to be an absolutely ludicrous block of numbers that you might as well make them up arbitrarily for your game.




Tiamat is set up to be at the absolute upper end of fightable monsters. She's level 35, which should make for an incredibly difficult fight even for 30th-level characters, but she's absolutely meant to be within reach. If a deity is too tough for PCs to take on, sure, there's no point in statting up that deity. But we're talking about Tiamat, who we consider to be defeatable through combat. The numbers aren't arbitrarily large, and we took pains to make sure a fight against her wouldn't be impossible.



Shemeska said:


> Avatars can have their uses certainly, but for actual conflict with a god, you can avoid the grossly mundane standup fight with the always fun use of artifacts and such Macguffins, playing the tricky game of planar politics and pitting gods against one another, or dragging planar lords like archfiends into the mix if you really want to get your hands dirty.




The _discorporation_ ability of deities, and the sidebar that lists some ways you might be able to actually kill the god, is designed to avoid having a deity battle be a "mundane standup fight." You can't just jump in and kill a deity on a whim: You'll go through entire adventures late in the game just to get the tools you need if you really want to destroy a god, and you'll be carrying those tools to the true culmination of your campaign. Killing a god IS A BIG DEAL and doing so is the defining end point of an entire campaign. We didn't design this to let parties hop from domain to domain, slaughtering deity after deity. That's not the point. The point is making it so the final battle really is the final battle, and feels like a worthy end after years of play and 30 levels of adventure.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 19, 2008)

Derren said:


> So, when do you think will the CharOp board find a way to either 1 hit kill Tiamat or solo Tiamat?




Be Orcus ^^


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 19, 2008)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> playing the tricky game of planar politics and pitting gods against one another,



No matter how much Planescape tried, D&D is not Vampire. Players generally do not go adventuring & dungeon busting for 25+ levels planning to switch over to _Negotiations & Netherlords_ for the least few levels. 







			
				Shemeska said:
			
		

> or dragging planar lords like archfiends into the mix if you really want to get your hands dirty.



Super NPCs fighting the boss is a no-no. Does not matter is that NPC is named Eliminster, Orcus or DMPC, the players are the ones who need to be the main threat to the BBEG. They may need a _plot device +12_ to have a chance, but that plot device better damn well better be in the Player's hands. Bonus points if the plat device has multiple parts so everyone has a piece of the action


----------



## Grazzt (Nov 19, 2008)

Derren said:


> So, when do you think will the CharOp board find a way to either 1 hit kill Tiamat or solo Tiamat?




You mean they haven't already? Boards must be running slow today.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 19, 2008)

Why hasn't Amazon delivered my copy yet?!?



Lonely Tylenol said:


> Man, I haven't killed a god since 1st edition.  This is a part of the game that we seriously needed to return to.  3rd edition Deities and Demigods was a mess of useless and gigantic statblocks, but I can see a 4th edition Deities & Demigods reading like a menu of epic murder.



I completely agree! 3E's _Deities & Demigods_ never really inspired me, except to want to drop -- what were they called? salient divine abilities? -- onto my epic-level NPCs; it really didn't make me want to run a campaign that involved a battle against a deity. OTOH, the description by the OP of the 4E god-slaying rules makes me think, "Holy... ____.... When can I start?"

(Okay, that's it, I've decided: Tiamat will be the BBEG in my next campaign, set in Eberron. She'll be an demon Overlord, as per her description in _Dragons of Eberron_. <-- Great book, btw.)


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 20, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> OTOH, the description by the OP of the 4E god-slaying rules makes me think, "Holy... ____.... When can I start?"




Yeah, that's kinda what I felt, and my goal was to see if I could find someone as excited as me. You should read the adventure hooks themselves, too, they're really very good.

Which leads me to my next question, which I'll pose to Mr. Logan Bonner, if he's still watching. I'm curious as to whether this will stay the model for dieties in the future. Will two columns of the sort be included in future supplements containing gods? Also, what about creatures such as primordials. Can't exactly go back in time and rewrite Rorn, but isn't it to be assumed that the primordials went to war with the gods? I just don't see how primordials can really match up if they're at all like Rorn.

Once again, smash up job!


----------



## Tiny Little Raven (Nov 20, 2008)

What about the ramifications of deicide? If the GM is running a game where the players on plane hopping adding to list of slain deities, what happens when all the gods are dead? Granted it wouldn't be easy topull of such a feat, but it should at least get mentions somewhere.


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 20, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> Can't exactly go back in time and rewrite Rorn,




Can't they? I mean, 1e basically did exactly this (well, at least sort of).  At first archfiends were introduced in a MM and when the MotP was released on a later date and contained some general deity traits it also included a sentence about the all archfiends being treated as lesser deities and that the benefits presented there should be retroactively applied to their write up in the MM.


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Nov 20, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> Which leads me to my next question, which I'll pose to Mr. Logan Bonner, if he's still watching. I'm curious as to whether this will stay the model for dieties in the future. Will two columns of the sort be included in future supplements containing gods? Also, what about creatures such as primordials. Can't exactly go back in time and rewrite Rorn, but isn't it to be assumed that the primordials went to war with the gods? I just don't see how primordials can really match up if they're at all like Rorn.




Deities will have the same traits outlined in the sidebar, and there should be suggestions for how to kill them as well.

The primordials are supposed to provide major fights, but aren't on quite the same power level as the gods. It might be that we'll want to get a little crazier with future primordials—Rorn is pretty straightforward. But Tiamat was actually designed a little _before_ Rorn, and we decided not to make the primordials too much like the deities. 

The surviving deities are also the best and brightest of the bunch. Plenty of dead deities were less survivable. We consciously didn't use the "discorporation" ability on the primordials, because they're more vulnerable, and easier to kill by standard means.


----------



## crash_beedo (Nov 20, 2008)

Wow.  Cool thread, and its got me thinking Manual of the Planes will have equal high level greatness.  Its going to be a long wait to Xmas waiting for a copy of Draconomicon and MotP...

(Little too close to the holidays for me to just rush out and spring for them when I *know* relatives or the wifey will comply...)


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 20, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> Deities will have the same traits outlined in the sidebar, and there should be suggestions for how to kill them as well.
> 
> The primordials are supposed to provide major fights, but aren't on quite the same power level as the gods. It might be that we'll want to get a little crazier with future primordials—Rorn is pretty straightforward. But Tiamat was actually designed a little _before_ Rorn, and we decided not to make the primordials too much like the deities.
> 
> The surviving deities are also the best and brightest of the bunch. Plenty of dead deities were less survivable. We consciously didn't use the "discorporation" ability on the primordials, because they're more vulnerable, and easier to kill by standard means.



Very interesting...

So, does this mean we can expect some sort of 4E "Deities & Demigods" or "Faiths & Pantheons" at some point, or will it be more common for deity stats to appear in thematically-/portfolio-related supplements? (For example, since Tiamat appears in _Draconomicon I_, perhaps Vecna appears in _Open Grave_?)

Also, given the "Don't create monsters that hardly anyone will ever fight" approach in 4E, can we expect to see Good or Lawful Good deities get stat'ed up? 

Finally, what about Realms- (and more broadly, setting-) specific deities?

Thanks for all the scoops you have already given us, and will soon coyly avoid trying to give us, Logan!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 20, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Full blown deity stats are a waste of page space IMO (and I really do adore Erik Mona's comments on deity stat blocks after he had to write a ton of them for 3.x FR's Faiths&Pantheons) because they set as standard the idea of using such beings as even bigger monsters, rather than as anything more fantastic and removed from the mundane world of human vs orc, etc.



Then ignore the stats.  Some people want them, and it's easier to say "gods can't be killed with swords in my campaign" than it is to create deity stats off the cuff.

This is about as much of a problem as the lack of the Great Wheel in the DMG is a problem.  Solution: minor edits.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 20, 2008)

This sounds like a _very_ good system... I approve.

I probably won't get the Draconomicon, but I am really looking forward to seeing a god's statblock in some future book.


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Nov 20, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> So, does this mean we can expect some sort of 4E "Deities & Demigods" or "Faiths & Pantheons" at some point, or will it be more common for deity stats to appear in thematically-/portfolio-related supplements? (For example, since Tiamat appears in _Draconomicon I_, perhaps Vecna appears in _Open Grave_?)




You'll definitely see deities in thematic supplements. Don't know whether there will be a _Deities & Demigods_ or not.



doctorhook said:


> Also, given the "Don't create monsters that hardly anyone will ever fight" approach in 4E, can we expect to see Good or Lawful Good deities get stat'ed up?




They're certainly less likely to be statted up as adversaries, but I wouldn't rule it out. There also might be Good or Lawful Good deities who get significant write-ups as patrons or appear in other, non-monster, forms.



doctorhook said:


> Finally, what about Realms- (and more broadly, setting-) specific deities?




I'm guessing those would appear on Insider. Unless a deity is hugely important to a setting, it's unlikely to appear in a future campaign guide.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 20, 2008)

All I have to say is, "You rock, Mr Bonner!"


----------



## Negflar2099 (Nov 20, 2008)

This is (IMO) incredibly cool. While not right for every campaign killing the Gods is an awesome option and by the sound of it if the DM didn't want to allow that all they have to do is keep the PCS from getting their hands on the tools they need to really do the deed. 

Basically there's one view of Gods where they are capital G GODS that are meant to beyond a mortal character's (or his players) understanding. This is a very modern western view of Gods that is based on the idea that these (or the one and only) beings is all powerful and all knowing and immortal. Much like finding out how sausage is made seeing the stats of a God takes away some of the magic for some people reducing Gods to gods and basically making them like every other mortal being. Under this view Gods would have infinite abilities that could never be shown on a stat block. 

But that's not the only view of Gods that exists. Other cultures (Greek and Romans for one) saw Gods as very much like mortal beings with mortal likes and dislikes and with mortal failings and flaws. While insanely powerful these Gods were not all knowing or all powerful and certainly could be killed. Ragnarok is all about the Gods dying after all. If the Gods can be killed that means they have finite abilities and any finite ability (no matter how powerful) can be made to fit into a stat block. 

Now the way D&D does it (and has always done it) is to follow the second path and make Gods flawed and ultimately killable beings. If you want to change that for your own game that's fine (and in fact Eberron pretty much goes in that direction on some levels) but realize that's not the usual D&D concept. Maybe that turns the magical into mundane but not everybody sees it that way. Like I said Ragnarok was about killing the Gods and for a more modern example in comics Gods get hurt and die all the time. 

The point is that D&D supports both models. It may favor the second but the first is definitely doable. 

But for those who support the second concept I can only say good hunting.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 20, 2008)

Negflar2099 said:


> Basically there's one view of Gods where they are capital G GODS that are meant to beyond a mortal character's (or his players) understanding. This is a very modern western view of Gods...
> 
> But that's not the only view of Gods that exists. Other cultures (Greek and Romans for one) saw Gods as very much like mortal beings with mortal likes and dislikes and with mortal failings and flaws.



I think you're right here, except that Greek, Roman, and Norse gods all come from places well west of Israel.  That is to say, I want to give you a gold star, but I also want to give you a map. 

I do really like how this is set up though.  I'm not a fan of having pantheons large enough to have deities to spare, but including quests to weaken the deity's abilities makes them way more scalable -- if you can bring the quest down from fetching the chalice of fire from the Elemental Chaos to fetching the chalice of fire from the heart of the largest volcano in the western mountains, you can bring killing the deity down from a 30th level task to a 10th level task, if you're the sort of person that doesn't care for high level play.

Including quests (and multiple ideas, which helps considerably) means that you can _have_ invincible unkillable gods _until_ you have made a lengthy adventure to weaken them and make them _however much weaker suits your fancy_.  Maybe that means you deign to give them a stat block.  Maybe that means you make their stat block weaker.  Maybe you use this to mimic the Time of Troubles.  Maybe you turn Thor into just another big dude with a hammer.  Maybe you turn him into a wiener dude with a hammer and a bad wrist.  The point is, this is support for a giant PLOT button whose power is limited only by your own fragile little psyche.

In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say "Shemska, what in the name of gravy are you talking about?"  This is, to my knowledge, the first time the game has explicitly supported gods as _anything but_ big monsters at the end of a dungeon.  Something about Lolth having 84 hp in first edition springs to mind.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 20, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Something about Lolth having 84 hp in first edition springs to mind.



I think it was 66... and she found at the end of a big dungeon.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 20, 2008)

Negflar2099 said:


> Now the way D&D does it (and has always done it) is to follow the second path and make Gods flawed and ultimately killable beings.




That's not the way D&D has always done it.

Second Edition was the era of gods being unkillable by mortal abilities. They could still die, of course, but only if killed by another god, or if they no longer had any worshippers to sustain them. However, no mortal could ever kill a god, and the only stat blocks about them were for their avatars - the gods themselves had none (save for some overarching guides on what the various levels of divinity could and could not do).

It was different from pretty much every other edition of the game before or since, but that was how it worked back then, and while a lot of people, including me, don't miss that, I can understand why others do.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 20, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> If a deity is too tough for PCs to take on, sure, there's no point in statting up that deity.




In the wake of some of the general complaints about D&DG and F&P in 3e, that's a pretty sensible stance. But before I get any further, thank you for making some comments on the subject and clarifying against some of the objects I mentioned.



> But we're talking about Tiamat, who we consider to be defeatable through combat. The numbers aren't arbitrarily large, and we took pains to make sure a fight against her wouldn't be impossible.




Out of curiosity, what was the grounds for saying that deity X is fightable versus deity Y not being fightable? I would generally put a cutoff point at demigod, and anything possessed of true divinity would literally be the stuff of quests and plot devices rather than a stat block. Just wondering what you guys saw as making something a reasonable target? As gods go, the mother of evil dragonkind would be rather high on my list of 'things you don't mess with regardless of your level unless your worshippers outnumber hers'.




> The _discorporation_ ability of deities, and the sidebar that lists some ways you might be able to actually kill the god, is designed to avoid having a deity battle be a "mundane standup fight." You can't just jump in and kill a deity on a whim: You'll go through entire adventures late in the game just to get the tools you need if you really want to destroy a god, and you'll be carrying those tools to the true culmination of your campaign. Killing a god IS A BIG DEAL and doing so is the defining end point of an entire campaign.




However I do have to give credit here for taking some steps to make the act have more in-game substance than a simple 'kill thor and take mjollner and go on killing spree' that's easy to hyperbolize if I felt so inclined. 

While I still don't think that statting gods is a great style to emphasize, and some backsliding against the 2e stance that I found preferable w/ respect to giving the divine mystery and allure, I appreciate that you guys expanded the act beyond a straight up fight.



> We didn't design this to let parties hop from domain to domain, slaughtering deity after deity. That's not the point. The point is making it so the final battle really is the final battle, and feels like a worthy end after years of play and 30 levels of adventure.




And that's the same thing that I would (and have) emphasized in games where gods, planar lords, archfiends etc were the major PC antagonist. However concrete stats are were I still feel it's a misguided approach, but in the end that's just a style issue, and admittedly I'm having to fight a bit of an uphill battle versus the nostalgia of 1e god stats in the process. You can have conflict with combat, and deicide without any crunch involved at all (which I find limiting and counterproductive on a few levels).

But Logan, thanks for clarifying on the topic for me. It's appreciated.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Nov 20, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> That is what we meant. I'm glad you like Tiamat and the quests, and I hope you look forward to the other deities that are on their way!



Any chance we could get a full epic module that climaxes in the death of an evil god?
Any 3PP's listening


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 20, 2008)

I believe the best written D&D supplement of all time is 'The Book of the Righteous', published by Green Ronin, and written by Aaron Loeb.  That's the only 'dieties and demigods' book that has ever given me enough to run a pantheon 'out of the box'.

So, for those of you familiar with the work, that should give you a good idea how far away I am from the ideology apparant in 4e.  

Fundamentally, I'm not opposed to the notion of god-slaying, but if gods were so easily slain that all it took was a few epic quests and five or so epic mortals, then long long long ago all the gods with their greater knowledge, power, and resources would have managed to kill each other off.  If the PC's could manage to arrange to kill Tiamat, then surely Bahamat or one of her other divine foes could have managed it centuries before they were born.

In many ways this is similar to the question, "If the treasure is easy to find, why is it still lying here?"  

For all the people trumpeting how 4e is bringing the change, I don't see this as a fundamental change in ideology compared to 3e.  In both cases, we are seeing gods presented as uber-monsters - powerful to be sure - but for the sufficiently powerful really no different than facing ogres or dragons at earlier levels.   Some of the window dressing has changed, but a book of dieties presented this way would just be the 1st ed. and 3rd ed. monster manual all over again.  At least in the 3rd ed. book, some effort had been expended explaining why all the gods hadn't been long since murdered.

I don't think my take on polytheistic pantheons is quite as extreme as the take Loeb takes - I don't think anything in a game should be unstatable - but I definately lean more toward 'gods are so far beyond mortal powers as to be incomprihensible' than I do gods as simply epic boss monsters, if only because logical necessity would seem to drive in that direction.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 20, 2008)

frankthedm said:


> Super NPCs fighting the boss is a no-no. Does not matter is that NPC is named Eliminster, Orcus or DMPC, the players are the ones who need to be the main threat to the BBEG. They may need a _plot device +12_ to have a chance, but that plot device better damn well better be in the Player's hands. Bonus points if the plat device has multiple parts so everyone has a piece of the action




I never advocated taking the action out of the PCs hands and making them play second fiddle to powerful NPCs to do their dirty work of a campaign. Involving other powerful and interested entities can ultimately provide PCs with what they need to take down a deity or archfiend that otherwise would be beyond their capacity as mortals: 
Hey, Malcanthet, tell me Pelor's one hidden vice. 
Harishek ap Thulkesh, divine for me the moment at which Shar's divine gaze will be averted elsewhere. 
Dispater, there's an artifact within your domain that might prove useful to me, and my using it will conveniantly allow you to escape retribution from Pelor's allies.

That sort of thing. By no means do you need to let an NPC do the PCs work for them. Let me be very clear on my stance there. And when I ever manage to finish my first Storyhour, folks can see very clearly that I'm not averse to allowing mortal PCs to best gods or planar powers. There's just never anything so conventional as pitting stats against stats, because I think that makes for too mundane of a victory for the PCs, and they deserve something better.


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 20, 2008)

I think it is rather ironic that Tiamat is the first deity to be doled out. Consider how she and Bahamut were born. Do you _really_ want to find out the hard way if death is only the beginning? hehehe...


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 20, 2008)

Negflar2099 said:


> Now the way D&D does it (and has always done it) is to follow the second path and make Gods flawed and ultimately killable beings.






Merlin the Tuna said:


> In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say "Shemska, what in the name of gravy are you talking about?"  This is, to my knowledge, the first time the game has explicitly supported gods as _anything but_ big monsters at the end of a dungeon.  Something about Lolth having 84 hp in first edition springs to mind.




Gods were explicitly more than big monsters for the entire tenure of 2e. It was also the edition that gave us the most flavor text on gods, their followers, beliefs, etc. It's tempting to suggest that the design focus once moved away from the crunch of god-stats flowed into other things.

And not just gods, but in many instances during 2e the same stance was also applied to archfiends and other planar entities. Such things are beyond the stuff of flesh and bone. They are transcendant things of belief and the very principles that define the cosmos, so don't expect to fight them in a dungeon, extraplanar or otherwise.

I adore the mid/late 2e design stance as it pertains to gods, archfiends, etc. It's not everyone's favorite, especally if you played during 1e and remember the 66HP Lolth, but it's a style that I hate to see moved away from more and more. Actual stats for tangible fights versus the divine takes away the magic and majesty of it all for me.


Mildly amusing tidbit:
And yes, there's also some irony here when the late 2e design focus (by McComb and some others) promoted the idea of gods being lesser beings than the planar lords in many instances, and I'm currently working on a cosmology for Paizo wherein gods are very much the biggest things on the block.  Don't think I can't have fun and make cool things in someone else's sandbox under their design quirks even if they don't exactly mirror mine. But damn they come close on a ton of other aspects, planar-wise.

Edit: And Alzrius beat me to the punch on 2e.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 20, 2008)

Tiny Little Raven said:


> What about the ramifications of deicide? If the GM is running a game where the players on plane hopping adding to list of slain deities, what happens when all the gods are dead? Granted it wouldn't be easy topull of such a feat, but it should at least get mentions somewhere.




Well, there are 4-5 possibly proto-gods by the deity's cooling corpse that could take over.

Or one of the deity's exarchs could seize/inherit their portfolio/Word/what have you.  Heck, they may have even helped nudge their boss along as part of that epic quest.

Brad


----------



## Xris Robin (Nov 20, 2008)

EDIT:  Nevermind, didn't see the other pages.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> I believe the best written D&D supplement of all time is 'The Book of the Righteous', published by Green Ronin, and written by Aaron Loeb.  That's the only 'dieties and demigods' book that has ever given me enough to run a pantheon 'out of the box'.
> 
> So, for those of you familiar with the work, that should give you a good idea how far away I am from the ideology apparant in 4e.
> 
> Fundamentally, I'm not opposed to the notion of god-slaying, but if gods were so easily slain that all it took was a few epic quests and five or so epic mortals, then long long long ago all the gods with their greater knowledge, power, and resources would have managed to kill each other off.  If the PC's could manage to arrange to kill Tiamat, then surely Bahamat or one of her other divine foes could have managed it centuries before they were born.



There are dead gods, right? So presumably, this actually happened before.

It is trivially easy for humans to kill each other. Yet they rarely do so. It happens, but these people are usually punished by the society, unless the entire society supported the murder. 

And that's probably the same for gods. Maybe Bahamut could try to kill Tiamat - or the other way around. But Bahamut - he would be setting a bad example and might fear the repercussions. Tiamat knows that Bahamut has allies that might come kill him. So they arrange with each other, and to solve their conflicts on the material world, among followers and angels. 

But there is another problem - if gods actually first have to complete some kind of quest to commit a murder among each other, this is a lot of prepwork. If the only way to kill a human was to first travel half the world and buy a bazooka, how many murders would still happen? How many could hope to go unnoticed? Even if you "hire" someone else to do it - how likely is it he gets stopped? 
How many epic heroes fail their quests? How many epic heroes even exist?


----------



## delericho (Nov 20, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> The first describes the deity's special rules. There's a few nifty things like not being able to be attacked by anyone not in the epic tier, being able to do a savings throw against any effect immediately, and then the bit about "Discorporation"...
> 
> This leads to the second column, called "Destroying Tiamat". It contains 3 hooks for quests that once completed, allow you to truely destroy her...
> 
> Discuss!




Sounds like they've got it exactly right.

For those groups that don't want gods to be killable, they can either simply not use the rules or make the quests impossible (or, you know, just don't have quests to kill gods). For the groups that do want those rules, they're there. What's more, it looks like the stat-blocks are now not so massive as to make "Deities & Demigods" (or its 4e equivalent) almost completely useless.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 20, 2008)

Celebrim said:


> Fundamentally, I'm not opposed to the notion of god-slaying, but if gods were so easily slain that all it took was a few epic quests and five or so epic mortals, then long long long ago all the gods with their greater knowledge, power, and resources would have managed to kill each other off.  If the PC's could manage to arrange to kill Tiamat, then surely Bahamat or one of her other divine foes could have managed it centuries before they were born.



Heh, this made me laugh a bit.  All it takes is a few epic quests and five or so epic heroes . . . 'cause you just can't swing a dead cat without hitting epic heroes in most fantasy settings . . .

Epic heroes taking epic quests are not common occurences.  They happen every couple of millenia or so . . . it just so happens that the current epic heroes out to slay Tiamat permanently are the player characters!

And as another poster pointed out, just because you have the physical or magical power to kill someone, doesn't mean you will or it's simply "that easy".  All I need is a knife to kill a person (in fact, I don't really even need that).  But yet, I never have (even though I do think there are people out there who probably deserve it).  And it probably wouldn't be as easy as walking up to them and just hacking away.  And if I did pull it off, there would be repercussions.  It's not any different at the divine level.  Bahamut might think offing Tiamat sounds like a great idea, and he certainly could take on those crazy epic quests himself and then take on Tiamat personally . . . but would it really be just "that easy" for him?  Only if the DM is a poor storyteller . . .


----------



## ferratus (Nov 20, 2008)

Again, if you don't want players killing gods, it seems to me that you just don't allow the game to advance beyond level 20... just like in 2e.

People did read about the heroic, paragon, and epic tiers right?   It seems half the complaints about 4e not fitting their preferred play style or type of campaign world on enworld could be resolved by ending the campaign earlier.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Reminds me of the Dragonlace Legends series where Raistlin has to do a bunch of stuff (Including gettin it on with a good cleric woohoo!) in his quest to take on Tahkisis...


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Reminds me of the Dragonlace Legends series where Raistlin has to do a bunch of stuff (Including gettin it on with a good cleric woohoo!) in his quest to take on Tahkisis...




First of all, Raistlin's not exactly a good example of a player character. Caramon, on the other hand, is a perfect example.

Secondly, I'm OK with Tiamat being an antagonist that epic characters can kill if they're lucky, but if anybody starts equating her with Takhisis I'm going to scream. One's a big five headed super-dragon, the other's a greater god who happens to take the form of a big five headed super-dragon when she's slumming in the Temple of Neraka.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> First of all, Raistlin's not exactly a good example of a player character. Caramon, on the other hand, is a perfect example.
> 
> Secondly, I'm OK with Tiamat being an antagonist that epic characters can kill if they're lucky, but if anybody starts equating her with Takhisis I'm going to scream. One's a big five headed super-dragon, the other's a greater god who happens to take the form of a big five headed super-dragon when she's slumming in the Temple of Neraka.
> 
> ...




You say Tomato, I say greater god who happens to take the form of a big five headed super-dragon when she's slumming in the Temple of Neraka.

Seriously though... in the art of Dragonlance book there's this picture of raistlin all tied up in the abyss while Tahkisis watches over him... She's pretty dang hot in that 80s pornqueen look Elmore does so well!


----------



## avin (Nov 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> She's pretty dang hot in that 80s pornqueen look Elmore does so well!




We have a winner \o/


----------



## nicholasgeorg (Nov 20, 2008)

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is where Scales of War is headed.  Call me crazy, but I haven't seen mentioned anywhere on these boards the potential Bahamut cameo in Lost Mines of Karak...


----------



## avin (Nov 20, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> I'm currently working on a cosmology for Paizo wherein gods are very much the biggest things on the block




Shelyn stuff?

Is it for PF core or some suplement?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Nov 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Seriously though... in the art of Dragonlance book there's this picture of raistlin all tied up in the abyss while Tahkisis watches over him... She's pretty dang hot in that 80s pornqueen look Elmore does so well!



*nitpick* That's not by Elmore. It's by Clyde Caldwell.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Matrix Sorcica said:


> *nitpick* That's not by Elmore. It's by Clyde Caldwell.




I stand corrected... She's still hot... and 80s though.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 20, 2008)

avin said:


> Is it for PF core or some suplement?




"The Great Beyond: A Guide to the Multiverse"


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are dead gods, right? So presumably, this actually happened before.
> 
> It is trivially easy for humans to kill each other. Yet they rarely do so. It happens, but these people are usually punished by the society, unless the entire society supported the murder.
> 
> ...



^ I'm with this guy. He's got it right.


----------



## Phaezen (Nov 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There are dead gods, right? So presumably, this actually happened before.
> 
> It is trivially easy for humans to kill each other. Yet they rarely do so. It happens, but these people are usually punished by the society, unless the entire society supported the murder.
> 
> ...






doctorhook said:


> ^ I'm with this guy. He's got it right.




This.

The God/s choosing and guiding a hero or group of heroes to kill another God/ other Gods is a fairly well established trope.  Infact you can almost design a campaign around it 

In my case it is a demon prince going after godhood.

Phaezen


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Yeah... Just because a god CAN do something doesn't mean it's automatic... I mean I see them kind of like kings... Yeah the king could get up, walk to the next kingdom over challange another king to a fight, kill him and take his stuff...

But that's a pain in the thronepillow... 

Much easier just to get your followers to do all that stuff for you, while you sit and reap the rewards.


----------



## ferratus (Nov 20, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Secondly, I'm OK with Tiamat being an antagonist that epic characters can kill if they're lucky, but if anybody starts equating her with Takhisis I'm going to scream. One's a big five headed super-dragon, the other's a greater god who happens to take the form of a big five headed super-dragon when she's slumming in the Temple of Neraka.




Yeah!  Takhisis should only be killed by a single blow by a spear wielding adolescent elf!


----------



## Logan_Bonner (Nov 20, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Out of curiosity, what was the grounds for saying that deity X is fightable versus deity Y not being fightable?




Our main concern is, "Who will people want to fight, who will make the most compelling battles, and who will best fit in books we're doing."

Tiamat's an easy one. If you like fighting dragons, here's the mother (in more ways than one). She's got five heads for five times the combat prowess. We're doing _Draconomicon_ all about chromatics, and she's all sorts of chromatic.

We'll probably be avoiding good an lawful good deities, just because it's less likely you'll fight them. Who really wants to put Pelor in his place in their game? Seems awfully boring. Now who wants to fight Bane or Tiamat or Torog? Those are more in the "big D&D monster who wants to kill you" mode. We might put out stats for non-evil, non-chaotic evil gods in books they really fit in, like Corellon in a book about the Feywild or the Raven Queen in a book about the Shadowfell or whatever, but it's still less likely.

There aren't many deities who are just too tough to take on. Especially with the evil/CE deities, we wanted ones that looked like you might be able to take them down.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 20, 2008)

ferratus said:


> Yeah!  Takhisis should only be killed by a single blow by a spear wielding adolescent elf!




That's after her godhood is stripped from her and you know it!

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> That's after her godhood is stripped from her and you know it!
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




On a stage with "candy girl" playing on the loudspeakers?


Also what your saying is after someone went through a quest to complete several key steps in order to defeat her?


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 20, 2008)

I'd fight William Shatner. But seriously, good stuff, this is very similar to what I had in mind for my 3e campaigns.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Also what your saying is after someone went through a quest to complete several key steps in order to defeat her?




Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Scribble (Nov 20, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Sorry I wasn't saying that as if I thought you were... It was more of a comment on how well I think the system meshes with established storyteling ideas, and methods. 

It's not a "new idea" per se, but it is a great use of an established concept in a game setting...  If that makes sense.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 20, 2008)

I should also note that I liked the statement in the core books that the gods' true nature is "beyond any physical form" which is exactly how we've presented the gods of Krynn in the MWP sourcebooks. They don't have a single physical body, like some giant superhuman monster sitting out in the Astral Sea waiting to get attacked by somebody. They can manifest an aspect with which to interact with mortals, but there is no "true" body to kill.

This thing with Tiamat seems like a reversal of that approach, which is a little sad. Good for the people who are into epic hero vs. god combat, but enh.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> Our main concern is, "Who will people want to fight, who will make the most compelling battles, and who will best fit in books we're doing."




Why? D&D is not a combat simulation game. Books as in novels, or rulesbooks?

If it is people to fight, then I think the gods detailed should start with those in the PHB. They are already in the books and someone might just want to have a story around a battle between the gods even if PoL design doesn't intend for ti to happen.



> Tiamat's an easy one. If you like fighting dragons, here's the mother (in more ways than one). She's got five heads for five times the combat prowess. We're doing _Draconomicon_ all about chromatics, and she's all sorts of chromatic.




Yeah. In a game about Dungeons and Dragons the god(dess) of dragons is a good opponent to have in plot and battle.



> We'll probably be avoiding good an lawful good deities, just because it's less likely you'll fight them. Who really wants to put Pelor in his place in their game?




I might, so might many others. What difference do alignment really matter in why you fight for anything anymore. I thought the alignment movement was to get away from the dreaded focus on alignment and allow for more freestyle play without being bound to some code or morals that nobody every agreed upon anyway.



> Seems awfully boring.



To you maybe, but what of people who want to play the antagonists of the game world, or anti-heroes or any number of other reasons they may want to fight with ANY deity as there story has laid out for them.




> Now who wants to fight Bane or Tiamat or Torog? Those are more in the "big D&D monster who wants to kill you" mode. We might put out stats for non-evil, non-chaotic evil gods in books they really fit in, like Corellon in a book about the Feywild or the Raven Queen in a book about the Shadowfell or whatever, but it's still less likely.
> 
> There aren't many deities who are just too tough to take on. Especially with the evil/CE deities, we wanted ones that looked like you might be able to take them down.




Then to keep balance within the game level 35 seems to be a good place for all deities. This would further support PoL in that the gods really don't interfere with the mortals because they are pretty much at a stalemate. Two or more would have to work together to push their view over another deity to dethrone him....maybe that is just what the purpose of the PCs turns out to be.

Interesting reasons so far, and this thread has been something interesting to watch, but I wanted to ask those questions. Even though I am not one of them, maybe the D&D Insiders might get answers to those questions sometime in the future.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 21, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> I should also note that I liked the statement in the core books that the gods' true nature is "beyond any physical form" which is exactly how we've presented the gods of Krynn in the MWP sourcebooks. They don't have a single physical body, like some giant superhuman monster sitting out in the Astral Sea waiting to get attacked by somebody. They can manifest an aspect with which to interact with mortals, but there is no "true" body to kill.
> 
> This thing with Tiamat seems like a reversal of that approach, which is a little sad. Good for the people who are into epic hero vs. god combat, but enh.
> 
> ...



Well you can still have that as true with this approach. The epic quest prior to combat could be to trap the god in one of its forms, in this case Tiamat's Dragon form.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 21, 2008)

WotC_Logan said:


> We'll probably be avoiding good an lawful good deities, just because it's less likely you'll fight them. Who really wants to put Pelor in his place in their game? Seems awfully boring. Now who wants to fight Bane or Tiamat or Torog? Those are more in the "big D&D monster who wants to kill you" mode. We might put out stats for non-evil, non-chaotic evil gods in books they really fit in, like Corellon in a book about the Feywild or the Raven Queen in a book about the Shadowfell or whatever, but it's still less likely.




Do you think that more players will want to fight evil gods and thus need a statblock for them versus games featuring non evil or even good non-deific antagonists for whom the support is rather slim at this point? God slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase. Beyond that, I can't say I particularly like the rather one sided "play the game the way -we- play the game" approach in which there's good and super good and they're only supposed to fight evil and super evil. It's a bit shallow IMO, but obviously you guys felt differently.



> There aren't many deities who are just too tough to take on. Especially with the evil/CE deities, we wanted ones that looked like you might be able to take them down.




Again I have to disagree with that. The list of 'who are you capable of killing' ends up being populated almost entirely by the list of 'who does the game say you are supposed to be fighting under its playstyle mandates'. Rather makes it difficult to have moral ambiguity in campaign conflicts when the evil spectrum is weighted to be targets by design [and I won't get into conflating chaos with evil, or law with good, that's another debate entirely].


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 21, 2008)

I think it is less what WoTC views as "the way to play" and more. Okay, we have this amount of resources available to us, this much space in the books, etc, etc. We need to make as much content as possible that appeals to the widest audience.

The majority of D&D campaigns are more good or neutral oriented and thus the likelihood of having to go into combat against good or neutral gods is significantly diminished.

I am certainly fine with this approach, and I am someone who is more likely to have neutral-evil campaigns and characters then good-neutral.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 21, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.
> 
> Cheers,
> Cam




Blame the 1e MotP for saying they were the same individual. Even Planescape tried it's best to seperate the two of them, but it's been like fighting a tide on the issue since the late 80s.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I think it is less what *WoTC views as "the way to play"* and more. Okay, we have this amount of resources available to us, this much space in the books, etc, etc. We need to make as much content as possible that appeals to the widest audience.
> 
> The majority of D&D campaigns are more good or neutral oriented and thus the likelihood of having to go into combat against good or neutral gods is significantly diminished.
> 
> I am certainly fine with this approach, and I am someone who is more likely to have neutral-evil campaigns and characters then good-neutral.




That sounds more like someone sticking their fingers in their ears because they don't want to hear someone say that they want to play the bad guys that fight the good guys.

Where really is the dichotomy of good and evil/bad if thee is no chance o fighting them both?

It puts more emphasis on alignment and what they mean to say that the PCs are only and always the good guys, and the enemies are then by default always the bad guys, and mistakes cannot be made because of the perfect alignment oppositions.

No monster should take more than a single page to write up. If you are allowed to fight one, you should be allowed to fight all, and for those wanting to create their own deities, evil or good, they should have a frame of reference within the game rules for doing so, and that means they need to see both sides of the equation, even if the players are always meant to be good, and fighting the evils of the Rainbow Brite word.

That doesn't mean it doesn't take space to include these things, but deities should be in their campaign specific materials, as well as the generic deities book for those deities that are generic. If you only have the time to make one deity to fight against, why did you waste the time doing that, because you know people will want more, and how do you know if two are balanced against each other if you only have one to weigh in on?

I don't think the widest audience wants to be the goody-two shoes fighting all the naughtiness in the world. I think throughout the game the widest audience wants to be able to choose rather than be railroaded by anyone (DM, company, another player, etc).


----------



## ferratus (Nov 21, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> That's after her godhood is stripped from her and you know it!




Don't remind everyone about that arbitrary plot point which came out of nowhere.  It's embarrassing.

As for whether or not you should kill gods in Dragonlance, Raistlin did solo a deity, and he was doing so by drawing her divine essence into the mortal world where he would have fought her in the form of a big 5 headed dragon.  He had to go through a series of steps to place himself in the position to do so, which pretty fits in with the guidelines for killing a god presented here.  So I'd say using the stats for Tiamat, if you wanted to give Takhisis a proper send off with a party of heroic demigods facing her, this would be the way to do it.

What is the point of 30th level if you aren't going to be fighting demon lords, primordials and gods?  DLA had the stats for the gods just like any other 1e supplement, and presumably the DM could use them to cap a world shattering campaign.  The PC's deserve it after taking 2 years of weekly games to get there.   If you don't want the gods to die, retire the campaign at 20th level... or keep them out of the PC's path.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Why? D&D is not a combat simulation game. Books as in novels, or rulesbooks?



It's not, but one of 4e's core philosophies is that you don't need stats for something you won't fight.  In many ways, 4e combat statistics don't exist until that creature is in a fight.



> If it is people to fight, then I think the gods detailed should start with those in the PHB. They are already in the books and someone might just want to have a story around a battle between the gods even if PoL design doesn't intend for ti to happen.



This is another "Zen of 4e" thing.  Creatures' statistics are not there so creatures can fight each other.  They are there so they can fight PCs.  In 3e, creature stats are kind of an absolute way they interact with the world; 4e stats are the way they interact with the PCs.



> I might, so might many others. What difference do alignment really matter in why you fight for anything anymore. I thought the alignment movement was to get away from the dreaded focus on alignment and allow for more freestyle play without being bound to some code or morals that nobody every agreed upon anyway.
> 
> To you maybe, but what of people who want to play the antagonists of the game world, or anti-heroes or any number of other reasons they may want to fight with ANY deity as there story has laid out for them.



I _don't_ think it's a game designer's job to come up with everything any group of PCs will want to do.

I _do_ think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.


-O


----------



## scarik (Nov 21, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> I _do_ think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.




My Paladin doesn't want to be god of chromatic dragons.

God of the Sun though? He's all over that. 

Pelor, watch your ass!

Also if Wizards doesn't want to make stats and adventures for Evil PCs then that's what the GSL is for. Some brave 3P company will totally make stats for your Paladin of Bane and his buddies to Kill Kord and take his stuff.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

Obryn said:


> It's not, but one of 4e's core philosophies is that you don't need stats for something you won't fight.  In many ways, 4e combat statistics don't exist until that creature is in a fight.



Sure, but as said before, who are you going to fight with those newly earned level 29/30 powers?

You get on level of play with them from 29?

That makes the game only really 29 levels of play and a 30th level to look at.

Several deities are already level 35, so why not have more than just Tiamat and Orcus for higher level play?



> This is another "Zen of 4e" thing.  Creatures' statistics are not there so creatures can fight each other.  They are there so they can fight PCs.  In 3e, creature stats are kind of an absolute way they interact with the world; 4e stats are the way they interact with the PCs.



Talking to the wrong one really about 3rd creature stats.

CR/ECL/etc and I never wanted to look from the DM perspective again.

All editions nothing has stats until they are needed by the players to interact with. So the DM should have to create the stats for everything just in case his players will interact with it?



> I _don't_ think it's a game designer's job to come up with everything any group of PCs will want to do.



I think it is the game designers job to come up with the rules for dealing with the creatures they created including the deities, at least, in the PHB and setting specific books.

If a group doesn't want to fight Pelor, they don't have to, but what of those who may have a need for their story completion?

Removing the ability to create story elements because of a lack os insight to think someone may want to use something you have built into the foundation of the game as a plot point only furthers the positions that state 4th edition is mostly just a miniature wargame with RPG elements thrown in.



> I _do_ think it's a safe bet that, out of the subset of gamers for whom fighting gods is interesting, many more will need statistics for Tiamat than for Pelor.




So it is a popularity contest and not all gamers rights are equal to decide how they may want to create their stories?

I don't think that is right at all and goes with the previous poster saying that WotC in some way seems to be imposing their playstyle and story choices on other players, by not throwing together the other gods so you do have something to do with your level 30 character other than retire him or upgrade those level 25 monsters and play with them again until the end of your story.

It just makes the potential of the game a bit lacking to offer only one side of the cosmology as a probable or likely opponent.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 21, 2008)

If WoTC is supposed to cater to all gamers right off the bat, then where are my damn Psionics and technology! 

To put it another way, WoTC has to address the majority first before building up less-needing components, and they are less needed since well less players/DMs need them.

The players who play less common-genre trappings for now will have to use more their own ideas and make things up. That is what I am currently doing with my technology, Loa-Vodoun magic, etc. I know these things are less major interests in D&D and thus don't expect any kind of major support off the bat.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a ways down once the majority of evil-neutral Gods have been done up, WoTC will start looking at good-neutral Gods since they will then have appealed to the majority of the gamers and can start catering more to specifics.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 21, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> Do you think that more players will want to fight evil gods and thus need a statblock for them versus games featuring non evil or even good non-deific antagonists for whom the support is rather slim at this point? God slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase. Beyond that, I can't say I particularly like the rather one sided "play the game the way -we- play the game" approach in which there's good and super good and they're only supposed to fight evil and super evil. It's a bit shallow IMO, but obviously you guys felt differently.



Wow. So far gods and god-killing have taken up *one page* in only one of the 4E books (by my count). So your argument that "god slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase" is so far reflected very well in the 4E books, considering that one single page has thus far been dedicated to it.

I think your argument is lacking in perspective.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

scarik said:


> Also if Wizards doesn't want to make stats and adventures for Evil PCs then that's what the GSL is for. Some brave 3P company will totally make stats for your Paladin of Bane and his buddies to Kill Kord and take his stuff.




Right on!

I see loads of people saying they think 4e should have had this or that... seems ripe with possibility for a 3pp...


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Sure, but as said before, who are you going to fight with those newly earned level 29/30 powers?
> 
> You get on level of play with them from 29?
> 
> ...



Huh?  I'm perplexed how this even relates to what I wrote at all.

And there's not much for high-level play yet, period.  Most everything is concentrating on levels 1-20.



> Talking to the wrong one really about 3rd creature stats.
> 
> CR/ECL/etc and I never wanted to look from the DM perspective again.
> 
> All editions nothing has stats until they are needed by the players to interact with. So the DM should have to create the stats for everything just in case his players will interact with it?



I repeat - "Huh?"

This isn't about CR/ECL/anything.  I was explaining why you don't need stats to have two gods fighting one another, in response to your point.



> I think it is the game designers job to come up with the rules for dealing with the creatures they created including the deities, at least, in the PHB and setting specific books.
> 
> If a group doesn't want to fight Pelor, they don't have to, but what of those who may have a need for their story completion?




If a DM is one of a tiny handful who wants their characters to fight Pelor, he can make up the stats.  Really, 4e has good guidelines to start with, and he can use Tiamat and Orcus as examples.  Once again, I don't think there's an onus on the designers to stat out every god that anyone  might want stats for at any point.  They're concentrating on the most likely ones.

And what the heck do you mean by this...


> Removing the ability to create story elements because of a lack os insight to think someone may want to use something you have built into the foundation of the game as a plot point only furthers the positions that state 4th edition is mostly just a miniature wargame with RPG elements thrown in.




How has 4e removed any ability to create any story elements?



> So it is a popularity contest and not all gamers rights are equal to decide how they may want to create their stories?



Whaaa?

Gamers can create whatever games they want.  WotC, on the other hand, can and should only produce supplements that will sell, and people who want to run unusual games might need to make up a few stat blocks.  I have yet to see WotC commanding you to play Good characters.

I don't see how this is even remotely surprising.  Much like with your exact-scale crouching dwarf minis, the designers cannot and should not cater to every corner-case.

There will probably be an "Evil PCs" supplement eventually.  Alternately, some third party can make one with the GSL.



> I don't think that is right at all and goes with the previous poster saying that WotC in some way seems to be imposing their playstyle and story choices on other players, by not throwing together the other gods so you do have something to do with your level 30 character other than retire him or upgrade those level 25 monsters and play with them again until the end of your story.
> 
> It just makes the potential of the game a bit lacking to offer only one side of the cosmology as a probable or likely opponent.



:facepalm:

-O


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 21, 2008)

scarik said:


> Also if Wizards doesn't want to make stats and adventures for Evil PCs then that's what the GSL is for. Some brave 3P company will totally make stats for your Paladin of Bane and his buddies to Kill Kord and take his stuff.




Actually, we're not allowed to. The SRD doesn't contain the pantheon or the terms associated with the new diety-killing rules. We can only really write our_ own_ gods and unique ways of killing them that do _not_ resemble the Discorporation System (oh look, I gave it a name). If someone at Wizards could update us all on exactly what _is _going to happen with the GSL, that would be great. For now, we are in the dark.

But you bring up a good point! Wizards is *not *the only one producing material, which brings me to...



justanobody said:


> If a group doesn't want to fight Pelor, they don't have to, but what of those who may have a need for their story completion?
> 
> Removing the ability to create story elements because of a lack os insight to think someone may want to use something *you have built into the foundation of the game* as a plot point only furthers the positions that state 4th edition is mostly just a miniature wargame with RPG elements thrown in.




That's absurd. They have in no way contructed a game that disallows evil play. It is not highly supported for reasons stated previously (and later in this post), but it is _certainly_ possibly. They give suggestions in the core rulebooks as to how this can be done, and it will undoubtedly be explored by 3rd Party Publishers as well, as this is something we _can _do.




> *So it is a popularity contest* and not all gamers rights are equal to decide how they may want to create their stories?
> 
> I don't think that is right at all and goes with the previous poster saying that *WotC in some way seems to be imposing their playstyle and story choices on other players*, by not throwing together the other gods so you do have something to do with your level 30 character other than retire him or upgrade those level 25 monsters and play with them again until the end of your story.
> 
> It just makes the potential of the game a bit lacking to offer only one side of the cosmology as a probable or likely opponent.




Wizards of the Coast is a company. Like any other RPG company, including third party publishers, they must release products that appeal to a _majority_ of players. This ensures that they make money, and continue to release more products (I know, this is blasphemous, but stick with me here). While many players do like to explore the dichotomy of good and evil, most make characters that fight evil. They are not stopping you from running the games of your choice. They are not _enforcing_ anything on you. Many people miss this, but they've provided a nice section in the DMG that will teach you to make your own creatures should you want your players to fight a different kind of villain (god, they should just call it a Toolkit so that more people will take notice).

 They are a business, and they are releasing products which appeal to the *majority* of gamers. And judging by the turnout of this post, they've done that. And as for the amount of energy they're putting into making sure you're only killing evil gods, I'll quote the following, for epic truth...



Fifth Element said:


> Wow. So far gods and god-killing have taken up *one page* in only one of the 4E books (by my count). So your argument that "god slaying is probably a pretty small fraction of the D&D playerbase" is so far reflected very well in the 4E books, considering that one single page has thus far been dedicated to it.
> 
> *I think your argument is lacking in perspective.*




I would also like to point out that in this supplement, there are a good handful of post-30 epic threats to be found, more of which I'm sure we'll see in future supplements. I'll close by politely imploring you not to turn my nice, happy, game-related thread into a new _edition war_ like the ones you've frequented so very fervently before.

Reagards.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 21, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> Dude. I have no problem with epic quests to get rid of a god, in any setting. I'm just saying Tiamat =/= Takhisis.



Riiiiigghhhhht . . . So the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons of Krynn is not the same basic character as the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons for the rest of D&D . . . .

The Takhisis of Dragonlance is quite clearly good 'ol Tiamat given a bit of a powerup . . . although Tiamat has caught up in FR and core D&D.  Next your going to tell me Paladine =/= Bahamut . . .


----------



## Tiny Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Several deities are already level 35, so why not have more than just Tiamat and Orcus for higher level play?




If the game is supposed to cap at 30 levels, this makes my noggin' itch.
I wonder if there'll be a supplement dealing with characters that go beyond 30 levels?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> Wizards of the Coast is a company. Like any other RPG company, including third party publishers, they must release products that appeal to a _majority_ of players.




Yes, heaven forbid they actually complete anything they start and now that their exists one god with stats in the form of Tiamat, as well Orcus...they probably have no need to offer those simple gods that the PCs have an option to worship  steal powers from.

Like someone else said that their paladin might just want to dethrone Pelor and take his seat in the universe.

But it is OK to not have at least the core complete because everything is core now! 

And only Evil deities would even fight, so evil PCs can fight evil deities and good little boys and girls and PCs and players should not want to fight good deities.

Heaven forbid, again, that some plane of existence comes into the game that stresses the balance the game wants to have but it so unbalanced that it cannot stat out good deities for PCs to fight for some reason should they want to; and that plane of existence we shall call Nirvana and it will be run by MODRONS!

Finishing the core product like giving stats for the included deities since most players will own a PHB and may have interest in opposing one of the deities for some reason makes a bit more sense to appealing to a larger audience, than creating a new deity in the game and giving it stats first.

Sounds like EverQuest and never fixing any previous expansion prior to releasing the next one so all the problems compound and then it is too late to fix anything because it is too late to backtrack as it would require rewriting the most recent expansions...... Did those Kunark quests ever finally get fixed?

Deities exist that many people have access to, so complete them first before making up something else.

I would work on what is already started first because it would be quicker to get done, that just making something new, I mean don't the deities for paladins already offer then a range of powers, so the stats for those deities have some stuff already that they specialize in for combat effectiveness and flavor.



Dire Bare said:


> Riiiiigghhhhht . . . So the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons of Krynn is not the same basic character as the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons for the rest of D&D . . . .
> 
> The Takhisis of Dragonlance is quite clearly good 'ol Tiamat given a bit of a powerup . . . although Tiamat has caught up in FR and core D&D.  Next your going to tell me Paladine =/= Bahamut . . .




And Dragonbron and the bastard offspring of Draconians.



Tiny Little Raven said:


> If the game is supposed to cap at 30 levels, this makes my noggin' itch.
> I wonder if there'll be a supplement dealing with characters that go beyond 30 levels?




I am still trying to wrap my head around that one.

What do you do at level 30 after the epic destinies IF you want to keep playing?

NARFLE THE GARTHOK!   Fight the gods!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2008)

Tiny Little Raven said:


> If the game is supposed to cap at 30 levels, this makes my noggin' itch.
> I wonder if there'll be a supplement dealing with characters that go beyond 30 levels?




Game caps at 30, but don't forget that PCs can also survive a fight with monsters a number of levels above their own.


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 21, 2008)

ferratus said:


> Don't remind everyone about that arbitrary plot point which came out of nowhere.  It's embarrassing.




Your mileage and all that.



> DLA had the stats for the gods just like any other 1e supplement, and presumably the DM could use them to cap a world shattering campaign




Actually, DLA didn't have their stats. It had enormous class levels pulled out of nowhere and hit points, but it wasn't Deities and Demigods or Forgotten Realms Adventures (or even Tiamat and Bahamut a la MM). Those were included just to have people go "whoa, they're unbelievably powerful and we have no chance!" Tracy and Margaret have never been fans of giving stats for the gods.

But, all of that aside, I agree that having powerful statistics for a level 35 chromatic dragon does give you one option for an aspect of Takhisis. All I'm trying to say is that I don't want people to think those ARE the statistics of Takhisis. Make sense?

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 21, 2008)

Dire Bare said:


> Riiiiigghhhhht . . . So the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons of Krynn is not the same basic character as the five-dragon-headed queen of evil chromatic dragons for the rest of D&D . . . .




Not since they parted ways early on, and one went off to become the greater goddess and head of the pantheon of evil while the other hung out as the evil goddess of chromatic dragons.

Everybody sees the relationship between the two, but come on. There's 25 years (come next year!) of mileage on Takhisis now, and she's acquired a whole slew of other traits in that time.

I must say though that it does appear 4E is taking a heck of a lot of elements of Dragonlance and working it into its core, just as it's taking a heck of a lot of Eberron and so forth. That makes things easier for DL gamers.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Yes, heaven forbid they actually complete anything they start and now that their exists one god with stats in the form of Tiamat, as well Orcus...they probably have no need to offer those simple gods that the PCs have an option to worship  steal powers from.
> 
> Like someone else said that their paladin might just want to dethrone Pelor and take his seat in the universe.
> 
> ...



Okay, so after ignore your nonsensical EverQuest example, I'm going to question you about why you believe WotC should publish material for every isolated interest in the community.

Shemeska pointed out how few people might be interested in deicide in D&D: a fraction, and potentially a small one. We also know that the number of players who prefer to be "goodie-goodie stompin'" evil characters is a fraction of the community, also possibly a very small one. So, justanobody, during this global economic crisis, you're demanding that WotC pay someone to write and publish material that a small fraction of a small fraction of their consumer base will actually be willing to use? Seriously? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## ferratus (Nov 21, 2008)

Cam Banks said:


> But, all of that aside, I agree that having powerful statistics for a level 35 chromatic dragon does give you one option for an aspect of Takhisis. All I'm trying to say is that I don't want people to think those ARE the statistics of Takhisis. Make sense?




Actually I don't understand.  Largely if you are fighting Takhisis at level 30, you have the epic destinies of archmage, eternal seeker, demigod, etc. you have already stepped outside of the realm of the normal dragonlance play experience.   You essentially have a party of Raistlins, Humas and Kingpriests and would be the mightiest mortals ever to exist on the face of Krynn.

Sure Takhisis has the dark temptress for seducing mortals to her bidding and the Dark Warrior to command her forces.   However if she is going to fight personally, it is the Chromatic Dragon form which she will use.  It is the one that is the most interesting and iconic for a D&D combat.

So those statistics are going to be as close an approximation of Takhisis' stats as you can expect, given that you can't make her any stronger or even the highest level PC's couldn't prevail.  The stats for Tiamat will serve as Takhisis' stats in the only place they matter... in a fight.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Okay, so after ignore your ridiculous and nonsensical EverQuest example, I'm going to question you about why you believe WotC should publish material for every isolated interest in the community.




Did you not understand the EQ reference and its relationship to the current idea?

How many gods are in the PHB? Would that really be too much to ask to have those with stats, in case.

That would give core players something to do with their epic destinies and level 30 that is in the book other than fight Orcus a couple of times. How many times can you kill one deity anyway?

What point is there to invade other planes if you are going there to raise hell and think that the one in charge might not just get pissed about it and take it personal and come for you?

I don't think the PHB deities are really too much to ask for.

Forgotten Realms seems to have a few less deities now.....nobody knows what is going on with Eberron.

So how are the deities in the PHB somehow some corner cases when they are the defaults?



> Are you a Communist, justanobody?




No I am a Marxist.

Well, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard! ~Honk Honk~


----------



## DandD (Nov 21, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Okay, so after ignore your ridiculous and nonsensical EverQuest example, I'm going to question you about why you believe WotC should publish material for every isolated interest in the community.
> 
> Your buddy (/fellow threadcrapper ) Shemeska pointed out how few people might be interested in deicide in D&D: a fraction, and potentially a small one. We also know that the number of players who prefer to be "goodie-goodie stompin'" evil characters is a fraction of the community, also possibly a very small one. So, justanobody, during this global economic crisis, you're demanding that WotC pay someone to write and publish material that a small fraction of a small fraction of their consumer base will actually be willing to use? Seriously? I can only assume that you must completely lack any understand of market economics or business sense. Are you a Communist, justanobody?
> 
> *sigh* Where's that idiot Joseph McCarthy when you finally need him?



Ugh, watch out, the mods don't like this tone in any thread reply, so you should better reword it.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> How many gods are in the PHB? Would that really be too much to ask to have those with stats, in case.



*In case of what?*  You roll a random encounter and, OOPS!  It's Pelor!

Really, if you're facing Pelor, there had better well have been a freaking campaign leading up to it.  He's not showing up randomly.  Odds are, you've had an adolescent power-fantasy evil campaign leading up to it, and you've had plenty of time to make stuff.



> That would give core players something to do with their epic destinies and level 30 that is in the book other than fight Orcus a couple of times. How many times can you kill one deity anyway?
> 
> What point is there to invade other planes if you are going there to raise hell and think that the one in charge might not just get pissed about it and take it personal and come for you?



I don't know where to start.  OK, you're running a presumably evil campaign where the PCs just sit up one day and say, "Heck, let's go out and invade Pelor's home plane!"  So, they start raping and pillaging the angelic hosts, and eventually Pelor shows up.  They do this all spur of the moment, so the DM of course has no time to prepare, and of course there was nothing leading up to it.

So, thought experiment:  Let's say this is 3e and you don't have whatever book has stats for Pelor.  What would the DM do, then?  Why could he not do the same in 4e?



> I don't think the PHB deities are really too much to ask for.



The designers do.  You just heard from one.  I, personally, will never need stats for Pelor.  If your campaign is one of the four that needs stats for Pelor, I suppose your DM will just have to do what DMs have been doing for 30 years, and make something up.

-O


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Did you not understand the EQ reference and its relationship to the current idea?



I understand that you're talking about how EQ was broken and not updated, and I understand that you're trying to use that as a explanation why WotC should publish material that hardly anyone will ever use.



			
				justanobody said:
			
		

> How many gods are in the PHB? Would that really be too much to ask to have those with stats, in case.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I consider them corner cases not because they aren't popular, but because they aren't popular as foes.

I'll grant you that if they stat up any Good or Lawful Good deities, it should be the ones from the Player's Handbook first.



			
				justanobody said:
			
		

> Forgotten Realms seems to have a few less deities now.....nobody knows what is going on with Eberron.



FR could've use a few less deities. In Eberron, OTOH, things fit neatly together. I really hope they don't dump any of them.



DandD said:


> Ugh, watch out, the mods don't like this tone in any thread reply, so you should better reword it.



You're probably right, DandD. I'll apologize and do just that. (It's just that this guy frustrates me so much sometimes! )

*justanobody*: I'm sorry I called you a Communist, and wished for you to be blacklisted. It wasn't friendly of me, and I shouldn't have said it. I hope you can forgive me. 

Like I said above, it's just that you frustrate me so much sometimes!  You waltz into a forum and complain about anything and everything you can regarding 4E. Often you use irrelevant statements and even outright misinformation to "make" your points. Frankly, it's really irritating to see someone come and make stuff up while the rest of us are trying to have a positive conversation about 4E. If you're so unhappy with 4E, why don't you just stop coming here and talking about it? I really wish that you'd stop it, justanobody; we're entitled to the right to enjoy whatever we want to, and we enjoy 4E.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

There isn't enough asbestos and retardant foam in the world for what I think of the rest of your post.

For this portion...



Obryn said:


> Really, if you're facing Pelor, there had better well have been a freaking campaign leading up to it.




No. I would be planning just to plop out level 30 characters to just face Pelor for a one-shot.

It goes without saying that a level 30 character has probably been through a whole campaign, so what is your point?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> There isn't enough asbestos and retardant foam in the world for what I think of the rest of your post.



I can't see where I personally attacked you.  Could you point that part out to me?



> No. I would be planning just to plop out level 30 characters to just face Pelor for a one-shot.
> 
> It goes without saying that a level 30 character has probably been through a whole campaign, so what is your point?



My point is that the DM has more than enough time to create stats for Pelor if there's a strange, corner-case campaign leading up to fighting him.  What's more, 4e has provided the DM with basic guidelines for creature creation _and_ at least one example of a similar challenge.

-O


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 21, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> I'll apologize and do just that.




It would be appreciated.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

Obryn said:


> > There isn't enough asbestos and retardant foam in the world *for what I think of the rest of your post.*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see where I personally attacked you.  Could you point that part out to me?



You have the order backwards.



> My point is that the DM has more than enough time to create stats for Pelor if there's a strange, corner-case campaign leading up to fighting him.  What's more, 4e has provided the DM with basic guidelines for creature creation _and_ at least one example of a similar challenge.
> 
> -O




I guess as a proof to see exactly what is possible someone needs to try something crazy with 4th and face off Tiamat against Orcus.

See how the deities stand toe-to-toe, to see if the there is enough information to say a DM can create a working representation of a deitie out of Pelor, should they be forced to.

Note 1: You don't know how much time a DM has.

Note 2: If a DM has enough time to create a deity, then he has enough time to create his own game and not need ANYTHING from a company that cannot provide the stats for the deities listed in the PHB that has the first occurrence of deities within the game they publish.

@MerricB:

Got your PDF copies handy and can do a quick count of level 30 appropriate monsters without upgrading lower levels for a party to fight? TIA.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 21, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> It would be appreciated.



I made sure to remove the off-hand flame I aimed at you, Shemeska. It was angry, out of line, and inappropriate, and I want to apologize to you, as well. It wasn't cool of me.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I guess as a proof to see exactly what is possible someone needs to try something crazy with 4th and face off Tiamat against Orcus.
> 
> See how the deities stand toe-to-toe, to see if the there is enough information to say a DM can create a working representation of a deitie out of Pelor, should they be forced to.




So, it comes down to you wanting a giant NPC deathmatch featuring deities?

NPC versus NPC does not show you exactly what is possible with the system. It shows you very little about the system, in fact.



> If a DM has enough time to create a deity, then he has enough time to create his own game and not need ANYTHING from a company that cannot provide the stats for the deities listed in the PHB that has the first occurrence of deities within the game they publish.




Creating an entire game system requires way more time, effort, and talent than just creating the stat block for a deity. Suggesting that anyone who has the time to write up stats equally one-half of a page has the time to design, develop, playtest, and write a game that is hundreds of pages is beyond ridiculous, it's downright disconnecting from reality.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 21, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> I made sure to remove the off-hand flame I aimed at you, Shemeska. It was angry, out of line, and inappropriate, and I want to apologize to you, as well. It wasn't cool of me.




Apology accepted. No hard feelings.


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> ...
> 
> Creating an entire game system requires *way* more time, effort, and talent than just creating the stat block for a deity. Suggesting that anyone who has the time to write up stats equally one-half of a page has the time to design, develop, playtest, and write a game that is hundreds of pages is beyond ridiculous, it's downright disconnecting from reality.



(Emphasis mine.)

Quoted for truth. And great justice.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> So, it comes down to you wanting a giant NPC deathmatch featuring deities?
> 
> NPC versus NPC does not show you exactly what is possible with the system. It shows you very little about the system, in fact.




Then throw the 4e Iconics being made around here at Orcus and Tiamat when they are done and compare the results of 10 battles each and see if they are close enough to base a comparison off of just those two deities to create the others.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> You have the order backwards.



Oh, I see!  Tell you what, hop right on over here...

Circvs Maximvs

...and tell me what's on your mind.  You may need to register first.  Flame on, man.



> I guess as a proof to see exactly what is possible someone needs to try something crazy with 4th and face off Tiamat against Orcus.
> 
> See how the deities stand toe-to-toe, to see if the there is enough information to say a DM can create a working representation of a deitie out of Pelor, should they be forced to.



I explained above, that's the Zen of 4e.  Monster (and, by extension, deity) stats exist relative to the PCs, and say nothing about the creatures facing each other.  You can love or hate this philosophy, but that's kind of outside the point.  4e stats don't work well when you have two creatures or gods duking it out.



> Note 1: You don't know how much time a DM has.
> 
> Note 2: If a DM has enough time to create a deity, then he has enough time to create his own game and not need ANYTHING from a company that cannot provide the stats for the deities listed in the PHB that has the first occurrence of deities within the game they publish.



Some DMs are, indeed, limited in time.  Those DMs are advised to take advantage of things that other people - like WotC designers - have statted out for them.

And you're _dramatically_ overstating if statting up a god takes as much time as making a new system.

-O


----------



## Roman (Nov 21, 2008)

Let me say this. I don't like 4E. The game just doesn't appeal to me and didn't buy it for that reason. But 4E's treatment of epic-level play (from what I have seen/read of it) is the one area I feel it handles vastly better than 3E. Not extending the level progression indefinitely and planning for good campaign-endings, while giving people epic destinies and powers are very positive developments. The fact that major quests are now officially needed to kill gods, rather than just being able to jump them and destroy them is also a great improvement.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 21, 2008)

Roman said:


> Let me say this. I don't like 4E. The game just doesn't appeal to me and didn't buy it for that reason. But 4E's treatment of epic-level play (from what I have seen/read of it) is the one area I feel it handles vastly better than 3E. Not extending the level progression indefinitely and planning for good campaign-endings, while giving people epic destinies and powers are very positive developments. The fact that major quests are now officially needed to kill gods, rather than just being able to jump them and destroy them is also a great improvement.




Quoted for example-of-what-this-thread-was-before-flame-war.

Discuss game mechanics in a friendly way or GTFO. That's what this thread is for. It's those who come here to *tear down* what others find fun and enjoyable who are the reason there's such huge division and anger in the RPG community. To move conversation onto a topic that doesn't include flaming eachother...

What are your hopes for future gods to be released? How do you plan to use Tiamat or her consorts (if at all?)? How does this offer new opportunities for epic level play?

Discuss.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> What are your hopes for future gods to be released?



All from the PHB at least.


> How do you plan to use Tiamat or her consorts (if at all?)?



If ever I get high enough level, I plan to use her in various recipes when I retire the character to his own tavern.


> How does this offer new opportunities for epic level play?
> 
> Discuss.




Well Tiamat adds a second deity to the combatant list. Something more than Orcus to face in combat, as I fear level 30+ skill challenges would not be comprehensible outside of the game for the players.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 21, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> I would also like to point out that in this supplement, there are a good handful of post-30 epic threats to be found, more of which I'm sure we'll see in future supplements. I'll close by politely imploring you not to turn my nice, happy, game-related thread into a new _edition war_ like the ones you've frequented so very fervently before.



Pardon?

God-killing and epic-level monsters are not the same thing. The poster I was responding to claimed that WotC was forcing their playstyle down our throats, which I thought was a ridiculous claim since the god-killing game information took up a single page in one 4E book.

And remember, *all* editions of D&D are awesome. Say it with me.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> And remember, *all* editions of D&D are awesome. Say it with me.






justanobody said:


> Well Tiamat adds a second deity to the combatant list. Something more than Orcus to face in combat, as I fear level 30+ skill challenges would not be comprehensible outside of the game for the players.




Weird, I could have sworn that Orcus was a demon lord. Did the Raven Queen die and make him a god?


----------



## yesnomu (Nov 21, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> Actually, we're not allowed to. The SRD doesn't contain the pantheon or the terms associated with the new diety-killing rules. We can only really write our_ own_ gods and unique ways of killing them that do _not_ resemble the Discorporation System (oh look, I gave it a name). If someone at Wizards could update us all on exactly what _is _going to happen with the GSL, that would be great. For now, we are in the dark.



Man, I have no idea what WotC is doing with the GSL. You guys took a leap of faith, and now they're letting you twist in the wind.

Come on, Wizards! Let the 3rd parties in on what you're planning, and give them more freedom with products! It's frankly disgusting how opaque you've been about this whole thing.

A book of statted deities (renamed, I suppose, like in the APG, although it'd be nice if they could use the actual names without fear of reprisal) would be a great product for a 3PP, and exactly the sort of thing I'd buy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 21, 2008)

yesnomu said:


> Man, I have no idea what WotC is doing with the GSL. You guys took a leap of faith, and now they're letting you twist in the wind.
> 
> Come on, Wizards! Let the 3rd parties in on what you're planning, and give them more freedom with products! It's frankly disgusting how opaque you've been about this whole thing.
> 
> A book of statted deities (renamed, I suppose, like in the APG, although it'd be nice if they could use the actual names without fear of reprisal) would be a great product for a 3PP, and exactly the sort of thing I'd buy.




I bet someone could call up scott rouse and be like "Hey X Y and Z isn't in the GSL, is there a chance it will be at some point , or are you guys doing something with it?" and explain what they want to do... from everything I have seen Scott is one of 2 things...
      1) a great guy who is helpful
      2) the devil incarnite    (afterall villians that twist there mustashes are easy to find, one that cloaks himself in good deeds? much harder...)


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Pardon?
> 
> God-killing and epic-level monsters are not the same thing. The poster I was responding to claimed that WotC was forcing their playstyle down our throats, which I thought was a ridiculous claim since the god-killing game information took up a single page in one 4E book.




Sorry, that wasn't pointed at you. Didn't mean to offend... the things you'd previously posted were not specifically considered in my comments. Wasn't blaming anyone, really. It's just annoying to see a post that is meant to inspire lively conversation turn into another arguement.



GMforPowergamers said:


> I bet someone could call up scott rouse and be like "Hey X Y and Z isn't in the GSL, is there a chance it will be at some point , or are you guys doing something with it?" and explain what they want to do... from everything I have seen Scott is one of 2 things...
> 1) a great guy who is helpful
> 2) the devil incarnite




Oh, this is probably very true! I do not mean at all to criticize Mr. Rouse or anyone at Wizards. I simply meant to point out what our restrictions are. Personally, there's plenty of things I'd like to do that are both restricted by the GSL but also wouldn't (I'd hope) be intrusive into any Wizards IPs or future endeavors. Though I am a bit fidgety waiting for the updated liscense, it's more anticipatory and excited than frustrated. I have plenty of projects available to me now under the current GSL.

While I'm anxious for the changes, I can be patient. Mr. Rouse and the others at Wizards are busy folk, and (criticize me as you will) I trust in they're ability to deal with this issue in the near future.

As for how this relates to the subject, I hope this leads an SRD that includes terms more far-reaching than the ones found in the current list. This new mechanic is very coo, and seeing as how I _didn't _think of it first, I'd hope that no matter how unlikely it may be, certain developements outside the Core three books will be comes available for third party exploration soon.

Regards!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 21, 2008)

For this all talk, did anyone ever think to ask...what the Great Powers ever thought of this?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm strongly of the belief that the final encounter of E3 (which I think doesn't have a name, yet) is going to be Orcus...given that he's the behind-the-scenes villain of H1.

I love these ideas about having a way of killing the evil gods. As someone pointed out, to get to level 30 you're playing characters of enormous power compared to anyone else. These characters should be the Elminsters, Drizzts, Raistlins & Druss of their worlds even if they don't kill a god, so the idea that fighting one should be anything less than campaign defining is slightly absurd to my mind.


----------



## avin (Nov 21, 2008)

It seems clear to me that 4E is aimed towards GOOD vs EVIL. Just check MM and see how many good monsters are there. No surprise it won't be too many good gods stats...

A campaign for evil aligned characters isn't supported as well the ol' traditional and save "let's get rid of all evil"... 

I'm not particularly fond of bad or good axis for campaign... I just feel it could be better balanced...


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Weird, I could have sworn that Orcus was a demon lord. Did the Raven Queen die and make him a god?




For a guy obsessed with semantics (like his explanation for why it's okay to say 4e is not D&D, but it's not okay to call 4e D&D), justanobody makes a ton of mistakes when it comes to actual facts.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 21, 2008)

> What are your hopes for future gods to be released? How do you plan to use Tiamat or her consorts (if at all?)? How does this offer new opportunities for epic level play?




My Athar members in my 4e PS game are very happy.  Their metasetting agenda basically involves trying to subdue "evil" churches over "good" ones (for now) because they're easier targets. It'll be awesome to have the Godslayers Guild on the Astral Plane actually be able to kill some gods.

I'm a little sad we don't have stats for Bahamut (I understand why, but they still would have been very useful to me). 

The discorporation and the quests to switch off that ability are great ideas, but greater than that is the *philosophy* behind fight-able deities. I think it's good and wonderful. Killing a god is absolutely in the mythic, epic tradition that D&D blatantly robs from at many other points, and this does it well.

I hope to eventually see good ascension rules, too.  

The Draconomicon in many ways represents a better direction going forward for 4e than the core did. I haven't seen it yet (I'll be getting it later today), but if this is an example of the niftiness, it shall be nifty indeed.

Now if we could get some work done on dismantling and revising the obnoxious Powers system and an abstract combat system, 4e might actually start being not such a pain in the butt to play and DM for me.


----------



## C_M2008 (Nov 21, 2008)

WoTC,

Please, please do up the Raven Queen. You did Orcus and explained how the two have a powerful antipathy for each other as well as Orcus' goal of taking the Raven Queen's place. It would be nice to get the other side of the issue.

Plus I can totally see a plot where Orcus manipulates some unsuspecting PCs into slaying the Raven Queen and the Pcs have to set things right (and was it part of her plan all along?).


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Weird, I could have sworn that Orcus was a demon lord. Did the Raven Queen die and make him a god?




Isn't he level 35 now like Tiamat? That would be god power, as well as being the prince of the undead would make him a minor god for his realm.

Where exactly did the Raven Queen come from? What book/year/page was she first printed so I can check their relationship?


The Little Raven said:


> For a guy obsessed with semantics (like his explanation for why it's okay to say 4e is not D&D, but it's not okay to call 4e D&D), justanobody makes a ton of mistakes when it comes to actual facts.




And oddly people worship Orcus....worship = god to them.

113th(?) level of the Abyss is nothing to sneeze at. I have never played in the Abyss :gasp: So don't know all there is to know about it. Even deities took form on the Prime Material Plane when they were faced in my games. Because the gods are so petty they don't want mortals in their realms, and seek them out themselves to deal with them...oft to their own undoing. 

So as far as I am concerned if somebody worships you, you are a deity.

Does it say in the new MM (which I have not read) that Orcus no longer has worshipers?

Hmmm?

Then the Princes of the Abyss are all gods.

worshiped = deity.

Cite me where it says Orcus is no longer worshiped in 4th, and I will accept he lost his godhood.

But that doesn't explain why he holds the same level as Tiamat, a goddess.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

merged to above.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Isn't he level 35 now like Tiamat? That would be god power, as well as being the prince of the undead would make him a minor god for his realm.
> 
> Where exactly did the Raven Queen come from? What book/year/page was she first printed so I can check their relationship




He is level 33, and yes, that means he wields as much power as some gods. Still, as I understand it, even though worshipped, he is not a god in 4e. He would like to though.

Raven Queen is a 4e thing, and in short:


			
				Orcus Lore said:
			
		

> DC 20: Orcus desires destruction like all demons, but he
> has set his sights higher, aiming at the gods themselves. In
> particular, Orcus hungers for the death of the Raven Queen
> and to usurp her control over death and the souls of the dead.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 21, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> He is level 33, and yes, that means he wields as much power as some gods. Still, as I understand it, even though worshipped, he is not a god in 4e. He would like to though.
> 
> Raven Queen is a 4e thing, and in short:




OK so with a 2 level adjustment he should hold the same power range as Tiamat....

He was viewed as a god for all intents in the past, so this new Raven Queen thing just means someone new added in the place he was viewed to hold prior.... 

So 4th removed his ambiguity of power and rank.

That just means then there is only one deity with stats pretty much and even harder to decide how to make other deities and more reason like mentioned by another to stat the gods for the PHB deities, so that Orcus could have the PCs fight the Raven Queen, or use them to fight someone else to distract her, or any other number of reasons he or another higher power being could have the PCs go after a god.

And since he is aiming for ALL the gods, then he could coerce the PCs into aiming for any of them as with a demigod PC may just want to side with him or dethrone a god of their own to round out the characters "life" in the game.  

Thanks for that bit. Though I would have rather had the Bitch Queen over the Raven Queen.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 21, 2008)

C_M2008 said:


> WoTC,
> 
> Please, please do up the Raven Queen. You did Orcus and explained how the two have a powerful antipathy for each other as well as Orcus' goal of taking the Raven Queen's place. It would be nice to get the other side of the issue.
> 
> Plus I can totally see a plot where Orcus manipulates some unsuspecting PCs into slaying the Raven Queen and the Pcs have to set things right (and was it part of her plan all along?).




I totally bet _Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead _has Raven Queen stats (I'll even go a step futher and say Vecna, too).


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 21, 2008)

Regarding the "why do the gods wait around for mortals to slay the bad guys" thing... in addition to the excellent reasons given, there's another common trope which could be used: prophecy. Even with a FR-like epic level character density in a campaign, it's only the Five from the Western Marches Who Slew the Immortal Gad at the Gates of Iron during the Return of the Herald's Comet that can bring down the God of Things Nasty and Damp. Coincidentally, the PCs just happen to have beat the tar out of Gad recently while vacationing at the Gates of Iron and there was a strange comet in the sky...

It could be that even gods can only truly kill each other under special circumstances, or have to undertake quests themselves to accomplish such things.  Even the most powerful deities are servants of Destiny.  Many are awed, humbled or jealous that fate often grants fearful power into the hands of mere mortals...


----------



## M.L. Martin (Nov 21, 2008)

JackSmithIV said:


> I totally bet _Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead _has Raven Queen stats (I'll even go a step futher and say Vecna, too).




  The catalog blurb confirms Vecna, as well as Acererak. Rumors from the WotC forums say Strahd's in there too, and after seeing Cyan in the _Draconomicon_, I'll bet we get Lord Soth.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Then the Princes of the Abyss are all gods.




No. Unless they are listed as gods, they are not gods. The PHB has a list of gods (as does the FRCG), and none of those Demon Princes are on that list.



> worshiped = deity.




I could worship a shoe, but that wouldn't make it a deity. It takes more than some people worshipping you to make you a deity. It takes divine essence, which primordials and their Johnny-Come-Lately counterparts, the Demon Princes, lack.



> But that doesn't explain why he holds the same level as Tiamat, a goddess.




He's 2 levels lower than Tiamat, first off. Secondly, even if he was level 35 like she is, he still isn't a deity, because there's a lot more to her deity status (Discorporation, for one) than just being high level.


----------



## DandD (Nov 21, 2008)

Didn't gods in 3rd edition have salient abilities which distinguished them from other super-high-level monsters, or even super-high level adventurers? 

So, what's the problem again which the anti-4th edition crowd has?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 21, 2008)

DandD said:


> Didn't gods in 3rd edition have salient abilities which distinguished them from other super-high-level monsters, or even super-high level adventurers?
> 
> So, what's the problem again which the anti-4th edition crowd has?



Deities in 3.x had minimum 20 HD (usually type Outsider), 30 to 50 character levels, and *Divine Ranks* as the stat which made them deities. Salient abilities are just a function of having Divine Ranks. 3.x deities were also an arbitrary, number-crunching, statistical mess...


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 22, 2008)

DandD said:


> Didn't gods in 3rd edition have salient abilities which distinguished them from other super-high-level monsters, or even super-high level adventurers?
> 
> So, what's the problem again which the anti-4th edition crowd has?




I didn't care for either the 3.x version or the 4e take. They both treat things as big monsters to kill, and 3.x by design sticks archfiends and planar lords as automatically lesser than gods, and 4e just has them as officially approved things for heroes to kill and gods seemingly sitting in the 'no no you can't fight Pelor' catagory of non-sanctioned monster.

Neither situation is ideal.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Nov 22, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> I didn't care for either the 3.x version or the 4e take. They both treat things as big monsters to kill, and 3.x by design sticks archfiends and planar lords as automatically lesser than gods, *and 4e just has them as officially approved things for heroes to kill* and gods seemingly sitting in the 'no no you can't fight Pelor' catagory of non-sanctioned monster.
> 
> Neither situation is ideal.




See the entire arguement around the idea that Wizards has a company, and therefor will release supplements that appeal to the majority of players. The majority of players want to kill Vecna much more than Pelor. And they want to kill Tiamat for Bahamut, not the other way around. They have limited resources, and they're not trying to "officially approve anything". You're still allowed to spend an hour or so putting together a stat block for a final epic battle with Kord if you like. They've even provided an entire chapter to monster design, and now you have an example of what a god is like.

Until then, they've made a choice that they believe appeals to the _majority_ of players, restricting those who want to make a different choice in *no way.
*


----------



## DandD (Nov 22, 2008)

Well, it seems to be better than the 2nd edition approach, where god-killing was relegated to NPCs, because nobody knew what stats the gods would or should have at all, I guess. 

Did 1st edition have stats for gods? 
Perhaps one could have used whatever book dealed with divinities in 1st edition (probably Faiths and Powers, or Deities and Demigods, if the gods do have stats there at all) and simply take the stats from there for his party when playing some kind of epic 2nd edition-campaign back then. 
According to many D&D-veterans here on this message board, there wasn't such a big difference between 1st and 2nd edition appearently. 

Also, did 2nd edition actually have official rules for epic-level games anyway, or was it limited to a level cap (probably different for each class, or perhaps not)?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Well, it seems to be better than the 2nd edition approach, where god-killing was relegated to NPCs, because nobody knew what stats the gods would or should have at all, I guess.




Better for who? Some people liked that whole "Gods represent abstract concepts and are thus unable to be killed because they ARE that abstract concept" idea.

Pelor wasn't just some dude who ate too much radiation and so lit up like a night light. He was the embodiment of the very concept of LIGHT. If you want to "kill" Pelor, you'd need to destroy light itself. 

I prefer Pelor to be slay-able myself, because I like that epic, mythic, Achilles-wrestling-a-friggin'-river wahoo feel of those high levels. I like the fact that you can kill Pelor, and then light itself dies as an unintended consequence.  

It's okay either way, but I prefer to have usable stats. 3e's method was probably certifiably drunkenly insane. It was pure fan wank. "OMG THOR IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ZEUS LOL" All those stats and abilities ate up space that could have been better used on churches and NPC priests and stats of avatars or something.

4e's way isn't necessarily "better" than 2e's way, but it is different in a way that I appreciate.


----------



## DandD (Nov 22, 2008)

Gods that embody abstract concepts, one example being probably the quite modern abrahamian god of Israel in religions originating from jewish belief, aren't like the gods of old, who were acting like mortals, and went to war with demons, other gods, or just had their ways with humans. 
Other fictional abstract concepts are the Chaos gods of the Warhammer franchise, and they're not like Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Erawan, Susanoo and all those rather human-like gods (some not even mentaly, but also physicaly), which some of the original D&D-gods like from the Greyhawk-setting, or some of the myriad Forgotten Realms-gods (before the next god-catastrophy... haha) seem to be inspired from. Last I read in the 2nd edition Planescape books, it seems that all real-world gods from ancient religions also exist in that setting. All the more they should have been killable. 

By the way, did they have Yaweh in Planescape too, or was he omitted from the Planescape setting? I guess it would seem so, as TSR appearently changed the descriptions demons and devils into tanari and baatezu.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 22, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Last I read in the 2nd edition Planescape books, it seems that all real-world gods from ancient religions also exist in that setting. All the more they should have been killable.
> 
> By the way, did they have Yaweh in Planescape too, or was he omitted from the Planescape setting? I guess it would seem so, as TSR appearently changed the descriptions demons and devils into tanari and baatezu.




Nah, 2e steered away from Abrahamic religion.

But its view of the PC's was more...mmm...Tolkeinish? than Epic. They were mortals, they had mortal fears, they would grow old and die, they might be especially nifty mortals, but they were mere mortals, whose lot in life the gods could manipulate and execute as they pleased. If you could kill something, it obviously wasn't a god, because gods are basically immortal and are immune to direct assault. If you want to slay Pelor, you need to destroy LIGHT, not stab some guy. 

I appreciate 3e's and 4e's view (and I especially appreciate that 4e designed them to be used rather than drooled over), but the default 2e view loaned itself to a feel that is key for a lot of people. It's not exactly in synch with 4e's feel, though.


----------



## Shemeska (Nov 22, 2008)

DandD said:


> I guess it would seem so, as TSR appearently changed the descriptions demons and devils into tanari and baatezu.




They renamed them (though later also used demon etc), but the material was significantly darker than any of the material from 1e (and with slim exception, most material since then). The mid/late 2e fiends were awesome.

And as far as YHWH goes, every edition of D&D has tiptoed around the Abrahamic religions. Most of the other real world religions that appeared through the editions were either dead (Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian gods, etc) or didn't have enough of a presence within WotC/TSR's buying public that played D&D to really matter for purposes of needing to avoid offense (Hinduism, etc).


----------



## justanobody (Nov 22, 2008)

DandD said:


> Well, it seems to be better than the 2nd edition approach, where god-killing was relegated to NPCs, because nobody knew what stats the gods would or should have at all, I guess.
> 
> Did 1st edition have stats for gods?
> Perhaps one could have used whatever book dealed with divinities in 1st edition (probably Faiths and Powers, or Deities and Demigods, if the gods do have stats there at all) and simply take the stats from there for his party when playing some kind of epic 2nd edition-campaign back then.
> ...




2nd edition didn't really even have default deities in the core books. Deities were left to be described within their own settings material, and I think they all had some from written in them for the god to interact with the mortals, and if you could kill them there then so be it.

Many things in 2nd did refer back to a little conversion from 1st because it was already there.

I know Reorx had a form to appear in on the Prime Material Plane.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Archive: Dungeon Master Option: High-Level Campaigns


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 22, 2008)

After a slew of reported posts, I'm glad this thread has become more polite and on-topic. Please keep it that way. Carry on!


----------



## MrMyth (Nov 22, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> I didn't care for either the 3.x version or the 4e take. They both treat things as big monsters to kill, and 3.x by design sticks archfiends and planar lords as automatically lesser than gods, and 4e just has them as officially approved things for heroes to kill and gods seemingly sitting in the 'no no you can't fight Pelor' catagory of non-sanctioned monster.
> 
> Neither situation is ideal.




Neither situation is ideal _for your campaign_. Guess what is less ideal? Someone who _does_ want to run a campaign culminating in a final battle against a terrible god, and has no rules for fighting Tiamat. Because they have to go and come up with rules for what is probably the most complex foe that will ever see play in their campaign.

Whereas, in the current scenario, all you need to do is not provide the quests that allow your PCs to kill a god. 

Now, I don't think the books need to be chock-full of gods to slay. (Especially as just having the stats for a few gives an appropriate balance level to start designing agaisnt with much more ease.) But there are plenty of players out there that do want these stats - I, personally, found them the single most interesting thing in Draconomicon!

Saying that other players should be deprived of them because you disapprove - especially since their presence in no way actually hurts your own campaign - seems rather unfair. 

I mean, I certainly understand where you are coming from. I can definitely see preferring a campaign where defeating a god isn't a matter of rolling some sweet crits, but instead requires an elaborate scheme of intrigue and politics as you dismantle their church, turn their worshippers against them, strike their name from the book of records, and eventually, without having to swing a single blow, you watch their earthly power vanish and know they have been vanquished in truth. 

But I also like the idea of a campaign where you stand as the champions of light against the darkness, the sole hope for the world's survival, and thus you must fulfill the great prophecies: Forging the Twice-Sundered Blade, restoring the Broken Desert to the lush forest it once was, uniting the seven kingdoms into a single empire, and eventually luring the Lord of Burning Chaos onto the mortal plane during the Great Eclipse, the single moment in which he is vulnerable, and knowing you have a single minute to strike a death-blow with your ultimate weapon, or he will escape, and all will be lost...

...I simply don't see how something like that isn't suitably epic. It is very much in keeping with the lore and legends that D&D has formed around, and it is the route the game encourages - not simply taking out gods like mooks, but making them the culminating battle of a campaign, and one that requires several epic quests simply to make possible. 

If they can provide that opportunity to the players that want it, without depriving you of any content you desire (since you can still run your game the way you want it), then that seems like a success that everyone can go home happy with.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Better for who? Some people liked that whole "Gods represent abstract concepts and are thus unable to be killed because they ARE that abstract concept" idea.
> 
> Pelor wasn't just some dude who ate too much radiation and so lit up like a night light. He was the embodiment of the very concept of LIGHT. If you want to "kill" Pelor, you'd need to destroy light itself.
> 
> ...



I prefer having the deities statted up because that sets up the players to actually expect said deity to have those stats. Then, when they finally confront Pelor and he is Ten Times More Badass(TM) they have a nice, pseudo-realistic sense of fear and terror that they are wayyyyyyyyyyyy overmatched.

P.S. Zeus could kick Thor's yass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Nah, 2e steered away from Abrahamic religion.
> 
> But its view of the PC's was more...mmm...Tolkeinish? than Epic. They were mortals, they had mortal fears, they would grow old and die, they might be especially nifty mortals, but they were mere mortals, whose lot in life the gods could manipulate and execute as they pleased. If you could kill something, it obviously wasn't a god, because gods are basically immortal and are immune to direct assault. If you want to slay Pelor, you need to destroy LIGHT, not stab some guy.
> 
> I appreciate 3e's and 4e's view (and I especially appreciate that 4e designed them to be used rather than drooled over), but the default 2e view loaned itself to a feel that is key for a lot of people. It's not exactly in synch with 4e's feel, though.




Why not do exactly that? Make it an epic quest to destroy all light, and then have Pelor come to the PCs and try to undo it... 

Somehow, it reminds me of _Hogfather_ (Discworld)... Hmm. Maybe someone else then Pelor tries to stop you?


----------



## Rutilus (Feb 11, 2009)

*Forgive the thread necromancy but, I feel now that Open Grave has released with Vecna's stats, this thread needs resurgence. 

With that said, I'm starting to wonder about this so called "market" for good aligned or unaligned campaigns or games that WotC adamantly gives as the reason for excluding good aligned stat blocks and the like. I just don't see how it's possible that a majority of the market cares not for evil aligned campaigns. 

As an example, as a GM/DM who likes to test the waters of his players, I opted to ask about and try out an evil campaign about 8 months ago. Amazingly, I had an overwhelming # of players asking me to join the campaign (upwards of a dozen), and all of them knowledgable on the idea that; 
a) their would be trouble with each other because well (as the most recent evil article on WotC clarifies), evil doesn't get along with evil, & 
b) They would be fighting the "good guys"; good dragons, good people, good gods, etc.

That being said, it makes me wonder if it's that their really isn't a market for it; or if it's just that WotC doesn't have the resources available to deal with both sides of the equation.

Personally, after having tried that idea out, I would love to run an evil campaign where, for example, the PC's ultimate goal is to stop the gods of Celestia from killing their evil god (insert name here) because the PC's evil god stepped out of line. The last portion of the campaign would require them to actually sneak into Celestia, and find someway to kill one of it's gods, whether Bahamut or Moradin, so as to destabilize the plane itself and allow their god to continue his or her deeds with impunity. 

I know for a fact that id have at least 8 players onboard immediately If I started this campaign right now. So yes, although justanybody lost perspective on the goal of his responses (and in general), I have to agree with him to an extent. The market, at least from my experience and experimentation, is quite there, and not as small as WotC makes it look. Why not cater a bit more to it than their doing now? Give Pelor, Bahamut, Moradin, and Ioun, and any other non evil god stat blocks, or at the very least, fight-able aspects. I think it would go a longer ways than they imagine to appeasing the masses.
*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 11, 2009)

The recent "Save my Game" column speaks about "evil campaigns" and gives some good advice.
Still, evil campaigns will probably never be "important" enough for WotC to support it entirely.

Regarding gods, all the Gods with stats so far have been typically "lesser Gods", not the old, super-powerful ones. Bane for example didn't get a write-up in his own article.


----------



## Rutilus (Feb 11, 2009)

*


Mustrum_Ridcully said:



			The recent "Save my Game" column speaks about "evil campaigns" and gives some good advice.
Still, evil campaigns will probably never be "important" enough for WotC to support it entirely.

Regarding gods, all the Gods with stats so far have been typically "lesser Gods", not the old, super-powerful ones. Bane for example didn't get a write-up in his own article.
		
Click to expand...


Well the thing is, the old "super-powerful" ones can't be that much more powerful than the post level 30 creatures we have now or they start contradicting the articles and fluff they've created thus far. I mean, for example, what reason do the gods have to continually watch over Mual-tar the Thunder Serpent with their legions of angels if their powerful enough to take it on? Anything past level 40 should be able to take Mual-Tar on without much of a problem whatsoever. Why leave it chained with possibility of breaking free and regaining it's own original, "we need three super gods to take on this guy!" power levels?

I've also been arguing against their lack of Bane stats in the Wizards forums for a few days now. I'm still under the impression that they just didn't "feel like" posting Bane's stats. Bane not being fightable through normal means because his stats are too powerful still doesn't mean they needed to consider the idea then dismiss it beause they "felt" we as dm's and players didn't "need" them. If their already making the article, then put everything you know should be in it, whether you feel the readers need it or not. Let the reader make that decision. "Oh it's impossible to fight him"; riiight, because DM's have no say in what players can't or cannot do in their games...
*


----------



## chaotix42 (Feb 11, 2009)

Well, I think that during the war with the primordials the gods would have been weaker - they had fewer followers. Destroying the primordials back then was likely harder than it would be now.

Also, if Bane went and unchained Mual-Tar to kill him, who would watch over his realm? Gruumsh would move right in. I'm sure the other gods have similar predicaments, though perhaps not quite as close to home.

I agree on one thing though - gimme Bane's stats!


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 11, 2009)

Rutilus said:


> *Forgive the thread necromancy but, I feel now that Open Grave has released with Vecna's stats, this thread needs resurgence. *



*

*My thread is back 
*



			With that said, I'm starting to wonder about this so called "market" for good aligned or unaligned campaigns or games that WotC adamantly gives as the reason for excluding good aligned stat blocks and the like. I just don't see how it's possible that a majority of the market cares not for evil aligned campaigns...
		
Click to expand...


*
You make a clear and very valid point! I also agree that evil campaigns are fun and interesting, and that there is a _giant_ demand. In fact, last Sunday, my Paladin of Kelemvor said at the table that he'd always been interested in an evil campaign, to which my other players gave resounding "same here"s. And they're a pretty roleplaying-intensive group.

The decision for Wizards to create only good-aligned content for now is, however completely within my understanding. It's not only a business decision to appeal to a wider market, but I would say that the game needs something more like Arcane Power right now than it does Book of Vile Darkness. While it would be great to see these materials, I think they're still down the road a little bit. I truely believe Wizards intends to release evil-aligned materials in the future. Sure, they could have done a better job, maybe putting out one or two Dragon articles already, but for now, adapting the rules isn't too tough.

One thing I would refer you to is the new "Masters of the Planes" article about planar epic destinies. While they note that a "Prince of Hell" wouldn't neccessarily have to be evil, it cerntainly seemed like a sweet hit of evil-aligned content to me.

I hope as well for evil aligned content. I can be patient, however, as I do not believe it is Wizard's intention to not ever release it.


----------



## DandD (Feb 11, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> I also agree that evil campaigns are fun and interesting, and that there is a _giant_ demand.



How would you know that there's a giant demand for it? Annecdotes and message boards aren't good enough proof for that. Although Wotc implemented tieflings as 'evil-curious' characters, so there is a slight hint for peole who want to play something like that.


----------



## Shroomy (Feb 11, 2009)

Rutilus said:


> Well the thing is, the old "super-powerful" ones can't be that much more powerful than the post level 30 creatures we have now or they start contradicting the articles and fluff they've created thus far. I mean, for example, what reason do the gods have to continually watch over Mual-tar the Thunder Serpent with their legions of angels if their powerful enough to take it on? Anything past level 40 should be able to take Mual-Tar on without much of a problem whatsoever. Why leave it chained with possibility of breaking free and regaining it's own original, "we need three super gods to take on this guy!" power levels?




If I remember correctly, Mual-Tar's imprisonment has greatly weakened the primordial's power, which is a scary thought since he's still a Level 35 Solo Brute.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 11, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> If I remember correctly, Mual-Tar's imprisonment has greatly weakened the primordial's power, which is a scary thought since he's still a Level 35 Solo Brute.




Also, the Bane article explains in detail why they don't just go kill all of the primordials. The reason escapes me at the moment.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 11, 2009)

This is one thing that I think 4E is doing right: giving regular stats for these critters. I don't buy that whole 2E thing about not being able to kill these critters, they're too powerful, etc. The D&D world is 'Nam, and if it's in 'Nam the PCs will want to napalm it.

Tiamat and Vecna are good choices for the stat block treatment... they're jerks. Just the types that PCs will want to take out! They should stat up Ares at some point... that bozo has it coming, I'm sure everyone will agree.

I can see the point about just providing stats across the board, but I can also see the point that the goodies are a lower priority. Who exactly wants to kill Pelor? Maybe the Drow, but they can never seem to get their act together on anything.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 11, 2009)

Only really *specific* things want to kill good gods.  Most of the time, evil guys can't be buggered to take out a good god for seemingly no reason or reward.

Meanwhile, _everyone_ wants to axe off an evil god.  Good guys do it for truth and justice and whatnot.  Evil guys do it to usurp their power.


----------



## Rutilus (Feb 11, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> If I remember correctly, Mual-Tar's imprisonment has greatly weakened the primordial's power, which is a scary thought since he's still a Level 35 Solo Brute.



*Yea but, when you get to levels 30+, you can see that a single level is already quite a power loss. Take Orcus and then Tiamat and Vecna for example. Yeah, they have similar stats, but Orcus wishes he could take on level 30 adventurers alone the way Tiamat can.* *And he can't negate damage from level 20 or below randoms either.*



chaotix42 said:


> Well, I think that during the war with the primordials the gods would have been weaker - they had fewer followers. Destroying the primordials back then was likely harder than it would be now.
> 
> I agree on one thing though - gimme Bane's stats!



*The Bane article explains that they were evenly matched, and that the deities were simply just completely disorganized. And yes to Bane stats; that's the reason I brought this thread back, lol.*



JackSmithIV said:


> Also, the Bane article explains in detail why they don't just go kill all of the primordials. The reason escapes me at the moment.



*Well yes, it does, but it also asks the question, if the gods KNOW a primordial is slowly being set loose because they have their own angels watching it in an isolated prison in the elemental chaos, then why aren't they at least traveling there to re-bind him (because as the Bane article explains, they don't want to kill the primordials)? The answer is because it's too dangerous for them. I mean, the Bane article explained what happened when he killed his brother; they all went there "together" to stop Bane. So from that alone we can infer that the greater gods aren't SOO much more powerful than gods like Vecna and Tiamat. 

Which of course brings us back to the original question; where's Banes stats?* *They gave us XP up to level 40 in the DMG, they should live up to their own expectations at the very least, even if it means catering to the home-brewers (which I might add are a huge portion of the purchasing power for WotC in this area, besides Magic the Gathering of course).*



ProfessorCirno said:


> Only really *specific* things want to kill good gods.  Most of the time, evil guys can't be buggered to take out a good god for seemingly no reason or reward.
> 
> Meanwhile, _everyone_ wants to axe off an evil god.  Good guys do it for truth and justice and whatnot.  Evil guys do it to usurp their power.



*Well there's 11 really specific things in my venue where I run my D&D campaigns and mods that would like to give some good gods a thumping (my players, obviously, lol). And no reason or reward? How about usurping THEIR power? *



DandD said:


> How would you know that there's a giant demand for it? Annecdotes and message boards aren't good enough proof for that. Although Wotc implemented tieflings as 'evil-curious' characters, so there is a slight hint for peole who want to play something like that.



*Well, I don't know about the people in the area of the person you responded too, but players around here, Kendall, South Florida (U.S), love the idea of playing evil characters. So much so that the DM's around here often have to reign them in when they make unaligned characters. They just really like it.*


----------



## Starsunder (Feb 11, 2009)

One thing that I think people should keep in mind when going around and around about whether or not PC's can kill a god is to remember that by the time that the PC's are looking in the gods direction, _most _of the time they are no longer mortal themselves.

See, 4th ed. introduced Epic Destinies into the game, and imo they are one of the best new additions to the game. Some ED's include:

Prince of Hell- you are becoming an arch-devil. 
Darklord- you are becoming a legendary Darklord (like Strahd!)
Ruler of Winter- becoming an Archfey of the Feywild. 
Demigod- just what the name implies.
Undying Warrior- An immortal warrior who litterally can't die (unless _you _choose to).

My point is these arent just prestige classes (to use a 3rd ed. term), or "mere" paragon paths; this is what you were destined for, your _becoming_. That a party of these mighty beings could take on a god physically is not suprising to me.


----------

